Talk:Wolfsangel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serious Omissions: Thirty Year War, Peasants' War, Possible Bindrune?

This article places a very heavy emphasis on the Third Reich's usage of the wolfsangel with little emphasis at all on the long history of the symbol prior to it. This does the symbol no justice. First of all, I've read that this symbol has had some use in the Thirty Year War as well as the Peasants' War, which eventually lead to it being used by the Third Reich. Also, when you have two runes on the same stave, thit is sometimes considered a bind rune. As it has been noted here, the runes Eihwaz and Isaz resemble this very much, and depending on the exact historic origins of this symbol, it may not be a coincidence, particularly with the eihwaz, which I note is sometimes considered a wolf's hook on various German coats. I added some images of these coats but they were removed by Dab, which is probably for the better. What IS obvious is that the symbol dates before the 1700's, which is stated here. What this article needs is more historic background, which I'd like to assist with. Plus, a decent high-res version of the symbol to show exactly what it is. --Bloodofox 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

that's all very well, as long as you remember to cite exact sources for all these things. I've found all of this on the internet, too, but that's not enough. dab (ᛏ) 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thirty Year War & Hermann Löns

Alright. After doing a little digging to see exactly what the signifance of the wolfsangel was during the Thirty Year War, I've found some information. Hermann Löns (1866-1914) wrote a fictional novel called Der Wehrwolf (1910) which was apparently set in Northern Germany during the Thirty Year War. The wolfsangel was apparently used by the hero of the book, as a sort of badge of independance from the then ruling classes. Now, either this is a reflection on the wolfsangel actually being used during this period or this book may have sparked a revival in the use of the symbol. Some covers of this book display a wolfsangel:[1] There's an entry here about this: This may be a photo of an image from the book: [2] Amazon.de has two versions of the book for sale: [3] and [4] Anyone know anything about this? --Bloodofox 23:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I should probably note that I can't read much German. --Bloodofox 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

that's a good find, and we should definitely mention it. But make sure to point out that this is a 1910 novel about the 30 years' war, and not a source about the 17th century itself. As such it would belong in a "in fiction" section or similar. Note that 1910 is after List's publication, and may already be influenced by List's hallucinations. It's still true that the symbol was in use as a badge in the 17th century, see our 1621 reference, but for the "independence movement" context, you'd need a non-fictional reference. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made the entry. If you are interested, the book can be found online in German here: [5] One English translation of the book can be found here, as The Warwolf: [6] This link indicates that the book was once published as Harm Wulf, a peasant chronicle: [7]Also, a promising new English edition is apparently in the works at: [8] --Bloodofox 06:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

From the original German version of Der Wehrwolf, a footnote is given simply as "a symbol, often used as a house-mark (or private brand), which takes the following forms..." and then there are shown two versions, one with and one without the center crossbar.

In the Hermann Löns novel, the protagonist doesn't really use the symbol as a 'badge of independence from the ruling classes'. It is, rather, the ancient marker (or brand) of his family... there's a scene in which an old cast iron hearth piece (bearing the symbol, along with the date 1111 A.D.) is found by Harm Wulf's houseman among the ruins of a burned farmstead that once belonged to the clan. The band of warrior-farmers adopt it as their insignia, and use it as a warning symbol to "all those of ill intent" by carving it on trees around the borders of the region and putting it on signs which they place in the hands or on the gallows of those marauders and miscreants to whom the "Warwolves" mete out their harsh brand of vigilante justice. (R. Kvinnesland)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warwolf.jpg

Image:Warwolf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

The symbol, as well as the name "Wolfsangel" does not originally have any connections with runes or Germanic mythology, as is sometimes mistakenly claimed by Neo-Pagans, probably because it was put in a context of runic symbols by the Nazis. The Wolfsangel appears listed as "34th rune" sometimes esoteric contexts [9], together with the claim that it represent the "solar scythe killing the winter wolf". Both the number (the extended Anglo-Saxon Futhork consists of only 33 signs) and the mythological context have no historical basis.

This seems very POV, and likely wrong. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam! can you just read the article, please, where I explained it all? "Wolfsangel" is not a Nazi term, any more than "Sigel" or "Eihwaz". The term is attested as early as 1714 in a heraldic context. I could have written the article chronologically, beginning with heraldry and masons' marks, it's just that today if you encounter the Wolfsangel, it will almost invariably be in a Nazi context. The symbol has also nothing to do with runes, apart from the simple fact that it used to be carved and has therfore an angular shape. Mason's came up with pretty much arbitrary signs, the purpose of which was simply disambiguation from other masons. Now, the part you removed, can you enlighten me what is supposed to be POV about it? Some people claim the "Wolfsangel" as a "34th rune", but they haven't done their research, and we are telling them here that there is no "34th rune", historically. Now what is supposed to be biased about this? dab (ᛏ) 16:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed Wolfsangel was based on Eihwaz, Sigel and/or Sowilo? Those are runes, no? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no, not "based", except geometrically. The "Wolfsangel" symbol originates in the 12th century at the latest, the Eihwaz rune probably in the 2nd century. Until the 1900s, nobody associates them, and they exist independently. The Nazis (or "proto-Nazis") interpret the Wolfsangel as based on Eihwaz. Therefore, logically, neither the Eihwaz rune nor the Wolfsangel are originally Nazi symbols, nor do they have any connection, but the association of the two is related to Nazism. It's just as true that the symbol is based on Z or Ζ. Only, the Nazis didn't choose to associate it with Z, but rather with Eihwaz. dab (ᛏ) 17:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried finding solid information on this, and it seems pretty impossible to come by. Neopagan organizations pretty uniformly claim that it *is* based on the Eihwaz rune, and that this origin predates the Nazis. This is also what the Anti-Defamation League says:

"The Wolfsangel is an ancient runic symbol that was believed to be able to ward off wolves. Historically, it appeared in Germany in many places, ranging from guidestones on the sides of roads to heraldic use in the coats of arms of various towns; there is even a German city called Wolfsangel." [10].

But I can't really find solid evidence either way. No reputable source I've found has claimed that the Nazis invented the runic associations, but no reputable source has substantiated pre-Nazi runic associations either. --Delirium 18:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

that's right, but the symbol is not mentioned in any book on runology or Germanic mythology I have seen. Clearly, the burden of proof would be with those who claim it is an "ancient" symbol. These mythologies have sources, mostly Icelandic texts, and runestones. The symbol is not there. It is possible that in 18th century German folklore, the symbol was associated with wolves, or warding off wolves, I don't know, and made no claim about this. But clearly, there is a difference between 18th century German folklore and "ancient" Germanic mythology. dab (ᛏ) 06:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its clear to me that as in all cases of this sort, we cite sources and be done with it. The article narrative should not be taking a stand on a disputed matter. If no source can be found clearly suggesting that Wolfsangel is not a rune, such a suggestion should not be present. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

look, many things are not runes, and it would be difficult to find references to prove it. If I claimed the Apple logo was the 39th rune, what would you do? Fact is that many Neo-pagans without checking repeat the rumour that the Wolfsangel is an "ancient runic sign". It's not "disputed" in the sense that there is any academic discourse going on about it. It's "disputed" because Intenet pagans chose to call it "runic", and I intended to dispel that myth. Find me one pre-20th century reference to the Wolfsangel as "runic" and I'll reconsider.

What is "a rune", after all? It's a sign of a runic alphabet. Is there any Wolfsangel-like symbol in the Elder Futhark? No. The Younger Futhark? No. The short-twig runes, the Anglo-Saxon, the Frisian, the Dalecarlian runes, even? No. The Viking-Age runic ciphers? No. Hell, even the Armanen runes? No. So in what way is it suggested that the symbol is "runic"? It would be very interesting to find the earliest reference to it as "runic". It will almost certainly be Nazi, or post-Nazi (I was wondering if "34th" rune was in any way related to the 34th SS division, but I think that's a coincidence, because the Futhorc has 33 runes, except, if the Nazis theorized about it being the "34th rune", it would explain why they chose it for the 34th division, but it's just as likely to be an invention of some esoteric 1970s runic divination system). You find the earliest reference of it being called "runic", and I'll be all for including it. dab (ᛏ) 10:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry! It was there all along! It's Guido von List's "Gibor" rune. (Armanen runes after all). So there we have it! List dreamed that the symbol was an original rune, back in 1902. I'll include that now. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite alright. As is often the case, I had no clue one way or the other, I came to this page not having heard of Wolfsangel before, but I could tell from what was in the article and was said in talk that this was a concern. Plus, it does kinda look like a rune ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you're being "Socratic" in a good sense now, Sam ;o) dab (ᛏ) 13:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank God I'm better looking than he was! ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clearly "runic" in the sense that it is a variation of a rune. You seem to be claiming that it arose independently of the runic alphabet, rather than being derived from it, a claim that seems dubious and is not held by any other source I can find. Arguing that it is not itself part of one of the runic alphabets is one thing, but arguing that it has "no association" with the runic alphabets is a much stronger claim, and one that seems fairly dubious, as it's positing a pretty surprising coincidence. --Delirium 20:27, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, but how many different basic symbolic shapes do you think there are? Take out a pencil a piece of paper, and try to come up with a symbol that only uses three or four lines that isn't already duplicated elsewhere in an alphabet/rune/symbol in an existing culture somewhere. If you happen to come up with something that looks like a Mayan glyph, does that mean you got it from the Mayans? No. The rune is fairly minimalist and obvious, especially as it's symmetrical, and there's no reason to assume that one was based upon the other. DreamGuy 21:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Except that the claim has been made historically. These false amalogies about symbols we could make up ourselves would hold more water if they were about encyclopedic symbols like the Wolfsangel. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing false about this analogy. Mere resemblence of one thing to another -- whether it be pictorial, words in different languages, or whatever -- by itself in no way proves that one was derived from the other. If you know of another historical source that claims the symbol came from the rune, especially one predating the guy with the alleged vision, please provide it, but you can't just assume it did. DreamGuy 00:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

If I were living in 12th-century South America when I came up with such a symbol, I think it would be very reasonable to assume I got it from the Mayans. The ADL's research claims it is of runic origin. Do you have *any* reputable source that claims the similarities are a mere coincidence? If the Nazis fabricated the runic associations, I assume someone would have said so. --Delirium 01:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

You wrote in recent edit note: "saying that no link has been shown is taking a side, as there is no source that denies the obvious link." That's no argument at all. "Obvious" is a clear judgment call, and it's not "obvious" if people are in disagreement with you. There are lots of things that look similar that don't have similar origins, and these aren't even the same symbol (the wolfangel has an additional line not in the rune), so you can't just assume that they came from the same origin. Asking for a source to *disprove* what you claim as if what you claim is automaticlaly correct otherwise is not a fair argument. The way it goes with any logical argument is that if you make a claim towards something being real, you have to support it. In fact the articles should never be making judgment calls, any judgment calls presented in an article should be sourced by who said it. If you have people arguing for your side, go get the references and cite them in the article.

This is just pure, objective ways of handling articles. Please refer to NPOV for more information. Until you have a source to support your side, the default text is going to say not that there *is* a link, nor that there *isn't* a link, but that a link has not been proven. That's the middle, it's fair, it's obvious, and I really don't get how you think you can claim otherwise. DreamGuy 03:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the town of Wolfsangel, Germany, used the symbol as a town logo of sorts, and folk mythology held that it warded off wolves. I'll see if I can get a copy of a book on the city (there's at least one published, ISBN 1574882457) in case it gives any information on when it was named. --Delirium 02:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are basing this on Internet myths. Don't just believe Google. Where is that alleged town of Wolfsangel, exactly? Oh, you mean you didn't check. There is a town Wolfsanger, but Anger means "meadow" and has nothing to do with Angel "hook". That's right, the Bornheim coat of arms evolved into "the German town of Wolfsangel" on the Internet. Now I thought I had cleared the situation with my realization that the runic association originated with Guido von List. Look at his article. I mean, any questions? He dreamed it up in 1902. Show me any pre-1902 runic association, and we'll include that. Otherwise, I think it is pretty clear who came up with the idea. Yeah, it looks like a rune, that's what Guido thought, too. And you should be aware that many people of with an esoteric approach still take him as their prime reference, just read the reader comments on amazon [11], it's really funny, there are two glowingly positive reviews (probably auto-sorted by amazon) before there is one asking "what's wrong with you people". dab (ᛏ) 07:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the book you mention is on the city of Rüsselsheim, and has nothing to do with the symbol. The coat of arms of that town includes a symbol like an inverted Eihwaz rune (again, that's just three lines and doesn't prove an "runic" association", without the central stroke, and is thus very tangential to this discussion. The only coat of arms to my knowledge incorporating the symbol is the former town of Bornheim, and was mentioned in this article from the very first version. dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I emailed the ADL to basically ask them whether they researched that origin or not (somewhat more politely phrased). As a reputable organization putting together what they seem to promoting as a sort of encyclopedia of symbols used by hate groups, along with their histories, I'd hope they did research before making claims, but who knows. If it turns out they just googled and summarized the top 10 hits, then they'll be much less interesting to me as a source (although still interesting as an example of how even well-known and reputable groups have accepted the claims). --Delirium 20:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

nice. as for "there is even a German city called Wolfsangel", have a look at multimap. They usually have every haystack in their database. The ADL info is also slightly messed up in other respects. E.g. "the symbol was also used by European groups such as the Jungen (Youth)" is mangled for "Junge Front" (Youth Front). There could be no group called "Jungen", that would be ridiculous. So, yeah, their article generally looks like hacked together from google searches. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The multi map shows up a map for the German town "Wolfschlugen" when "Wolfsangel" is searched, so perhaps its a local "nickname" or "neighborhood" name for an area in or around Wolfschlugen?? --71.194.236.53 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How to word the intro?

The intro currently implies that the Eihwaz relationship is only used when describing the symbol "in the context of Nazi or neo-Nazi organisations", which isn't entirely accurate—it's also described as such in the context of neopagans who have nothing to do with neo-Nazis. I'm not sure how to word this though. "in the context of neopaganism, Nazi Germany, or neo-Nazi organisations" sounds a little odd, because it sounds like we're lumping the three together as being related (while clearly two of those are more similar than the third). But I can't think of a way that doesn't sound strange. --Delirium 23:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you do, make sure you don't insinuate that neo-nazi's arn't neo-pagan, as many (probably most) are. See Nazi mysticism. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a poorly researched claim. Sure, a portion of Neo-Nazis claim to be pagans. However, this is usually restricted to simple usage of scant runes or symbolism. Like the Third Reich, modern Neo-Nazis use aesthetic approaches sometimes taken from both Germanic paganism and Italian fascism. Christianity still remains the dominant influence. Please do a little reading before making these claims. --Bloodofox 18:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this Sam person just against pagans, why does he so fervently want to label everything Pagan or NeoPagan as being "Nazi" in origin, even things which predate Nazi-ism by hundreds, in some cases possible thousands, of years?--71.194.236.53 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Eihwaz, Sigel or Sowilo?

The article currently claims it's a Sigel with a slash through it, but other sources claim that it's an Eihwaz with a slash through it. Going simply on the shapes of the runes, it seems that either could be the case. --Delirium 12:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

that's right. it "is" neither, historically, and it's both, since Eihwaz and Sigel have exactly the same shape. The Nazis confuse Eihwaz and Sigel (which they call "Sig") all the time anyway, and it is only in Nazi contexts that the sumbol is associated with runes. dab (ᛏ) 13:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with runes, but the Wikipedia articles give somewhat different shapes for the two: siegel is ᛋ and eihwaz is ᛇ. I suppose they're the same thing except for rotation and inversion, though. Are you sure there is no historical connection? Where did the mason's mark and the heraldric symbol come from then? The coat of arms in the image looks pretty strikingly like an Eihwaz with a horizontal slash for that to be a coincidence... --Delirium 13:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

? I don't follow. The Wolfsangel is a nazi symbol. What is a non-nazi context for it? Also, its obviously based on runes, Eihwaz and Sigel respectively. I think those 2 articles might well be merged, BTW. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It predates the Nazis by centuries; the image illustrating this page, for example, is from a coat of arms that predates the Nazis by quite some time. I'd say it's a non-Nazi symbol that has, like the swastika, been associated with Nazism in people's minds. It's also frequently used by neopagans as a variant of the "death rune" (and was formerly used by Boyd Rice as a sort of personal symbol). --Delirium 13:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but isn't "Wolfsangel" a nazi term for it, and variation of those historical roots? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no, see below. The shapes of Eihwaz and Sigel are identical as a Greek Ρ and a Latin P are 'identical': They are letters from different alphabets that happen to have (almost) the same shape. But you are right, Delirium, I should probably have said Eihwaz in the article, instead of Sigel. I just want to make sure we are clear that this is a geometrical, not a historical connection. dab (ᛏ) 16:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Wolfsangel does not necessarily feature a central stroke. 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 This article is biased.

Isn't anybody putting it together that it is not a "slash" or a "Stroke" in the center, but the Isa Rune? Do you think that such a symbol for heraldry would include a completely meaningless mark? Not likely. Secondly, the comment about it not needing the Isa rune, called a "central stroke" above, is incorrect. The Wolfsangel is different from a Standard Rune because it is a symbol combining a Runic symbol with another. Thus: Those symbols listed, while similar, are apparently NOT Wolfsangels, but merely similar symbols, which could be considered proper Sowilo or turned Eihwaz Runes themselves, since they do not form a "Bindrune" (two runes combined). I don't see the article as being biased for not including symbols that are not wolfsangels in it.--71.194.236.53 (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wolfhook is NOT a rune or bindrune. That's a modern, post-WWII false reconstruction. The heraldic/trap source explained elsewhere on the page is historically accurate. There are no wolfhooks on runic artifacts. Yes, it's easy to create one as a bindrune in a few different ways and many people have discussed ways of doing so. Runes are not, however, the source of the symbol and the wolfshook was not used during the "viking age." 184.78.19.135 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

this article

three wolftraps, Wolfsangeln or Wolfsanker

• Is not appropriately or correctly (as in using direct links instead of references, but also using such links to support a tehsis not supported by the link) sourced.
• Amalgamates what in english heraldry is a cramp or cramp iron (french crampon) and what is a wolf trap (french hameçon à loup).
• The Wolfsangel is indeed primarily a hunting or rather trapping tool. From there it became a heraldic symbol (none of the images in the article show said heraldic charge, all show cramps one even shows an annile.
• Obviously due to the wide spread confusion of the Wolfsangel and other heraldic charges these should be mentionned and shown here, but they should not predominate as they do now and that to the point where actually 0 Wolfsangeln are represented.
• The Nazi and Neo-Nazi symbology should not be given such a prominent space, particularly as they are illegal in a number of countries in the form depicted.
• The runic theories should not have such prominent placing either as this again is not based on documented fact.
• I should also like to note that of course the cramp (as that's what's portrayed) is older than 1621. From my ongoing heraldic research I can assure you of the following family or personal arms bearing them during the medieval period (for this research I use the simple 1500 year as cutoff date, which of course is between 10 and 50 years later than the usual historic count): Braun von Schmidtburg, von Bubingen, idem, von Hillesheim, von Sötern and idem. All of these are in relation with medieval Luxembourg, so many more are likely to have existed outside that region.

According to the above points I find this article entirely inappropriate (and I'm being kind). If it were a new article I'd promptly tag it for deletion. For a long standing article I am a bit stumped. For now I will leave it at this note and post another note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologytalk page in the hopes that another heraldist with more time can do a complete rewrite. Last note, it would be worthwhile to take a look at the German language article on this subject, which while shorter and no where near complete is at least textually correct. It should also be noted that in German there is no heraldic distinction between the Wolfsangel (or Wolfsanker) and the cramp (Wolfshaken in this context) if it has an opening for a chain or cord, if it does not it can be assumed to be the equivalent of a cramp). Obviously the annile and also the fer de molinne or mill rind have no place in this article other than explaining that they are sometimes confused with crossed cramps...--Caranorn (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For illustration the image above, the actual reason why I ended up taking a look at this article.--Caranorn (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While you have valid points and this article badly needs some love, I would like to point out that the fact that some of these symbols are illegal in some countries has no relevance whatsoever on our image placement here: Wikipedia is not censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, in what research I've done, cramp irons take many shapes, usually with right angles at either end, yes, but the not usually in the opposite way that the symbol is being described here. Secondly, a "Heraldist" viewpoint may be beneficial to the article, however, since the symbol is more commonly used as an Esoteric or political symbol, the Heraldic context should not be given "priority" more than any other use of the symbol. I'm not sure how you are proving that the symbol you showed is surely related to even the name "Wolfsangel" or Wolfshaken. Really, issues like this are why Wikipedia fails when trying to define any symbol which has any previous association with subject matter of an Esoteric or occultic nature. Many uses of such symbols are not easily explained by "cite-able" sources, as many of the groups who use it kept little or no textual reference / histories regarding it, as is the same with many other occult symbols on Wikipedia. Often the citation requirements of Wikipedia cause articles like this to lack information because when many occult ideas are passed down in oral traditions, or even when written down, the meaning is not clear to to the "un-initiated" who cannot place the idea or symbol in its proper context. And then, of course, there are people using the exact same symbols around the same time periods for different reasons, and who used it first for what certain reason is even harder to prove. Maybe these types of symbols (Runic symbols, Pagan Symbols, Satanic Symbols, etc.) should just "stay occult" and be removed from Wikipedia altogether, as all of the articles are constantly changing and generally un-prove-able, as well as "un-disprove-able"...Geez.. --71.194.236.53 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some fundamental policies that you show be familiar with: No original research and mandatory citations. This is, obviously, for quality control purposes. If it cannot be cited by what Wikipedia defines as a reliable resource, it cannot be on Wikipedia - it's as simple as that - and should be removed immediately. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

it is true that we need a crampon (heraldry) article, and should perhaps merge it with the wolfsangel one. At present, crampon is about the mountaineering equipment, without any disambiguation note. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

coming back after three years, I see that this article is still as shoddy as ever. Those parts that sound halfway encyclpedic are based on a private homepage found on the internet, which is in turn completely unreferenced. There is still no trace of an explanation how and why the term "Wolfsangel" came to be applied to the symbol depicted in the article lead, and if there is any merit to the insinuated but perfectly unreferenced connection to List's "Gibor" rune. The sad thing with this kind of article is that just about everyone feels compelled to add some stuff they "have heard" and literally nobody bothers to consult actual literature, or at least bothers to throw out everything failing WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

60th Panzergrenadier-Division "Feldherrnhalle"

It`s not the Symbol of the 60th Panzergrenadier-Division "Feldherrnhalle" it`s the symbol of the Panzer Corps Feldherrnhalle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Corps_Feldherrnhalle The Symbol of the 60th motorised Infantry division "Feldherrenhalle" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/60._Infanterie-Division_(mot.)_(Wehrmacht)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.60.64 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

References (lack of), open questions

from what content we currently have:

• the term is used for three distinct signs in heraldry. Correctly or "erroneously", such is usage. Claims of "incorrectness" need to be referenced.
• the association of the heraldic symbol with the use in Nazi symbolism is perfectly unclear. Perhaps the "Gibor" rune played a role, perhaps it didn't. We have no reference either way
• The SS-Panzer-Division emblem (1939) may or may not have been called "Wolfsangel", we don't know. It certainly looks more than "Gibor" than the normal heraldic Wolfsangel. It may or may not be the original link between the heraldic nature of the design and its later use as a "Nazi symbol"
• the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging in Nederland emblem (1931) and 34th SS Volunteer Grenadier Division Landstorm Nederland emblem (1940). Somehow this suggests that the symbol was popular among Nazis in the Netherlands in particular. This may or may not be the original link between heraldry and use as a Nazi symbol.
• the Werwolf resistance plan (1944)? There seems to be a direct connection to Löns here, and allegedly (no source) the Wolfsangel was intended as a symbol used by these resistance fighters. There would be a definite connection here (if we had a source), but since this plan never came into effect, one would still need to trace how the symbol came to be adopted by Neo-Nazism.

--dab (𒁳) 16:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rune Gibor hypothesis is incorrect one as that rune is mirror image of Wolfsangel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armanen_runes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.254.52 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to add a modern context and it was removed

That was one obviously true sentence "Currently the symbol is widely used by nationalists, right wing and Neo-Nazi groups in all Ukraine." I should add that it is again used by ukrainian military units!!! Anyone can find dozen of sites confirming that. Let's start in most simple way https://www.google.com/search?q=Wolfsangel+ukraine&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=uAi0VO_3LoPzUrn-gdAN&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1067&bih=689&dpr=1.2 I understand the term political correctness but that is way to much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.21.152 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing 'simple' with 'simplistic'. Familiarise yourself with reliable sources, not every blog, forum and any fool can POV push any personal ideology via cyberspace. Please stop complaining because you posit your understanding of socio-economic and political events according to Godwin's law whereas Wikipedia does not. Finally, this is a Wikipedia talk page and not a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What a nice and polite response... Simple truth and the facts are not important. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-farright-insight-idUSBREA2H0K620140318 http://venik4.livejournal.com/42389.html https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/15/ukraines-romantic-nazi-storm-troopers/ http://thenewsdoctors.com/arms-or-diplomacy-u-s-foreign-policy-planners-divided-over-ukraine-strategy/ https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/ http://rt.com/news/185708-nazi-symbols-ukrainian-troops/ I guess the photos, videos and reports are conspiracy – aye?. And this sign is only similar to wolfsangel? 83.11.27.21 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not similar, it is called wolfdangel by Andreas Umland, Shekhovtsov and other reliable researchers, i added this information. Cathry (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Umland is well-know political researcher, so is Anton Shekhovtsov (who is Shestakov?). Open Democracy have little relation to Russia, as i know. I will undo your revert, Iryna Harpy Cathry (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting similarity http://www.adl.org/mobilehatesymbols/symbol-20.html with sign i referred to Cathry (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

http://gordonua.com/news/election2014/Politolog-SHehovcov-Ukraincy-v-usloviyah-chastichnoy-anneksii-territoriy-i-voyny-progolosovali-za-reformistskie-sily-48687.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/ukraine-still-failing-on_b_6380726.html Shekhovtsov is attributed as expert Cathry (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Rwxrwxrwx, if you wish to participate in 'tidying' references for recently introduced content based on WP:RECENTISM - content introduced as the result of WP:POINTy editing practices by Cathry - feel free to join in a discussion here on the talk page. All genuinely neutral input (by experienced editors in particular) is welcome. I haven't had time to continue debating this issue with Cathry due to the massive number of articles surrounding anything to do with the subject of Eastern Europe - Russian history, Ukrainian history, etc. - having been swept up in a tidal wave of POV refactoring. Please be reminded that subject matter revolving around Eastern Europe is subject of WP:ARBEE, and that considerations of WP:WEIGHT (most prominantly WP:BALASPS) are of primary concern. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag removal

Poeticbent -- please don't remove proper tags, such as the tag requesting references, as you did here, without resolving the problem. That certainly wasn't done -- the article remains largely unreferenced. All unreferenced sentences are challenged, and subject to deletion unless inline RS refs are added. Also, please in your edit summary, when you removal a maintenance tag, so indicate. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Epeefleche. I'm sure you noticed I removed your all-encompassing flag only when I added a book source of my own to wp:lede which is extremely well referenced. This is a misunderstanding of sorts. The article has 19 citations, two books sources, and four external links. We do not deface articles like that with a drive-by flag. Please, read the full description of your template (quote): Unlike Citation needed, Refimprove places a very conspicuous banner in the article [emphasis mine]. There is also a {Refimprove section} and the normal variations... (end of quote). Your tag is not a "proper tag" in this article so please don't call it that. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Poeticbent. First -- if you indicated in your edit summary that you were removing a tag, I didn't see it. Nor did I see you fully address the issue that the tag calls for. That tag was created to address situations where there the article needs additional citations for verification. Such is the case here. It asks that editors please help improve the article by adding citations to reliable sources. That was not done for all of the article. And it indicates that unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Of course, unsourced material can be removed per wp:v without any prior notice at all. But the tag is a way to alert editors beforehand, that an editor can avail himself of. Before I delete further material from this article I wanted editors to be on notice of the issue, and that unsourced material may be deleted. Please don't deprive them of that notice. This tag was developed and is used for precisely the purposes for which it has been used here -- of course the tag is proper, and its application appropriate, and any subsequent deletions will be appropriate in accord with wp:v, and can be fixed then with RS inline refs if they are deleted. This is all normal course, and takes place in hundreds of thousands of articles across the project I would expect. BTW -- the issue isn't how many refs the article has ... it is that certain text, in this case a substantial amount, are unreferenced. Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeating redundancy all over again

What is the purpose of the phrase "actual real historic" wolf trap? Wouldn't any single one of these words suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B151:34C0:485E:BE26:DE8D:7FBD (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, 78.18.251.161 (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of Karl E. H. Seigfried Norse site

Bloodofox, I would be happy to discuss the use of this reference with you here. As I said, in the comment, the editor of the site NorseMyth.org is a Norse scholar Karl E. H. Seigfried, and the use of the reference is explicitly attributed to his conversation with the author Mark Barrowcliffe, who himself did a lot of investigation in the symbol. Their discussion, and Barrowcliffe's findings, are recorded on the Norse site and a valid (and useful) RS. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Pinging user for IP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

First off, Seigfried's site—"THE NORSE MYTHOLOGY BLOG"—is, as its name makes it explicit, a self-published blog. As for "expertise", Seigfried holds a doctorate in music, not any discipline related to topics like Old Norse mythology (which scholars approach primarily through historical linguistics, folklore studies, or religious studies). Seigfried's blog is not in compliance with WP:RS and needs to be removed.

What has Seigfried published, as in not self-published, on this topic? I can't find anything at all. Next, if Barrowcliffe—a fiction writer—has published anything on this topic through a non-self published venue of relevance, we should be looking into citing that rather than an interview on this blog, and that's also unlikely to pass muster, as he's also doesn't appear to have any particular expertise relevant to this topic. Next, you restored a bunch of junk sources—personal websites with flags, archived old blogs, etc. Those all need to go. Anything that is not in compliance with WP:RS will not stay on this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

His own BLP states: "He is Norse Religion Faculty at Carthage College, where he teaches in the Religion Department.[17] He teaches Norse mythology at Loyola University Chicago's School of Continuing and Professional Studies and at the Newberry Library. He maintains "The Norse Mythology Blog", which was a finalist for "Best Weblog About Religion" in the 2011 Weblog Awards.[18] In 2010, Seigfried presented a paper titled "Wagner & Wotan: The Ring Cycle & Norse Mythology" at the Wagner Society of America,[19] and his essay "Stephen Hawking: The Myths and the Critics" was featured at the Joseph Campbell Foundation.[20] He is a member of the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study, the Viking Society for Northern Research, and the Religion Newswriters Association." Therefore he is a norse academic, AND, his site has been noted by awards. It is just not credible to call his material on Norse junk or his site junk. That is a POV, not an RS opinion. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

PS, the other links in EL and the minifossi ref are nothing to do with me. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

His Wikipedia article is not relevant to his blog. Anyone can join those societies, an unpublished grad student can teach those courses, and his self-published blog, whatever awards from whatever websites it may have recieved, does not put it in compliance with WP:RS. The fact that he presented a paper at the Wagner Society of America is also meaningless for our purposes here. Again, find peer-reviewed material from experts or just expect it to be removed again and again. Wikipedia has sourcing standards that we're expected to respect.

And, finally, yes, you restored all those junk links that I removed when you reverted me and reinserted this self-published blog. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant to his credibility as to him being a Norse academic - which he is. It is also relevant that his NorseMyth.org site was been acclaimed. It is not junk. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Those other links are not supported by me. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to review Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper): "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." — You've repeatedly restored the blog links—so where are these reliable, independent publications? And why have you readded all those other websites? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This person is a subject matter expert (to try and contrive an argument that he is not is just not credible). Also, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the content in the article in question is the faithful reproduction of the conversation with the two individuals and what Barrowcliffe discovered when he himself discussed the issue with other Norse experts. Thus the summary, is that it is disputed (and not outright rejected). I am pretty familiar with WP:RS and WP:V, and feel that there is a good case for maintaining this material, and that it is informative to the user. I certainly would not dismiss it out of hand as you do as being a blog from a non-expert, which is just not right. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication"—and this is a self-published blog ran solely by Seigfried. Then there's the fact that the status of the author of this blog as an "expert" in this material is itself very dubious. For example, one would expect plenty of peer-reviewed published material on this topic from an individual who is an "expert" on it. So where is it? Where are those "independent sources" that WP:SPS requires?

Really, if the author of the blog was obviously an "established expert", we wouldn't even be having this conversation—that should be enough of a red flag for you to question what you're putting forth here. Experts regularly publish peer-reviewed material in their field of expertise—and you are so far unable to provide anything comparable. If you can provide that, then we can discuss why we should then use an interview that Seigfried conducted with a fiction novelist as a source for these claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again per KARL E. H. SEIGFRIED, he is and expert. And per WP:RSSELF he is someone being published by (and teaching at) academic institutions. Trying to argue ad Infinitum otherwise is not productive. He has even written for the US Department of Defence on the subject. His "blog" as you try to denigrate it (and not to the benefit of WP readers), was named the world's Best Religion Weblog in 2012, 2013, and 2014. It is the first religion blog to enter the Weblog Awards Hall of Fame. So, a Norse expert chronicling the investigations into an area on his internationally acclaimed subject-matter site, and faithfully reproduced in the WP article to clarify the context, is validly sourced and verified (and useful to readers) material. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, "The Norse Mythology Blog" is just what it says on the label: A self-published blog. WP:SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."—you've yet to demonstrate any relevant independent publications, instead attempting to convince me that we should somehow carve out an exception for this guy's blog to be plastered all over this article. Enough is enough—go ahead and self-revert, and please remove all the junk links to dead sites you also restored while you're at it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already reverted. Winning an award for being a blog doesn't somehow make a blog not a blog. It's still a self-published source. I, too, would be interested in seeing if the author of the blog has had any work in the field published by reliable, independent publications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have given such an example on the RSN (which you never alerted me to). This is more like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Misrepresenting an expert and their well-regarded site despite being given references (per above) which you choose to ignore, despite what I show you. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Classification of the Wolfsangel as a neo-Nazi symbol

Due in part to its use by the Azov Battalion, there's recently been a big increase in reference to the symbol on other Wikipedia pages, such as in contemporary photos with a text that contains the phrase 'the Nazi/neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol'. I'm concerned about this as possibly WP:SYNTH: the symbol is certainly popular in neo-Nazi circles, perhaps because these groups idolise a fantasy in which neo-Nazi terrorism are part of some sort of surviving Werewolf organization, but there is a hidden inference being passed off here, that in each such case:

1. The symbol actually is a Wolfsangel, and not an accidental resemblance to one of the many forms the symbol has taken; and
2. The use of the symbol derives from its use by the Nazis, and is not a use deriving from its pre-modern significance that is innocent of association with Naziism.

Should we require that the references to the Wolfangel symbol provide sufficient context so that readers will be equipped to distinguish between neo-Nazi and 'innocent' uses of the device? Can we improve the article to educate editors to avoid SYNTH implications? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the ADL’s reference unambiguously ties it as a neo-nazi symbol. There has been some tilted editing in this article that the Azov battalion’s use of the Wolfsangel is not neo-nazi, but references in Black Sun (symbol) to it’s use by Azov implies that they do understand its neo-nazi ties (ie Black Sun is unambiguously neo-nazi). 31.187.0.68 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the last sentences in the Azov section should be moved where academics are quoted as saying that it does not have neo-nazi connections. Instead, the reader should be referred to the Azov Regiment#Neo-Nazism article (which is fully locked) for further discussion to avoid a WP:FORK here. 78.18.240.18 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That content is not specifically about its use by the Azov regiment, but more about how it's perceived in Ukraine. I think it's hard to argue that's something that isn't relevant to this page Tristario (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've taken it out and replaced with a link to the relevant section of the Azov article. 78.18.240.18 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. How the wolfsangel/idea of the nation is perceived and understood in Ukraine is very relevant to this article. That content isn't about why the azov regiment uses the symbol, it's about how it's perceived in Ukraine. The use of the symbol either in specific support of the Azov regiment or as a general symbol of support for the defense/independence of Ukraine is probably the most common use of the symbol right now, so excluding that from the article doesn't make any sense. Tristario (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that. However, the problem is that the issue of perception is a longer topic and one for which there are many high-quality refs that would disagree with the view asserted by those two sentences. My suggestion is that this issue is more comprehensively dealt with in the Azov Regiment article. Better we just recognize here that they use it and that they deny that they use it in a neo-nazi form, and then refer the reader to the main article. 78.18.240.18 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said it's not about why the Azov regiment is using the symbol, it's about the perception of the symbol in Ukraine, which is completely relevant to this article. Andreas Umland is one of the most respected experts in this area, Krytyka is a very high quality source, and Ivan Gomza is a well respected political scientist in this area. These are very strong sources.

It's clear the symbol is used by neo-nazis, that's covered very thoroughly in this page. This content is not violating WP:NPOV Tristario (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But there are plenty of other high-quality sources who say that when it is used it is always as a neo-nazi symbol. I'm sure those sources are great, but they should be played out in the Avoz Regiment article (neo-nazi section), and not here to avoid a WP:FORK. 78.18.240.18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a valid reason not to include this. If you want to add sources that say other things to this article, you're welcome to do so. WP:NPOV dictates that we represent viewpoints if they're represented by reliable sources, and, as I said, these are very strong sources. This is a well sourced addition, directly relevant to the articles (as relevant as anything else), and it does not violate WP:NPOV. You are not presenting any legitimate reasons that this should not be included. Tristario (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It is if it is just one side of the argument (which those two references are), and it is already considered a contentious topic (per the "E" grade locking of the main Azov article) for which WP:FORK is an important consideration. There are no absolutes in WP, but those sentences are a concern. Maybe we should run an RfC to either (1) state use and denial plus refer to the main article (Azov Regiment) for further understanding, or (2) allow this article to get into the debate about the nature of the use (as per the main article)? 78.18.240.18 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not about why the azov regiment is using the symbol, it's about the perception of the symbol in Ukraine, which is directly relevant to this article. I don't see why we need to run an rfc Tristario (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that the symbol has no history in Ukraine, outside of Azov-type entities, the Ukrainians would likely have little understanding/knowledge of it. I am sure most global populations would come to the same conclusion, but it doesn't mean that the users of the symbol don't know what they are doing (per the Azov Regiment article). I have added a reference that might give further balance here in the absence of avoiding the debate altogether. Hopefully, this will work. Thanks. 78.18.240.18 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for being agreeable Tristario (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)