Jump to content

Talk:Dodola and Perperuna

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

2004

[edit]

I deleted almost the entire original article. It was just too incomprehensible. I replaced it with a scrap of info found on the web. --LeeHunter 00:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians who understand Slavic languages and are knowledgeable in Slavic mythology are invited to sort out the following text (that was replaced by a nice little stub by User:LeeHunter):
Perperuna - originally probably divine partner (wife) of Perun; probably the name formed by reduplication core “per-“, however it could be also personalization (result) of activity of Perun - „flinging rock" (per-perun-a?) = rain - analog. Ind. Parjanya „(secondarily) cloud, rain" - surname of Indra. Perperuna is the name behaved as designation of participant of ceremony (noted in SouthSlav. folklore) of summoning of rain, called also dodola, dudula (compare to: Lith. Perkunas - Dundúlis, Latt. Dundusélis and Gr. Dodona); if we identify perperuna-dodola with beregynja(*perkynja), we deal with team of names - teonyms embracing with significative range occurrence of worship of fecundity: Mokoš (Mather Earth) - Perkynia / Pergynja(„Holy Forest - Oak wood" / „Mountain" - on the ground of analogy Ind. also: „Cloud, Rain") - Perperuna (Perun's partner, on the ground of analogy Hett. also: „Rock") compactly related with „masculine" worship Thunderlord - Perun. Hipostasy of goddess was probably a viper (snake) guardian of house - žmija cuvakuca, žmija kucarica (SouthSlav.).
Have fun with it.  :-)
-- PFHLai 01:28, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
P.S. I think "Mokoš" is Mokosh.

Old talk

[edit]

Text from webpage owned by the contributor

How do we KNOW that the contributor owns the webpage? And where has he/she released the material to GFDL? RickK 05:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

He/she released it by copying. How do we KNOW anything? He/she told us so. Must he go to notary public first? What is the policy about contributing owned materials? Has he (acting as wikipedian) to send a letter to himself (acting as a webmaster) with request for confirmation? Mikkalai 06:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I've already met this situation (related to the bio of some Rumanian professor), asked at pump, and got no answer (and safely forgot about the issue until now). IMO here is a hole in wikipolicies. Mikkalai 06:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This was done in past. Email of site owner, as given on [1] is ogneslav@abv.bg and anyone interested can contact him and ask is he really Wikipedia user Ogneslav and then copy/paste the email here (I'd do it but it seems that he dislikes me). Perhaps he'd even permit others to use material from his site. Nikola 09:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You also didn't understand my question: wikipedia's policies don't say how he himself, from thr very beginning could confirm that he is the author, without me or you. Mikkalai 14:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, he himself could not from the very beginning confirm that he is the author. Period.
That's what I am saying: wikipedia's policy has a hole. And there are ways to fix it.Mikkalai 14:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have in past created a few pages where I'd just copy/paste text from a web site with nothing more than saying "Text from http://website used with permission. ~~~~" at the talk page. I was able to do this because, before that, I have contributed to Wikipedia for a long time, and none of my contributions are found to be copyright violations, and so everyone who reviewed the article knew that I understand and respect Wikipedia's copyright policy, and it is very unlikely that I would begin breaking it all of a sudden. On the other hand, this is a new user, who started to contribute copyrighted material, and there is possibility that he could be, as likely website owner, as someone who simply wants to use copyrighted material from the website and make false claims to get away with it.
This is all empty talk, however; wouldn't it be far easier and faster to simply e-mail the guy than to talk about what could have happened if something had happened? Nikola 07:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't care much about this topic and about the author. Do you think I cannot use e-mail? I am talking about the policy. I am going to summarize the talk at the corresponding pages. This disussion greatly helped me to understand what exactly I have to say. Thanks, guys. Mikkalai 14:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Read the copyvio boilerplate language. It says "To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page.". RickK 19:26, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
This was what was actually said in a frustrated way in the Talk:Slavic mythology#So guys, according to which I entered the above note: "Text from webpage owned by the contributor". Your reaction was: "how do we KNOW...". Please notice that your reaction would be equally valid, if the notice were: "Text from webpage owned by me.<signature>". You seem to miss the legal difference between an e-mail confirmation from an account associated with the webpage in question and a simple notice on the wikipedia talk page. Mikkalai 19:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to point to the page where the original author of the page said it was his/her copyright and he/she has released it to GFDL in accordance with the line I quoted above. RickK 23:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • You seem to again miss the legal difference between an e-mail confirmation from an account associated with the webpage in question and a simple notice on the wikipedia talk page. The advice in the copyvio notice is laughable from legal POV: if you are the copyright holder... please indicate so on this page's talk page. How one may verify that the page editor is the owner? I may "indicate" I own Madonna's bare ass. And you're supposed to believe me until Madonna sues wikipedia? In this particular case I don't care about this nervous guy. I am pointing at a hole in the policy. The issue is credentials. In the case of an explicit request by another wikieditor, the credentials are the e-mail address of the respondent that matches the webpage info (weak, but triable). The advice you (and I) cited doesn't explain how to provide credentials. Mikkalai 01:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. I've already pointed the page: Talk:Slavic mythology#So guys. It has: The last drop was that somebody, called "administrator", deleted a number of my pages 'cause they were COPYRIGHT. He even adviced me in private to write in "my own words" - BUT THESE WERE MY OWN WORDS. He didn't even make the effort to look at the bottom of the source-site to see I am the copyright holder. This remark is just as good as any other. Notice also, contrary to your request, he has no duty to explicitely release to GFDL: in wikipedia GFDL is an opt-out; mere editing means release. Mikkalai 01:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great. That's what I was looking for. Now, was that so hard? RickK 19:26, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

No. But an easy way is no fun. Mikkalai 19:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perperuna

[edit]

See Talk:Perperuna. `'mikka (t) 01:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section on ritual

[edit]

The "Ritual" section makes four or five claims but has no sources for any of them. I'm not going to try to dig up sources on this subject, since I'm 100% unfamiliar with it, but it would improve the article if sources could be provided. Poihths (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New revision

[edit]

The article was in dire need of new revision because the old revision had many serious issues for many years. For e.g. most of the text was directly copied from sources but without proper attribution and sometimes from sources which weren't even cited; gave false weight to a dubious fringe theory by non-folklorists/mythologists about Thracian origin which is ignored in all other sources; some explanations, connections were erroneous and couldn't be confirmed in literature; the primary mythological and etymological focus is on Perperuna while Dodola as substitution not other way around; Dodola isn't known as Perperuna nor Perperuna is known as Dodola, these are two separate but very similar pagan customs with common origin; hence the article title will be changed to "Perperuna and Dodola". Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before moving the article, discuss it here, please. I restored it to the name "Dodola" as it seems the most common one. The article title "Perperuna and Dodola" also appears to refer to a tradition that consists of both those figures, which is not the case. – Βατο (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) As was already explained and as it is explained in the scientific literature, these are two separate but similar pagan customs which are often related by folklorists. We cannot have in the article title only one custom because they are not synonyms and SCOPE of the article much more focused, as shown by literature, to Perperuna and it's Slavic origin as well as connection to Slavic deity Perun.
2) In your first edit you ignorantly and disruptively, as shown in the talk page discussion at Talk:Perëndi#Slavic loan, made an anti-Slavic edit against the consensus in scientific literature about the connection with Slavic deity Perun, all of which was cited in the article, and replaced it in the LEAD with two irrelevant sources promoting or fringe theories making WP:FALSEBALANCE (Ḱulavkova's about Thracian origin which is ignored in almost all other cited literature besides three which were by linguists and historians i.e. also non-experts on the field violating WP:WEIGHT) or non-expert minor viewpoint by Andrew Wachtel instead of many other reliable sources which claim exactly the opposite.
3) In anoted edit removed the part that the fringe theory argues Thracian origin of Perun, claiming to be "original research" on my part although noted the pages in which is clearly stated by Kulavkova at pg. 20 ("According to other beliefs, Perun, Perin, or Pirin was the supreme deity of the Thracians.") and by Dragnea at pg. 19, citing Paliga's fringe theory.
4) ignoring and removing sourced viewpoint from reliable and reputable scholars, bringing false balance with a controversial source.
5) removing sourced information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for improving the article, I would not have been able to collect these songs and history myself. I can't support "origin" part tho. There is literally 0 evidence for Perperuna being goddess and there is 0 evidence for direct connection to Perun. Pereplut is also unrelated name. Perun, Perkunas and Fjoryn are false cognates and PIE perkwunos didn't exist (this article is not best place for this topic tho). Connecting Dodola with Dzidzilela (forged goddess) is folk etymology, the latter word comes from PS *did- "big, great" and it can't be different. Lada is also forged goddess. Connecting Perperuna with Pripegala is also folk etymology. "Perun's battle against Veles becuase of Perperuna/Dodola's kidnapping" - where is this story attested? "sometimes even hosts would drink wine in Perun's honor." - are you telling me that people still worshipped Perun in 19/20th century? This is not only nonneutral, but also just false. Etymology is more like speculation now, we should add modern, scientific views (Snoj maybe?) on this name (might be of onomatopeic orign and I don't think there is evidence that the Slavs created names by reduplication of the root). Sławobóg (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, but nobody cares about your personal opinion. I became tired months ago of reading these paragraphs of opinion. The vast majority of sources by relevant scholars claim there's a connection. Everything what you wrote is written in reliable and modern sources. Editing or removing that would be "nonneutral". If there are any other modern, reliable sources by experts please list them here to check on them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Miki Filigranski there is no consensus, the rainmaking custom is a shared tradition among Balkan peoples, your preferred origin theory is just one of the proposed hypotheses. As for the name Perperuna, I think it is likely from Perun, but Sławobóg maybe has a point here, and more recent academic sources should be analysed. The name Dodola is of uncertain origin. – Βατο (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a basic clue of what you're saying, don't know anything about the topic, neither read all the sources, neither understand WP:WEIGHT policy as showed before. No, as showed and claimed on other article talk page, you're the one who has a preffered theory (and fringe one at best!), wants to WP:OWN the article by making false balance! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the false balance is the WP:POV and WP:OR wording of the lead section: are Slavic rainmaking pagan customs which were mainly preserved among South Slavs and neighboring people until 20th century. Albanians, Greeks, Romanians, Aromanians/Vlachs, Hungarians are not Slavs, and the custom described in this article is a shared Balkan tradition. – Βατο (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop! You don't have basic understanding of the topic neither read the sources neither even bother to read what's written in the article. That's majority viewpoint, it was sourced and totally not original research. You are making a total mess of it ([2]) as Dodola isn't alternatively known as Perperuna because these are separate customs (they even had separate articles until 2015 when were merged but due to same wrong reasoning). They are not synonyms. Neither the customs were confirmed to be found among Bosnians, and Montenegrins in general (Bay of Kotor was inhabited by a mixture of ethnic groups and it was found there only sporadically). I had enough of this. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, two points of view collide here. It is wise to strike a balance between them, although this is not easy. Regarding the title, the proposed new combined title reflects both views and is more neutral. I agree here with Miki Filigranski. Jingiby (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Miki Filigranski, so what's your proposal? Saying in the lead section that it is exclusively a Slavic practice is non neutral. I added, according to the sources, the population groups that are attested to have practiced the custom of rainmaking, whether it was called Dodola or Perperuna. If you have enough reliable sources that claim a clear distinction between the practices referred to as Dodola and Perperuna, then you can create two separate articles. I read that some communities refer to the same practice with the name Dodola (and variants), and other communities with the name Perperuna (and variants). I can agree to include both variants of the names in the article title, but "Perperuna and Dodola" appears to indicate that the custom is called as such, which is not the case. – Βατο (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a practice of Slavic origin, related to Slavic deity Perun. That is the majority viewpoint in the RS. Removing that from the LEAD is non neutral. You even added ethnic groups among whom wasn't attested citing a bad source. The sources making clear distinction are already cited and there's no point in making separate article when these two customs are scholarly related. "Perperuna and Dodola" don't indicate anyhow that the custom is called with a single name "Perperuna and Dodola". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found the book. Urbańczyk debunked Jakobson's etymology. perperuda, pepeluga etc. are related to Proto-Slavic *perpera, *perperъka "Common quail" and these are related to *pъrpati (onomatopoeic), cf. Polish dial. perpotać, perpac, Old East Slavic poropriti. So mystery has been solved. Meanwhile author himself reacts with aggression because someone tells him that the article is extremely one-sided. Having information about alleged relation between Perun and Perperuna is ok, since it actually is popular view, but it is not only view and it was criticised by other linguists. Btw Grimm is bad source. Sławobóg (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sławobóg, the etymology you provided is interesting. @Miki Filigranski your statement It is a practice of Slavic origi is not supported by many scholars: there is not certainty about the origins of the practice. but there seems to be agreement among scholars that the name for the Balkan rainmaden Perperuna (and variants) is most likely of Slavic origin. The rainmaking custom is a Pan-Balkan practice, attested in the region at least since Classical Antiquity. I've just found a recent source: Burns, Richard (2008). "Rain and Dust". Studia Mythologica Slavica. XI: 217–236. doi:10.3986/sms.v11i0.1696. ISSN 1581-128X. which provides further information about the usage of the names, and analysis on some scholars' views, also: "The paper opens conjectures that relate the Balkan practice to two ancient Mediterranean mythological motifs: first, to Minoan and Mycenaean rainmaking invocations, and, secondly, to the goddess Persephone, via the theories of V. V. Ivanov and V. I. Toporov." – Βατο (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sławobóg, thanks, that's just an opinion though (please provide details of the source), but indeed doesn't change the fact it is of Slavic origin (and related to Perun per majority viewpoint). @Βατο, in the article are already cited more than 12 reliable sources by many different scholars. I mostly agree with other things you said, but didn't mention anything not already cited in the article. To be noted, Burns source is reliable to cite on scholars' views, but unreliable source for Burns viewpoint. He is a poet, not a scientist. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jakobson's idea that Perperuna comes from Perun is also "just an opinion", what is wrong with you? Additionally, Urbańczyk's etymology is more scientifically correct, because it explains the doubling of the root per-, because there is no evidence for duplication of the root for feminine names and I have other book about that (which also supports Urbańczyk's idea). He says that ritual is known to Greeks and Albanians and it should be established actual origin first. He later say Perperuna might be related to words I mentioned before (also Polish przepierzyca), not only because of etymology, also because quail (in Polish folklore) is associated with the harvest rites and is the name of the bride in the wedding dance. So I guess Slavic origin is very possible (from the bird). Urbańczyk, Stanisław (1991). Dawni Słowianie. Wiara i kult (in Polish). Wrocław: Ossolineum. | Sławobóg (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the text and it can be hardly called a debunking as you described it in your comment. Urbańczyk only said that Jakobson's opinion needs caution, he didn't refute it. We also have reliable sources which support Jakobson (and Slavic origin, relation to Mokosh etc.), including lately Patrice Lajoye (2015, pg. 107–115 etc.). Do you have other sources which mention or support Urbańczyk's derivation from the bird?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Łuczyński (2020) Bogowie dawnych Słowian. Studium onomastyczne. Additionally, the article does not mention at all that peperuda means "butterfly" in Bulgarian (mentioned in Russian and Bulgarian wiki)!!! Български етимологичен речник (vol 5, p. 162) has 2 pages of etymology of this word, also mentioning *perperica and other ideas, but image quality makes it too hard to read for me. There is also Proto-Kartvelian root *ṗerṗer- / *perpel- "butterfly" connected with PS *perperъka. It is clear from the Bulgarian dictionary that the subject is complicated and the etymologies are many, and that the article is not neutral and tries by force to push through Jakobson's etymology repeated uncritically by later authors. In the case of Slavic mythology/folklore, Western scholars often mindlessly (I'm not exaggerating) repeat various stupidities and rarely have a clue what they are writing about, cf. Mathieu-Colas. I'm not comparing Lajoye or Evans to that, but we should be sceptic about Western optimism. Natko Nodilo is also pretty bad source (see Svetovit#In_Serbia). Sławobóg (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The part about butterfly is quoted in 4th reference, forgot to expand more on it citing other sources. The association is mythological, doesn't make sense such a widespread pagan custom derives from a Bulgarian word for butterfly and shows that the Bulgarian word for butterfly derives instead from the mythological background to which is related the custom. If not, as in the case of cited Proto-Karvelian, occurred secondary associations of unrelated words. Will expand more regarding the etymology in general. Sorry, but you're using hard words and claims here. The article is properly and reliably edited according to WEIGHT, and tried to be careful with using them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sławobóg I have not a preference about the article title, could you suggest something about this issue? It seems that Dodola is the most common name, and in some communities both names (and variants) are found, even in the same song. – Βατο (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dodola really more popular than Perperuna? I think modern, scientific or popular, usage also counts? I think "Dodola and Perperuna" would be good, but I'm not 100% sure. Sławobóg (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it by a first check on Google search and Google books, and in general Dodola seems to be more common. But I am not sure which is more common in recent sources and popular usage. Perhaps Burns' (2008) information could be useful: "The various names have been el-egantly mapped by Plotnikova (1999) to reveal regional variations. Names of the dodola type, which I designate as the 'central' group, are more common in Serbia, Bosnia, and names of the peperuga or perperuda type, designated as the 'eastern and southern group', tend to be more frequent in Bulgaria, Rumania, Moldovia, Albania, Thessaly and Epirus (Burns 2006a: 35, 37-38 & 42). In the border-area of dialect-continua between Bulgaria and Serbia, as in Macedonia, both verbal variants appear in the same song." – Βατο (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Dodola and Perperuna" is ok then. If the name depends on the region, then we should not discriminate against any of them. It may be clunky, but it will be fair. Sławobóg (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name depends on the custom, songs and name of central character. These are two separate types. There can be made correlations based on regions, but not causations on which depends the name. Regarding the distribution, it strangely omits Croatia and mentions Bosnia, check the map from Čulinović-Konstantinović "Dodole and prporuše: folk customs for invoking the rain" (note how's titled the source). I am okay with the title "Dodola and Perperuna".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Miki Filigranski feel free to make the page move. – Βατο (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

[edit]

@Sławobóg: Czesław Białczyński in his Mitologia słowiańska (1999), not a reliable and scientific source, mentions:

PERPERUNA (Peperuna, Perperuda, Prperousza, Pe-runica). Jej istyjskim odpowiednikiem jest Perkunija. Runa - od rdzenia run ma takie same znaczenia jak wyżej, ale także w obocznej postaci zachowanej u Bułgarów - Perperuda - kędzierzawa, bo ruda kosa - kędzierzawe włosy, kędziory, rudica - zbita wełna, rudina - niwa, rudy - czerwony, błotny, bagnisty (co wskazuje, podobnie jak u Peruna, na jej związek z wodą), pokryty rudą - czyli naleciałością żelazistą, barwy rdzawej. Z powyższego zestawienia wynika, że Perperuna musiała mieć kręcone, gęste, kędzierzawe włosy rudej barwy. Były cztery boginie o rudych włosach: Perperuna, Ruda-Ródź, Swara (o włosach płomiennych) i Krasatina (o włosach krasnych i krasnym licu).

O świętości rośliny paproci, której nazwa przechowała imię bogini Ródzi-Pap-rudy, świadczy jej związek nazewniczy z boskim rdzeniem per (Perun, Perperuna, Perepłut, Pripegala, Prowe, Porenut, Puruvit, Porewit, Spór). Przechowane przez Bułgarów i Macedończyków miano Perperuda nie jest powtórzeniem serbskiego i chorwackiego imienia żony Peruna - Perperuna, lecz imieniem bogini Rodzi, córki Roda, kochanki Perunica. Związek Perperudy z Peruni-cem znajduje także odbicie w nazwie świętego zioła pe-runiki.

I have a hard time reading the source, but does it cite any reference? Do you know of any Polish source which makes the same claim?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Białczyński is turboslavic, he promotes Great Lechia and believes that Proto-Indo-European = Proto-Slavic. In his books he forges new gods. Nothing to talk about tbh. See List of Slavic pseudo-deities. Sławobóg (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had the same impression.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sławobóg: Łuczyński, Bogowie dawnych Słowian. Studium onomastyczne (2020), can you please make a full quote and provide page?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page 141: Autor ten [Jakobson] wychodzi z założenia, że nazwa ta [Pereplut] stanowi jeden z wielu wariantów fonetycznych i morfologicznych teonimu Perun [...] powołując się przy tym na brzmieniowe podobieństwo z terminem obrzędowym serb. prporusa, bułg. pe(r)peruna, pe(r)peruda i in. [...] Wywód Jakobsona podważył jednak S. Urbańczyk, wzkazując na związek nazw typu peperuda, pepeluga i in. z psł. *perpere, *perperъka "przepiórka". Leksemy wskazane przez R. Jakobsona wywodzą się z psł. *pr̥pati vb. pochodzenia dźwiękonaśladowczego, por. np. (polish and OES words here) [...] Bałkański termin obrzędowy nie jest więc spokrewniony etymologicznie ze srus. teonimem, w jego wypadku można mówić o reduplikacji rdzenia onomatopeicznego i szeregu przekształceń fonetycznych (np. regularny rozwój -er- < r̥; wtórny konsonantym d < n), przez co hipoteza Jakobsona traci rację bytu. Pozwala to na odrzucenie interpretacji tego badaczu z powodu trudności formalnych.
Page 279: I wreszcie, nic nie przemawia za tym, by w słowiańskiej teonimii istniały pary nazewnicze: model na tworzeniu form feminatywnych od męskich imion osobowych nie był, w świetle wiarygodnych danych, w tej kategorii produktywny, w związku z czym można przyjąć, że brak był (często postulowanych) par typu *Perunъ - *Perynь (lub Perperuna), *Velesъ - *Vela, na wróz np. sind. Indra - Indrani, Agni - Agnani... Sławobóg (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski, since you highlighted inaccuracies regarding the spread of the custom, could you propose a compromise wording between the information provided by Muraj (1987) and that provided by Ḱulavkova (2020)? – Βατο (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the article are cited several reliable sources, not only Muraj (1987), describing the spread of the custom. In the new sources the mistake is regarding the distribution on the territory of former Yugoslavia. I would say that the best source for the former Yugoslavian territory is still Čulinović-Konstantinović (1963). It was more prevalent among Croats than Serbs in Croatia, and don't know what's the reason for mentioning Bosnians. Natko Nodilo (1884) mentioned that West of river Vrbas, which would be Western part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dodola and Prporuša were known as Čaro(j)ice, but couldn't verify and confirm the association in other sources. Čaroice was a different custom mainly around December and rarely Poklade (May) in which boys were dressed as girls or animals - not greenery, it was found among both Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim people and each group visited houses of other religion, and the song lyrics were also different. I would stick to countries and regions rather than ethnic groups (for now would remove Bosnia and Herzegovina). Anyway, currently am preparing a new edit which will include and expand the POV from new sources provided by you and Sławobóg. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, feel free to make any wording reasonably in agreement with RS and with evidence from field research. – Βατο (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Kartvelian *p̣erp̣er- "butterfly" - most likely ultimate source. That explains Balkan-only range of the word, custom and pseudogoddess. Sławobóg (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a RS which connects it to Perperuna/Dodola customs? How a Proto-Kartvelian language of Caucasus is the most likely ultimate source? How it explains Balkan-only range of the word, custom etc.?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done a good research yet, I found this partly by accident and am putting it here so as not to forget, and maybe someone else will find something more about it. It is possible that we are dealing here with a Wanderword. Borrowing is possible, compare κῶας. See also πεταλούδα (especially the suffix -da). Sławobóg (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article's scope and name

[edit]

The article is about the rainmaking tradition of different peoples in Southeast Europe. The article gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the etymological speculations concerning this rainmaking tradition, only based on the hypothetical link with the Slavic god Perun. In some regions it is not even known with names that could be linked to Perun. The rainmaking practice is attested among Balkan peoles since antiquity, the speculations according to which peoples who already practiced it adopted it from incoming Slavs in the early Middle Ages is not reasonable, and should have its due weight into the article.

Since there is no WP:COMMONNAME for the rainmaking practice, clearly because different peoples refer to it in different terms, I propose a move to the title Rainmaking (Balkans) or Rainmaking (Southeast Europe). The article should also be reworded giving due weight to all the South Eastern/Balkan traditions. – Βατο (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Caloian consists also of a similar rainmaking practice. But that's not relevant for this discussion, a title Rainmaking (Southeast Europe) is necessary in this case, because this article is about similar rainmaking practices of several peoples in Southeast Europe. The title Dodola and Perperuna is restrictive and POV, bacause it selects only two terms that are given to the girl that performs the ritual, despite the fact that there are many of those names, and there are even traditions based on a male figure, and it is misleading because the rainmaking ritual is not called "Dodola and Perperuna". If this title will be kept, then a split into Rainmaking (Southeast Europe) should be made, and this article should focus only on the rainmaking girl figure, but I think a standalone article for such a subject would not be appropriate. – Βατο (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then Rainmaking (Southeast Europe) will me good and a summary section about Calojan may be incorporated per WP:Summary style. --Altenmann >talk
In the scientific literature, the rainmaking custom(s) Dodola and Perperuna are usually related. The article is only about these two customs, and they are usually separated from the Caloian custom. The link with the Slavic god Perun and the Slavs is mainstream and majority viewpoint in the literature - claiming that it is "not reasonable" is a very bold non-mainstream statement and pushing a fringe autochthonistic POV. We already had a discussion before. In the article was already cited everything or almost everything about the topic. There's nothing else much which could be done and to be reworded. You first need to provide new citations and reach a consensus before trying to change both the scope and the title of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Βατο, we already had this discussion, and after 2 years you made a series of edits changing the NPOV of the article, but without providing new citations and evidence, and then pushing the change of the scope and title of the article. I must boldly revert all your edits per BRD. First discuss and reach a consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before bold reverting my sourced additions, state your concerns here, please. The article is far from neutral and clear about the different traditions. And the pushing in the lede of one of the several hypothetical origins is not the proper way to address NOPOV issues. You even restored this erroneous description in the lede: are ancient Slavic rainmaking pagan customs practiced until the 20th century. The tradition is found in South Slavic countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia), as well as in near Albania, Greece, Hungary, Moldova and Romania. The traditions are not "ancient Slavic rainmaking pagan customs" found in South Slavic countries and "in near" non Slavic countries, but a tradition found among different peoples of Southeast Europe. – Βατο (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You almost didn't make any sourced additions to change the NPOV and BALANCE of the article, and you were doing it by removing reliably sourced information ([3]) erroenously claiming it is an "erroenous statement", a statement which is critical of the fringe autochthonistic POV you're pushing. The article was NEUTRAL and according to the RS. This what you're doing is PUSHING a non-mainstream, non-Slavic, fringe autochthonistic POV not supported by the majority of the RS. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it because it falsely claims that rainmaking rituals are not found in southern Greece. Add the full context and arguments, then we can see whether that information can stay. And many scholars' views already included in the article cannot be considered WP:FRINGE. – Βατο (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the amount of RS for a specific viewpoint. You broke the NPOV, ignore WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the names of the male figures of different rituals found in some South Slavic traditions should be added as well, because as it is now, the article reports only the names of the female figures. – Βατο (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the section "Ritual", I understood, although not clearly, that Prpac/Prpats are names of the male figure. Is that correct? Do those names appear in songs alongside the name of the female figure? I think they should be added in the section "Names" as well. – Βατο (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, please do not boldly edit the article doing substantial changes to the NPOV, scope and else of the article when you are not informed about the topic and making one after another misunderstandings upon which you make false claims about the topic and article. It is complex ritual and there's no "yes and no" answer. You need to differentiate a bit the name of the custom/folk song, from name of the female/male figure. Perperuna was mostly performed by a chosen boy (the one who is acting), and the chosen boy/leader could have been named, in Croatia for example where Perperuna custom is called Prporuša, as a Prporuša/Prporuš/Prpac etc. but also his singing companions as Prporuše. The name Prpac/Prpats, which are local variants, do not appear in the song, they were names given by local people/audience to the chosen boy/leader/actor. There's only one figure in songs, or Perperuna or Dodola, but there do exist exceptions in Macedonia where both Perperuna and Dodola are mentioned in the same song.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Βατο, please, do NOT make any edits these days as I have to review every and each edit you've made. I will re-incorporate reliably sourced information into the stable NPOV revision. The new revision you made is a complete mess, pushing Albanian case to the forefront of the customs, from the LEAD to the main body of the article. Making a complete disbalance of the content. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only you changed wording without care about NPOV and WEIGHT, removed several reliably sourced content or emphasized different content (especially about Albania), placed new text in wrong sections, asking for citation needed where's none needed, removed images, etc., what's worse for new citations you used different citation style. Do you understand how much checking and clean-up your edits need? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miki Filigranski: I reverted your bold removal of 7,971 bytes of well surced content. You are free to edit the article, but don't remove sourced material. My edits don't need "checking and clean-up", they are added precisely according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The citation style has nothing wrong. – Βατο (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Βατο: No. This what you are doing is gaming the system. You don't respect WP:BRD, you don't care another editor is reverting and constantly warning you. This wasn't bold removal of sourced content, it is about stable revision, NPOV - about which you don't care - as you are making major edits and pushing for the scope and title change in the same time - without any prior discussion, resolution and consensus. Article needs to have a common citation style. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "gaming the system" in adding sourced information about this tradition. Discuss here the content that you consider problematic, don't remove 7,971 bytes of well surced content appealing to NPOV and BRD, while not even discussing a single sentence of my additions. – Βατο (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no issue itself with adding sourced information, but how are you adding it, where are you adding it, in the process removing NPOV wording, removing previous content, and in the same time pushing for scope and title change because the old, stable revision wasn't according to the your vision of the article. In the meantime you don't care that another editors reverted your edits. You don't care about their comments. You are the one who needs to start discussions - and in the meantime - not edit warring pushing your edits and new revision. I will just re-incorporate your edits - as much as possible - to the old, stable revision, and from there and then we can discuss what's Your problem with the article and content.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I see only general statements, please, address one by one the issues you have with the well sourced content about this tradition that I added. – Βατο (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't. As said, will make a third revision which will incorporate your additions. Then we can have a discussion - and You are the one whose going to address one by one the issues you have with the article. It's up to You to step up, not me. You are the one whose trying to change the NPOV, scope and title of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not remove 7,971 bytes of well surced content. – Βατο (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sławobóg and Jingiby: you participated in the old discussion "Talk:Dodola and Perperuna#New revision" two years ago, please give your verdict to the proposed changes and bold editing ([4]) by user Βατο with whom we discussed two years ago, thanks.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Given that after a relist 1 month ago there's been no further participation, one support was conditional under a merge, and there was concern expressed about the new title not being formatted as WP:NDESC, I don't see any consensus at this point. (closed by non-admin page mover) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodola and Perperuna → Rainmaking (Southeast Europe) – see the discussion above. We also have the generic Rainmaking (ritual) page (techical nomination; no vote) --Altenmann >talk 20:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, repeating my explanation in the discussion above: the title Rainmaking (Southeast Europe) is necessary in this case, because this article is about similar rainmaking practices of several peoples in Southeast Europe. The title Dodola and Perperuna is restrictive and POV, bacause it selects only two terms that are given to the girl that performs the ritual, despite the fact that there are many of those names, and there are even traditions based on a male figure, and it is misleading because the rainmaking ritual is not called "Dodola and Perperuna". If this title will be kept, then a split into Rainmaking (Southeast Europe) should be made, and this article should focus only on the rainmaking girl figure, but I think a standalone article for such a subject would not be appropriate. Concerning the generic article Rainmaking (ritual), the Southeast European practices have enough coverage in reliable sources to deserve a standalone article. – Βατο (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a bad title, it should be formatted as WP:NDESC and not as disambiguation, because it's not like "rainmaking" is called like this in southeastern Europe, you just want to be describing the history of these specific pagan rainmaking customs in those locations. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple solution to that issue could be the title Rainmaking in Southeast Europe. – Βατο (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as already stated, in the scientific literature, the rainmaking custom(s) Dodola and Perperuna are usually related. The article is only about these two customs, and they are usually separated from the Caloian custom. The link with the Slavic god Perun and the Slavs is mainstream and majority viewpoint in the literature. In the article was already cited everything or almost everything about the topic. The change of the scope and the title first need long discussion with new citations/evidence and reach a consensus. Otherwise the new version of the article will be a FRINGE and UNDUE WEIGHT autochthonistic POV connection of Dodola and Perperuna custom(s) with Caloian custom etc., which isn't the case in the reliable sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Caloian custom argument is completely irrelevant for the request move. The concerns I listed above still remain with the title "Dodola and Perperuna", but they would be solved with the title "Rainmaking in Southeast Europe". As for the Perun link, there are songs in southwestern Albania expressly addressing the Sun (Albanian: Dielli) as the divine figure during the ritual songs, not Perun. – Βατο (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, that's the end goal, that's the intention, that's the reasoning this request move and forced editing is based on. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a forced pushing against Slavic mainstream POV. What some folk songs in southwestern Albania have to do with Dodola and Perperuna? Even if they do - but only according to RS - they do not change the fact about the mainstream POV and NPOV in general.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"What some folk songs in southwestern Albania have to do with Dodola and Perperuna?" they have to do with the subject of this article because they are rainmaking pagan customs performed by a boy dressed in leaves and singing ritual songs, like other tradtions of this article. "such a forced pushing against Slavic mainstream POV, actually, the POV-pushing is claiming a Slavic exclusivity for a tradition that is shared between several Balkan peoples, not only Slavic ones. – Βατο (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the reasoning - the folk songs, the names of Dodola and Perperuna are. No, the mainstream WEIGHT is about the Slavic origin, not exclusivity. There isn't pushed any Slavic exclusivity, and as mainstream sources consider, it's a tradition which was most probably spread by Slavic people which migrated in and influenced all Balkan countries and peoples.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article clarifies in a sourced statement: The rainmaking practice is a shared tradition among Balkan peoples, and it is not clear who borrowed it from whom. And bibliography confirms this. Other claims are POV. – Βατο (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It was there for NPOV sake, but immediately below it was paragraph which stated that "It is usually considered they have a mythological and etymological Slavic origin related to Slavic thunder-god Perun" citing alone, and together more than a dozen reliable sources with quotes, which you changed into Some consider the perperuna figure to have a mythological and etymological Slavic origin related to Slavic thunder-god Perun. You completely messed up WP:WEIGHT and made WP:FALSEBALANCE with your editing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Caloian is not to be merged, because it has different practices, not only rainmaking. What is appropriate to do has been proposed in the duscussion above by User:Altenmann: "a summary section about Calojan may be incorporated per WP:Summary style". – Βατο (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it is a different practice, then what's the point of incorporating it anyhow in the article about Dodola and Perperuna? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will surely improve the situation. The rainmaking practice is not known as "Dodola and Perperuna" among Albanians. It is not known as such even among Slavic speakers, Eastern Romance speakers, or Greek speakers. That's an WP:OR, WP:POV, as well as a misleading title, by selecting only two terms that are given to the girl that performs the ritual in some traditions. I would like to know what criteria could justify such a choise? So far there has been provided no reasonable argument to keep that title. – Βατο (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It won't and you already made a mess, and are forcing the changes against the usual process for such essential change. You are greatly misunderstanding the topic, making false claims. The article is reliably sourced - that's the name of the customs, Dodola, and Perperuna (and its variations). You are pushing a disbalanced amount of weight for some poorly sourced, and overall irrelevant Albanian POV. Please stop doing that and WP:LISTEN to what other editors have to say.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are greatly misunderstanding the topic, making false claims, nope, the topic is about rainmaking pagan customs in Southeast Europe practiced with the main boy or girl dressed with fresh branches, leaves and herbs, etc. while singing a ritual song. some poorly sourced, and overall irrelevant Albanian POV is your own opinion. The content is sourced with academic sources focusing on this specific subject. And it is not up to us to consider Albanian practices as "irrelevant", relevance is dictaded by reliable sources. – Βατο (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, relevance is dictated by reliable sources - and then you come after two years of stable NPOV, make major edits ignoring the fact most of the reliable sources arguing and claiming Slavic origin of the customs, etymology and else, and now claim relevance of the Albanian case and else. Genius.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stable NPOV was not claiming the practice as exclusively Slavic ("ancient Slavic rainmaking pagan customs practiced until the 20th century. The tradition is found in South Slavic countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia), as well as in near Albania, Greece, Hungary, Moldova and Romania.) I did not notice that such an erroneous and POV wording has been kept in the lede for so long. – Βατο (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, you were here 2 years ago when the old, stable revision was created and now after 2 years you claim that didn't notice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I participated in this talk page I stated that the article should not describe the practice as exclusively Slavic. If I remember correctly, I left you time to change it as you stated that you would reword the article according to the sources provided. Then I even forgot about it, only recently realized that you kept the erroneous POV version, which obviously can't stay. I suggest to avoid replying in this discussion, which is about the RM. – Βατο (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below, I didn't keep the erroneous POV version as I've done an edit on 9 August 2022 per talk, over a year later somebody changed the wording and nobody noticed to fix it. Alright, my last comment for this.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I dont think it will make it better. I think it would best to have separate article about Dodola (Q2622164) and Paparuda (Q2368103) and other rites with different names in Balkans, even if the descriptions partially overlapped. That would make these articles easier to read, and reader would have precise informations about specific rite. My problem with the article is that it pushes too much non-scientific idea about Perperuna being related to Perun. Sławobóg (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sławobóg: I agree with your last sentence, that's why I edited the article and ridimensioned a little bit that POV, which is basically Roman Jakobson's POV. But User:Miki Filigranski seems to oppose the ridimensioning of that POV. Nevertheless, it can't stay in the lede as it was before my edits, because the etymology and mythology of Peperuda/Perperuna/etc. are far from certain, and there are songs that expressly invoke other deities/divine figures and not Perun. Concerning the split of the article into Dodola, Peperuda, and others, I don't think it is a good idea because in some traditions, in the same ritual performance of rainmaking songs both Dodola-like and Peperuda-like names are mentioned, it would be difficult to separate them. Also, they are about the same rainmaking custom, performed by a procession of young people with a main girl or boy who is dressed with fresh branches and leaves, sings the ritual song, and is sprinkled with water. To avoid the arbitrary selection of two names, such as in this case Dodola and Perperuna, which are hardly the WP:COMMONAME, and which are misleading because nobody actually called the custom Dodola and Perperuna, I proposed the descriptive title Rainmaking in Southeast Europe. – Βατο (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Romania, WikiProject Bulgaria, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Croatia, WikiProject North Macedonia, WikiProject Mythology, and WikiProject Albania have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 21:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relist to give time for participation. Note that one of the support comments is conditional upon a merge, which is worth discussion, and there is one reply that may be read as oppose but isn't labeled as such. ASUKITE 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Oj Ljule" songs

[edit]

"Oj Ljule" songs are inlcuded in the "Dodole songs", despite the fact that the songs seem to not mention Dodole or related forms. This aspect should be clarified in the article. Btw, I don't know whether ljule is a Slavic term, but it can be found in Albanian, and means "flower", and "Oj Ljule" is found as a phrase in Arbereshe songs as well, although unrelated to rainmaking rituals. The origin and meaning of the term ljule used in Slavic songs should be explained as well. – Βατο (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the borrowing from Slavic lullaby refrain Ay lyuli Russian: Ай люли, see eg in Kalinka or ru:Во поле берёза стояла. Associated with the Russian word люлька, "cradle". --Altenmann >talk 19:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: thanks for the clarification, in that case it would not be a borrowing, but a Slavic term in Eastern South Slavic. The Albanian term would not be related. A source would be nice to clarify it in the article. – Βατο (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find a source, but it will be difficult for such minor things. Provably in some obscure folkloric book. google books shows plenty of songs, but no etymology. --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[https://gramota.ru/meta/lyuli here a short blurb: Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:(folk-poetic) Is used in refrains of Russian folk songs. --Altenmann >talk 19:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
люляти - to rock the cradle in Ukrainian and Belarusian (wikt:ru:люляць) and Lithuanian liūliuoti "to rock/be rocked by waves", Serbian ljuljati "to rock". - and it seems it is related to Englies "lull", "lullaby"--Altenmann >talk 19:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks. I think a source expressly about these rainmaking songs would be appropriate for inclusion into the article, if they cannot be found then we can leave it without explanation. Sources about Russian folksongs not directly related to the subject would be synth or or into the article, although interesting for clarifying the matter here in talk page. – Βατο (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These Russian folksongs are mentioned here as an anwer to the question about "Oj Ljule" and of course are irrelevant to this article. (Sorry for off-topic, I am just collecting for future possible use elsewhere.) --Altenmann >talk 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you are pushing an Albanian-old Balkan POV connection in the LEAD and main body of the article. It is so obvious it is painful not to notice it. Please refrain from doing it forcibly, engage in BRD discussion without editing a stable NPOV, seek a consensus, and only then discuss about the change of scope and title of the article. Not the other way around.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is the POV version? The one that describes the subject as "rainmaking pagan customs widespread among different peoples in Southeast Europe until the 20th century, found in Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia." or the version that describes it as "ancient Slavic rainmaking pagan customs practiced until the 20th century. The tradition is found in South Slavic countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia), as well as in near Albania, Greece, Hungary, Moldova and Romania." It's clearly the second one, which obviously can't stay. – Βατο (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't get the point and refuse to get the point, why that text and wording was in the lead.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point to get, that text and wording is an erroneous and POV description of the custom. – Βατο (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick with the Albanian-Illyrian paganism, and leave alone Slavic paganism when have such a low understanding and respect about the topic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This practice is Albanian, as well as Greek, Romanian, etc., other than South Slavic. You should understand that to avoid POV in the article. – Βατο (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This practice is first and foremost South Slavic, while Albanian is the least (and even among them is most probably due to South Slavic influence). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This practice is widespread among all Albanians. It is Albanian as much as it is South Slavic. Your opinion "This practice is first and foremost South Slavic, while Albanian is the least (and even among them is most probably due to South Slavic influence)" shows that you want to push only one POV. – Βατο (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where and what's the evidence it is widespread among all Albanians? How common was the practice in Albania? There's no "my opinion", in the article was cited what was in the scientific literature - it wasn't common and widespread neither can be considered Albanian as much as it is South Slavic. I don't care about what kind of POV is in the literature, only about WP:WEIGHT, and the majority viewpoint is clear about that. You are the one whose changing NPOV by pushing your pro-Albanian POV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is widespread among all Albanians, it has been practiced by Albanians in southern Albania, in northern Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia. This is not my opinion, this is what academic sources say. And adding sourced content about the Albanian traditions direclty related to the subject of this article is not "pro-Albanian POV". I suggest to avoid such labellings. – Βατο (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you once again where and what is said in the literature - give the quotes. I don't care and believe what you say. Again, you are NOT merely adding sourced content because you have completely changed the NPOV. You know what you're doing, I know what you're doing. Stop doing it, show some good faith, respect and start behaving according to WP:BRD.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)-[reply]
In the article you can check the sources, which have been carefully cited with relevant pages, and you can add quote needed templates in parts that you fail to verify. Regardless of what you believe or not, the practice has been documented in southwest Albania (such as in the Ionian Coast), southeast Albania (such as in Permet and Klonje), central and northern Albania (such as in Mat, Mirdite, and Has) Macedonia (such as in Tetove), Kosovo (such as in Gjakove, Opoje and Sharr Mountains). It was widespread until the 2nd half of the 20th century, and continues to be performed in rare occasions by Albanians in remote areas such as around Opojë in the Sharr Mountains. You can find this information in this article's Bibliography, (such as in Tirta 2004, pp. 310–312, Gjoni 2012, pp. 85–86, and Qafleshi 2009, pp. 51–52). – Βατο (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC) – Βατο (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Βατο, why is now the same text/songs at Dielli (Albanian paganism)#Rainmaking and soil fertility rituals and this article (although some songs do not mention neither Dodola or Perperuna)?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are added because they are rainmaking rituals that are subject of this article, with the same figures and performances. The other songs are added because they follow the rainmaking practice, and are discussed in the same context by the cited source. However, if you consider those following songs to have undue weight, I will remove them and keep only their description. – Βατο (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them. – Βατο (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

The article should clarify whether a goddess/female deity called Perperuna (or similar) or Dodole (or similar), associated with Perun (also as his consort/wife) has been actually attested in Slavic traditions, or it is just a hypothesis by modern scholars. In that regard, the article states: Recent research criticize invention of a Slavic female goddess, referenced with Łuczyński 2020, p. 141, but I have not access to the source to verify whether it is referring to the link between Perun and Perperuna as a goddess. A a proper context should be provided. – Βατο (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is already stated. Deities or ritual figures are often reconstructed out of folk tradition. It is an interpretation. You have full quote in this talk page Talk:Dodola and Perperuna #Other sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's text should clarify whether something belongs to actual folklore or it is an interpretation. – Βατο (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, don't you say? Imagine the shock, who would have thought that the old, stabile revision said:
According to another interpretation the name Perperuna can be identified as the reduplicated feminine derivative of the name of the male god Perun (per-perun-a), being his female consort, wife and goddess of rain Perperuna Dodola, which parallels the Old Norse couple Fjörgyn–Fjörgynn and the Lithuanian Perkūnas–Perkūnija.[41][38][42][43][44] Perun's battle against Veles because of Perperuna/Dodola's kidnapping has parallels in Zeus saving of Persephone after Hades carried her underground causing big drought on Earth, also seen in the similarity of the names Perperuna and Persephone.[43][45][16] Recent research criticize invention of a Slavic female goddess.[19]
and now it doesn't after you butchered the paragraphs and sections. Incredible, you must be a genius! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite me being a 'genius', which is unrelated to this discussion, the information above still needs clarification, because the interpretation is about the name, and as the information is provided in the text, it takes for granted that the female figure was Perun's "female consort, wife and goddess of rain Perperuna Dodola, which parallels the Old Norse couple Fjörgyn–Fjörgynn and the Lithuanian Perkūnas–Perkūnija." and that "Perun's battle against Veles because of Perperuna/Dodola's kidnapping has parallels in Zeus saving of Persephone after Hades carried her underground causing big drought on Earth". The wording is important for such things, the text should clarify whether those are reconstrucitons or are actual folklore to not mislead the reader. I already made a slight rewording adding "allegedly being his female consort, wife and goddess of rain Perperuna Dodola, which would parallel the Old Norse couple Fjörgyn–Fjörgynn and the Lithuanian Perkūnas–Perkūnija.", but I am not sure if it is alleged or in folklore. That's why I asked. I moved some parts because they were about etymology, I left the parts about mythology into the relevant section. – Βατο (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't differentiate parts which are strictly about etymology from those which are about mythology. You moved parts, everything now looks out of context, and then claim there's confusion - when you made it. This is going to be like in the stable revision, the end of discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the stable revision you created is erroneous and POV, and can't stay. Nevertheless, you are not addressing my concerns, but making general, useless, statements. Are they attested traditions or modern reconstructions? – Βατο (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were here 2 years ago when the old, stable revision was created. Now you come again after 2 years, falsely claim that didn't notice what was written in the LEAD and else, decide to make it more erroneous and POV, and don't bother with any concerns other editor is making because of your major, general editing by which violated WEIGHT and NPOV, and calling them "useless" concerns. This is unbelievable. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I participated in this talk page I stated that the article should not describe the practice as exclusively Slavic. If I remember correctly, I left you time to change it as you stated that you would reword the article according to the sources provided. Then I even forgot about it, only recently realized that you kept the erroneous POV version, which obviously can't stay. – Βατο (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I see now we are both misunderstanding each other and what happened. I've done that, this was my "NPOV up-date per talk" on 9 August 2022 i.e. original stable revision, but until my next edit on 27 December 2023 somebody changed the wording in the lead from "are Balkan rainmaking pagan customs practiced until the 20th century" to "are ancient Slavic rainmaking pagan customs practiced until the 20th century". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP changed the lead wording on 30 October 2023.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dodola_and_Perperuna&oldid=1250323675"