Talk:Charun/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Charun. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Trojans in Italy?

I thought that was a Roman myth (popularised in the Aeneid) T@nn 16:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We're gonna fix that, as per my reasons on Talk:Etruscan_mythology#Trojans_into_Italy.3F. --Glengordon01 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To add to the lie about the origin of Charun, there are a few trolls that have a penchant for adding nonsense totally unrelated to this god, except by way of name alone. Sadly, this is an example of why the Wikipedia is doomed to be mediochre: Obscure subjects are maintained by a meager handful, while crackpots and trolls outnumber and overwhelm their efforts completely. --Glengordon01 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Charun's hammer

This edit stabbed me right in the eye: "Once there, he would use the hammer he always carried to bash their souls."

Yikes. Wikipedia tells us that we must believe in blind faith (blind = senseless) that people who've read next to nothing, nor have even analysed what little they've managed to read, on a particular subject are honestly capable of "helping". We are also assured that this is in no way a sign of human devolution but a sign of pro bono global cooperation.

I'm 99% sure that Charun doesn't "bash people's souls" with his hammer because he doesn't carry a hammer! It's not like this is some Black and Decker hammer you can get at Walmart for half price, people! Unplug your minds from the 21st century and walk like an Etruscan. This hammer is special since it's double-bladed. What could you possibly use a double-bladed hammer for in the real world, honestly?!

This "hammer" is properly called a labrys, a purely religious symbol like the christian cross or the Star of David that has no function in reality but speaks only of the Etruscans' view of the afterworld. The labrys was widespread in Greece, the Aegean and Western Turkey, coincidently from whence the Etruscans originate (nb. Herodotus). So now you all know what's going on and you won't repeat this acerebral simulacrum again, yes? Good.

--Glengordon01 10:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown me anything other than your own words that Charun doesn't carry a hammer.

De Ruyt says "hammer"
Rocco says "hammer"
Terpening says "hammer or mallet, although he occasionally acquires an oar despite the fact that it is extraneous to his Etruscan character and duties."
Rovin says "hammer (some accounts make it a sword)"
Turner says "hammer"
Gimbutas says "armed with a hammer is Charun"
Müller says "Etruscan figures of Mania, Mantua (Charun) with the hammer, the furies."
Starr says "Charun, with hammer poised to strike an unfortunate"
Rose says "he always carries a hammer" and cites the generally reliable Manfred Lurker as her source.

Both literary sources make reference to Charun's hammer as well. Terpening notes some later figures that use axes that may be derived from Charun, but the connection is very tenuous and he drops them only in a footnote (p. 18)--"the grant vilain" in Romance of the Hunbaut or the King of the Wood in the Vulgate Lancelot.

None of them say "labrys". You cite Beekes, but he never says anything to the effect that Charun carried a labrys. Where is your support? Until you can show me something that you haven't written that says Charun carried a labrys, you're nothing but a crackpot. Neither the image you posted nor either of the images presented in Terpening show him with anything that can be more clearly interpreted as an axe than a hammer. It takes a stretch of the imagination to see any of them as axes, and the style of the Etruscans looks much closer to contemporary realism than that of the Greeks or Romans. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins, please stop entering nonsense into the article. You claim that your source is the Aeneid (dated to the 1st c. BCE when Etruscan language/culture was on the wane) but unless you can provide a specific quote from it saying "Charun bashed souls", your baseless assertions have got to stop. --Glengordon01 23:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins, again with the crap. Why? You keep quoting sci-fi writers like Jeff Rovin and trash like "Encyclopedia of Monsters" or nobodies like Ronnie H. Terpeling. Since when does a scholar label Charun as a "monster"? Is Cookie Monster and Frankstein listed in the same book? If so, that's a clue that your sources are hog manure. Please, grow up. (Or if you're under 12, perhaps you should consider asking your parents to help you.)

Terpening refers to Charun as "a monster similar to demons in Chaldean civilization, or to Siva and Kali in India".--Scottandrewhutchins 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert S. P. Beekes is without a doubt a recognized scholar on a much higher level than "Encyclopedia of Monsters". He elaborates on the Etruscan labrys and its origins in The Origins of the Etruscans (pdf) (p.31-32). The Romans used the same symbolism called a bipennis. It's absolutely clear except to the purposely ignorant that Charun is holding a labrys here. People don't use double-headed hammers unless they're gonna hit themselves on the head along with the nail ;) The labrys isn't for anything other than ritual and religious iconography, not "bashing souls". So don't act like a fool and whine about "being insulted" when your knowledge of this subject is so clearly lacking.

As far as I'm concerned, you have nothing important to say on this. Just learn and move on. --Glengordon01 23:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"No occurences of 'Charun' were found in the document." Therefore, by Wikipedia standards of no original research, it is a non-source. Learn how to use Wikipedia before you start misusing jargon like "vandalism". You're not even spelling Terpening's name correctly, which shows that you're contemptible and imprecise. Your fervor shows you to be the more infantile one, since you're not being at all civil about this, when you're the one breaking the rules.Scottandrewhutchins 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some extra information for those who love facts... Other classical gods wield the labrys just as Charun does, such as Roman Jupiter Dolichenus, Greek Zeus Labraundos and Anatolian Teshub. The pattern then is evident. Those comparisons would be a lot more useful to this article than shoddy quotes from "Encyclopedia of Monsters", no? --Glengordon01 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I found no less than seven non-fiction print sources that say that Charun carried a hammer (as well as one fiction source and one poet who found inspiration in imagery of Charun, neither of which I have listed). If you remove these references, you are unquestionalby a vandal. You have not produced a single source that says that Charun carried a labrys, just one source that says the labrys is an improtant cultural symbol to the Etruscans. To claim that Charun carried a labrys based on the information you have provided is an explicit violation of the no original research credo, which I'm guessing you have not read or you would not be continuing to argue your case.. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth comparing Charun's device with the two-headed tool of the god Hephaestus in archaic and classical Greek vase painting. His devise was either a smith's mallet or an axe (labrys) depending on the context - where the god is also shown holding a set of tongs or seated at the forge, it is a metalworking mallet, and where he is shown stepping back after striking open the head of Zeus in Birth of Athena scenes it is usually described as an axe (by Greek poets). Perhaps a fair compromise would be to also describe Charun's device as a "double-headed tool, either a labrys axe or mallet". Theranos 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Theranos. I had been comparing Charun to other gods like Jupiter Dolichenus, Zeus Orosmasdes and Teshub in order to show that these implements are part of their iconography and not to be taken literally, but Scott decided to erase my contributions completely and compare Charun with... the Hindu Kali. (?!) --Glengordon01 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Boots and horses for the dead?

He presented the dead with boots and horses to take them to the Underworld.

This sentence sounds suspect like most everything else discussed in Etruscan mythology. For what purpose would Charun do this? Are the dead shoeless? Why would they require boots? I would really like to know the source of this sentence. (I mean, a real source, not off of flakey Wiccan sites who all copy each other's content.) I'm considering just deleting it and letting those who object to this action justify its re-entry. Yeah, that's what I'm gonna do... --Glengordon01 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rovin's The Fantasy Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia of Monsters[1] are your sources? Apparently you don't seem to notice that Jeff Rovin's specialty is "fantasy", not "historical accuracy". That would explain his other books like Encyclopaedia of Superheroes and the rest.

So I'm pretty sure that accredited universities don't consider Jeff Rovin an authoritative expert on Etruscan mythology. Maybe it's the colourful illustrations on the cover that tip us off that this is a book designed for gradeschoolers, not adults.

So I'm gonna take this out and classify it as nonsense. --Glengordon01 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins, please stop your vandalism

Stop inserting nonsense from sci-fi books. No, Encyclopedia of Monsters does not constitute an academic source. Get real. Adding the more generic "Underworld" link when there is already such a link at the very beginning of the article ("Charun is the psychopomp of the Etruscan underworld known as Aita") is more of your petty ego-inflation. This adds absolutely nothing to the article except your name tag.

The Origin of the Etruscans by Robert S. P. Beekes (p. 31-32) is a more valid academic source then Jeff Rovin's sci-fi novels, quite clearly. Since Beekes himself is quoting from an earlier source, it shows that it's understood in academic circles that Etruscans incorporated the labrys motif in their artwork. Other deities from surrounding contemporaneous cultures (which I've added to the article now) nail home what the true purpose of Charun's hammer really is, regardless of how many low-standard, non-academic publications may have repeated countless times the same rot you attempt to infuse into the article.

Perverting "sourced" to mean "any book of low standards" and provoking people into petty philosophical arguments is the sign of a vandal, Scottandrewhutchins. If we have to find some academic to specifically state for ignorant dolts: "Oh yes, Charun is NOT bashing souls with a hammer and DOES carry a bipennis" we'll be at this for the next 200 years trying to disprove an infinite heap of nonsense instead of moving forward.

You claim to have degrees according to your own bio. So then, doesn't your alma mater have a library where you can locate more sensible literature than Encyclopedia of Monsters? I shiver at the thought that your university could be so underfunded that you're honestly unable. --Glengordon01 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

None of your quotations have anything specifically to do with Charun. The link to "Underworld" was not a vandalism, it was what the article started with (and your link to Aita shows it as no different from Hades), so stop your baseless accusations of vandalism and allow for balance in the article. Excluding material from Terpening and including only Beekes would be lacking neutrality.

There was no article for Charun before I got here. Typing "Charun" got you Charon with a brief note claiming that "Charun" is Charon's Etruscan name. This I altrered and corrected. As per WIkipedia policy, GOOD-FAITH EDITS ARE NOT VANDALISM.

And I searched your PDF for mention of "Charun" and got no hits. A book that mentions Charun is a more valid source for this page than a book that does not.

Scottandrewhutchins 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Monsters is not a real book. It's toilet paper. Wrapping toilet paper around Wikipedia is still vandalism, even if you might find it amusing. --Glengordon01 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you've ever even read it, and even if you have, you still fail to understand what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. Nobody gives a crap about your research on the "bipennis" if you can't actually document it had anything to do with Charun. Scottandrewhutchins 11:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You caught me. Yes, it's true I don't read children's books about monsters. --Glengordon01 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's illogical to insist that a book that makes no reference whatsoever to Charun should be the sole source of a Charun page. I don't know of any library that places the book in question in the juvenile section. Scottandrewhutchins 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you have been browsing the juvenile section. Indeed :)

No, my statement was just the opposite. You interpret stragely and illogically, just like demanding that a book that never mentions Charun should be the sole source of the Charun page. Scottandrewhutchins 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Charun/Vanth versus Nergal/Ereshkigal

You know, this inane debate about "Charun bashing souls" led me to a sudden revelation. It's suspicious that Babylonians, from which the Etruscans probably derived their ritual of haruspicy during their stay in Lydia (Herodotus I.94) before 1200 BCE, believed also in certain things about the underworld which are perhaps parallel to the Etruscans.

The goddess Ereshkigal is basically the embodiment of the underworld itself while Nergal is the king of this domain. It seems to me that the two are straight-forward to correlate with Vanth and Charun, respectively. Just as Nergal is the god of pestilence and war, so too would Charun be. By holding the labrys, Charun then displays his authority over the underworld. Vanth always trails along then for an obvious reason: She is both the consort of Charun and the underworld personified.

Indeed, in one artifact (picture here), we see Charun holding both a sword and the labrys while guiding a horseman to the underworld as Vanth leads. This is a clear sign that Charun's either absurdly over-prepared or that Charun's hammer isn't for "head cracking". Instead, the labrys here is a symbol of his divine authority as usual and that extra sword then is a symbol of his connection with war, just as we find with Nergal. Vanth is placed ahead of the horseman and Charun probably because Charun, a psychopomp afterall, is pushing the deceased on horseback to the underworld while Vanth represents the underworld destination in human form.

I think it's an interesting interpretation of Etruscan myth and I'm just curious (but doubtful considering the abysmal state of literature on Etruscan culture/religion/language) that others might have spotted a reference that states this outright. I can't believe I'm the only one noticing this. --Glengordon01 09:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a mallet, not a labrys, and explains Rovin's "some accounts make it a sword.". --Scottandrewhutchins 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

More Jeff Rovin propoganda

I don't currently have access to Rovin, but that might have been where his source got the idea that Charun presents horses to the souls of the dead for their travel. Rovin sucks at bibliography. I don't know how he gets away with it. I don't know if Terpening mentions this, since I don't have acces to it right now, either (I got them both out of libraries in another state and haven't checked my library here for them). Scottandrewhutchins 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well now we're getting somewhere. So basically, you're admitting that this is Rovin's unique, non-specialist perspective of things. Then it has to be explicitly stated that this is the case. But if you're saying that "Rovin sucks at bibliography" then that makes any defense of Rovin's opinions most dubious. --Glengordon01 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And your defense of Beeks as a source is dubious when he says nothing about Charun. I'm sure he is an expert on Etruscan culture, but if he doesn't say anything about the figure in question, one MUST draw from another source. Scottandrewhutchins 22:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Never a sci-fi source. --Glengordon01 08:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a sci-fi source, so stop saying that it is. Scottandrewhutchins 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia of Monsters" is "a fascinating suspense thriller" then. You're clearly not in your right mind. --Glengordon01 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a reference book, not a work of fiction. You must be Beekes's student assistant. You're clearly obsessed with someone who says nothing about the figure in question.Scottandrewhutchins 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as Rovin and bibliographies go, he cites a source for each entry, but as mythhological figures go, he just says, "Etruscan mythology" and gives rough dates or some such. Scottandrewhutchins 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm here from the Neutrality project to weigh in. I'm not at all familiar with Charun, but I am familiar with the Encyclopedia of Monsters. It's a reference book. It lists monster of mondern myth as well as ancient mythology, but I don't see how that's a reason to dismiss it as a source. Glengordon01, you're repeatedly said that Encyclopedia of Monsters isn't a reliable source, but other than ad biblium dismissal, you haven't said what's wrong with it. Can you be specific as to why your source is reliable and this one isn't? Ace of Sevens 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a Ctrl-F on his source and it doesn't even mention Charun, though it goes into detail about the labrys. Insistence that what most sources say is a hammer is really the labrys if your source doesn't say so seems to be original research, except that most sources list an axe as an alternative.Scottandrewhutchins 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

French page

The French Wikipedia Charun page says that Charun tortures the souls of the dead, although not what with. Torture is definite hyperbole for what the Greek Charon does. Scottandrewhutchins 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bon, mon antagoniste obsessif-compulsif. J'ai modifié l'article français en le traduisant de l'anglais. Si tu comprends bien le français au lieu d'utiliser le babelfish altavista, formidable. Je viens juste de demandé le monde franco, il était une semaine déjà, à Charun (french) s'ils connaissent un seul fait qui puisse le prouvé.

Rien! Voilà. Je crois que tes chicaneries pseudo-scolaires sont un grand gaspie des beaux jours d'été. Honêtement, si tu le recherche proprement, tu vois qu'il y a plein de bêtises qui sont imprimés dans les livres non-spécialisés concernant la langue, la mythologie, le culture et la religion étrusque. Mais il faut le rechercher pour soi-même! Je n'essaie pas de faire de bataille, mais je n'en vois rien ici et tu te répètes. Ton marteau t'as coupé la tête. --Glengordon01 03:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian page

The Italian Wikipedia Charun page says "il colpo mortale con un martello". I doubt Jeff Rovin reads Italian. You may not like it, but Charun using a "hammer" is not a piece of science fiction, and Glengordon01's removals of it are vandalism. Scottandrewhutchins

What is your problem? It's pathetic. I can read Italian and French, thanks. And when the Italian and French Wikipedias decide to source their garbage, then you can have a dance on my grave, okay? Till then, you're an obnoxious child that will have to be reprimanded for excessive posts about a very beaten dead horse. --Glengordon01 00:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter, I'm a mega-polyglot. I hatched out a plea on the Italian Wikipedia for anyone to give evidence showing that Charun chops people with his hammer (Discussione:Charun). If anyone has anything to back up your silly claims, the fact that we are turning up nothing despite banding Wikipedias together in three different languages should give you a major clue that you're barking up a bad tree, Scott. The fact that a dumb idea has been senselessly propogated into the public stream of consciousness doesn't mean that the idea is true or verified. --Glengordon01 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Glengordon, you still have yet to cite a source that actually mentions Charun. I did the Ctrl-F on the PDF you provided. The leap you are asking for is non-encyclopedic original research, whcih you should understand if you had read Wikipedias policies. I'm not finding fault with it, I'm just saying that it doesn't belong until you publish your paper on it first, certainly not with the removal of other ideas.Scottandrewhutchins 01:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still whining and sourceless. --Glengordon01 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE, GLENGORDON01? How many times do I have to ask for a source other than yourself? -- Scottandrewhutchins 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As are you, only you're using uncivil language and ad hominem attacks, which makes you the worse. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ironic for you, considering that attacking me for my attacks is still an ad hominem. Focus on the topic of Charun, troll. --Glengordon01 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're a troll not focusing on the topic of Charun by deleting material that isn't in your source, but since your source includes nothing on Charun it is irrelevant in terms of this page. You're the troll, presenting unverifiable original research in violation of Wikipedia's basic credos.--Scottandrewhutchins 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish page

Okiedokie, make that four languages now. I posted a comment to Discusión:Mitología etrusca on the Spanish Wikipedia. I can't even speak Spanish. Let's see who inputs. I'm curious what the world has to say actually but still doubt there will be solid facts around. I should have polyglotted like this before :) Quite frankly, Scott, the least you could do now is cover the Germanic or Chinese languages while we're waiting to try and prove your horse dung. Don't be a lazy scholar now. Get snappy :) --Glengordon01 06:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're claiming I wrote those entries? Scottandrewhutchins 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You're not absorbing. A popular idea is not the same as a factual or proven idea. Duh. You're too busy whining to be helpful to this subject so far. Instead of focussing on me, build a case. Prove to skeptical ol' me or others that this is based on a whole slew of stuff. Treat my challenge like a fun easter egg hunt. --Glengordon01 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an idea that can be documented as per Wikipedia's rules of verifiability, whereas yours cannot. Therefore, learn how to use Wikipedia or leave. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're twisting things to suit your agenda. Tagging an article excessively with four or more tags is blatant vandalism. To persist at an edit war for the sake of something so terribly trivial for weeks on end is blatant vandalism.

Just settle down and relax. Jeff Rovin is not a real source and I see that you're more into comic-book related information (as per your recent edit of "Anubis"), not true Etruscan mythology, so that's where your interest in this obviously lies. Mine is Etruscan mythology and what you say on that topic however is completely false. Stick to comics. --Glengordon01 18:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided ten sources, you have provided zero. Learn the rules. And the fact that I have written about comic books is irrelevant to my ability to write about mythology.--Scottandrewhutchins 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

10? As in base-10 or binary? Your interest in comic books shouldn't impair your ability to write about mythology but if that's all you're contributing here so far than your innocence is suspect. If you were really sincere about mythology, I would see some valid contributions from you in that regard. But so far, you've been attacking my Etruscan/Aegean-related contributions and not seriously addressing the petty historical issues that you bring up. Please read my comment to you about your Franz De Ruyt source on my talk page, thank you. --Glengordon01 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Protection by a troll (Scottandrewhutchins) successfully destroys this article

All I can say is... "Wow!". It's hard not to believe that you're a little off your rocker at this point. The completely unorganized edits you have made, combined with your non-specialist sources from sci-fi authors like Jeff Rovin have successfully destroyed this article completely and made it into a POV circus.

Anybody caught up on the subject will know now how far gone you are, though, and will have all the less faith in Wikipedia's ability to handle vandals. So congratulations. You win your crackpot edit war and now Wikipedia will have us believe that "Charun bashes souls", no matter how inane that quite obviously sounds. You're so obsessed with petty semantics that you make me cry at the sheer shallowness of your understanding of the subject.

All I can do is appeal to online Etruscanologists out there to attempt to wrestle the remote control away from your psychotic hands so that this article reestablishes some small degree of sanity again. --Glengordon01 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of sources, all I can say is Scottandrewhutchins: 11, Glengordon01: 0. The page got locked because you have repeatedly failed to show a single source that supports your edits, yet, like a madman, insist that people should believe your edits. Evidence is the name of the game, and when you provide some, people will take you seriously. To any rational person, the one who can't supply the evidence (Glengordon01) is the troll. --Scottandrewhutchins 11:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic nonsense:

An urn found in the Etruscan crater depicts Charun with Ajax slaughtering Trojan prisoners. (Layman misunderstanding of crater versus krater!)

( This is the spelling in Terpening. --Scottandrewhutchins )

Charun loves violence and participating in warfare. (Emotive rhetoric)

( See below --Scottandrewhutchins )

Rovin says that some accounts (though he does not say which) (Admits lack of source; hearsay)

( Rovin's exact words: "He carries a hammer (some accounts make it a sword) with which he clubs his victims." --Scottandrewhutchins )

Rovin says that some accounts [...]depict him with a sword, and that he "slices" souls with it. (No existing artifact; baseless hearsay)

( exact quote: "once there, he spends eternity bashing or slicing their souls". --Scottandrewhutchins )

He adds that Charun enjoys natural disasters, as well. (Emotive rhetoric; artistic license)

( see below --Scottandrewhutchins )

The Charon of Vergil in the Aeneid is particularly cruel; (Greek-Etruscan myth comparisons assumptive)

( Summing up of the argument in the quotation that follows --Scottandrewhutchins )

According to W.F. Jackson Knight[4], "Vergil's Charon is [...] but more than half his Etruscan self, Charun,[...]" (Non-academic author; baseless hearsay again)

( in what way is Knight non-academic? He is being cited by an academic (Terpening). --Scottandrewhutchins )

[...]the Etruscan torturing death-devil, no ferryman at all." (Emotive rhetoric)

( exact quote form Knight. --Scottandrewhutchins )

If the above criticisms are considered insulting, then I'd dare say we've just entered a new Dark Ages with little hope of survival. --Glengordon01 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The above criticisms are groundless and attack each source without giving a reaosn why they should be disbelieved, other than you say that they shouldn't. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insert comments *WITHIN* my list above without even signing any of them! You're confusing people in thinking that I've said this stuff and that's unfair! These are NOT my quotes! Keep your list of comments separate from mine in the future. Thank you. --Glengordon01 11:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just need to also point out how Wikipedia has so entirely perverted the concept of "sources" to prefer indirect sources over direct ones. Available pictures of Charun are in fact on WikiMedia Commons (Remember? Your sister site?):

Charun has a rest on a hammer

Nothing whatsoever showing "torture", "killing" or "bashing". His "hammer" is nothing but a prop.

Charun grits his foul teeth

Here we again see absolutely nothing. He is simply standing there with the "hammer" in hand. It's the sword penetrating the victim from another hand that is "torturing" anyone. But God forbid, we state the obvious: Charun is the lord of death and oversees passively the slaughter of the victim as any grim reaper would do.

( This is the urn with Ajax on it. Charun certainly looks poised to strike, though it could be argued that he isn't. I don't see how his hammer in this image can be interpreted as a labrys, even given the level of stylization. --Scottandrewhutchins )

A slightly less angry Charun with hammer

Do you see any chopping? I don't. Please show me where the blood splatter is on that hammer. The hammer is simply held up. That's it.

( Terpening shows this picture, which is detailed enough to unquestionably show that Chaurn carries a mallet and not a labrys. --Scottandrewhutchins )

There's that Charun again

Okay, this has gotta be him bashing people, right? Nope. Sorry try again. He's holding that hammer up high again but I don't see any decapitations.

( I admit, he's not bashing anyone, but again, I say it's definitely a hammer he is holding, not a labrys. This image is in an illustrative style that makes it look relatively contemporary, though I'm familiar with this image. I'm curious where this image was found and why it looks so contemporary. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) )

So, frankly, this obsession of "sources" just goes to show that there is a fine line between the unquestioning 99% and 1% who are worthy to be considered scholars on that matter. When you find an Etruscan artifact showing what you're claiming, I will swallow what you say. Until then, I just know way too damn much to be believe these memes. --Glengordon01 14:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If the 1% doesn't mention Charun, it's perverting their writings to use them as an encyclopedic source. If you know so much, you'd be willing to cite a source where you got the information, and thus far you have refused to show us anyhting but your interpretation of a paragraph from Beekes that says nothing about charun. If you know so much, demonstrate what you know by providing support, otherwise, this is a soapbox for Glengordon01's opinions about Charun, and nobody cares about your opinions until you've published your paper about it in a peer-reviewed academic journal, after which you can cite it here. you still have demonstrated no comprehension whatsoever of Wikipedia:no original research. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have added comments *within* my entries. This is really foul. Please cease this immediately. If you need to comment on my points, reiterate them in your own entry. Do not pervert my input with yours and mix them together without signing each line! You're only helping to confuse others as to who said what. --Glengordon01 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find ironic you're accusing Scottandrewhutchins of being a troll when you're the one whose behavior has been deplorable. All your sources imply your PoV at best. He's provided definitive statements of what he's arguing. Your position amounts to we shoudl take your word for it because you're more knowldgeable than him or his sources. As for how we know this, we need to take your word on that, too. I think this is a good illustration of why sources are needed. Ace of Sevens 18:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not valid facts. Authors are not substitutes for tangible artifacts. --Glengordon01 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A corollary rule: popularity contests are not science.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

"Charun loves violence and participating in warfare" is one of many phrases now edited in that violate these simple WP rules. Who really is the troll? Despite writing off the human species as a whole, I always state clear information for the 1%. --Glengordon01 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Terpening, p. 14-15: "More characteristically, Charun is an observer of violent death, a messenger of destiny as it were, or a demon who separates the defunct from her/his family and leads the dead to the infernal regions. In general, Charun is an implacable monster, a cruel, sinister, death-demon...

Rovin, p. 50: "Charun is a connoisseur of violence and, in his free time, enjoys watching warfare or natural disasters on earth."

Terpening also shows the urn cited in the article in which Ajax is stabbing a Trojan in the shoulder, and Charun looks poised to beat said Trojan in the head with his hammer. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You just aren't listening. I already showed you in the above link that very urn: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Charun_hammer_CdM.jpg

The point is Charun "looks poised to beat said Trojan". Ergo, Terpening is expressing an opinion, not fact. The picture clearly shows that Charun is not in contact with the Trojan soldier and there is simply no guarantee that Charun is even going to hit him. His axe is simply raised as is found in most all depictions, even when no victim is present. We can all see that there is reasonable doubt here and the authors you cite are clearly stating opinions, not facts. Reasonable doubt is how Law works. Do you think you're above that too? You are abusing Burden of proof (logical fallacy) by forcing people to prove that a baseless opinion is false. --Glengordon01 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I was not quoting Terpening when I said "looks poised". I said that was my opinion, and as such, I put it only on the talk page. Your opinion is that the hammer is an axe, an opinion no one seems to share with you. all I have asked you to do is prove that your baseless opinion is true, and you have refused, and delete all other opinions, despite the fact that they are from published scholars. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terpening is stating an opinion. "How many share an opinion" will never ever ever change an opinion into a fact. --Glengordon01 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Glengordon01 is a troll who should be banned from Wikipedia

Glengordon01, I have asked you repeatedly to provide a quotation from someone other than yourself for your claims of the following:

Charun carried a labrys rather than a hammer. Your quotation noted other religious figures with a labrys, which is not being denied, but using that as your evidence is like saying, "Hermes carried a caduceus, therefore Charon carried a caduceus".

That Charun's hammer (or labrys) carries only a symbolic function.

That Charun did not torture souls, when multiple sources say that he did.

Thus far, you have refused, and you have resorted to uncivil language as an alternative. By definition, you are the troll. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, as explained above, you are abusing Burden of proof (logical fallacy) by forcing people to prove that Terpening et al.'s baseless opinions are false. Trolls usually twist things like this. --Glengordon01 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Glengordon, you are the one abusing burden of proof, by refusing to provide a base that your opinions are true, therefore your opinions are baseless and violate the no original research credo. You're twisting things around, and demanding that you don't need to provide support that your opinions are true. I have provided support that the facts presented on the page are considered true by a multitude of shcolars, something you have failed to do. If you could provide support for your ideas, then the claims of others could be in a section of oft-reported misinformation, but you have provided no reason to believe that what you say is anything other than misinformation; thus demonstrating that you do not even understand the rhetorical concept from which you are arguing. Your opinions have no place in a Wikipedia article without support. No one cares what Glengordon01's opinion about Charun is, and those who delete Glengordon01's unsupported opinion are not trolls, Glengordon01 is a troll and a vandal. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your original claim: Charun bashes souls

My complaint: There is no evidence, only author's opinions

Your response: You're a troll, vandal, I'm not gonna listening to you. --Glengordon01 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins now vandalizing Vanth

More vandalism at Vanth now. He has reintroduced claims that were blatantly sourceless and absurd from long ago to further harass. --Glengordon01 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Glengordon01 demonstrates he has no writing ability: "I'm not gonna listening to you.", nor any clue as to what vandalism really is. Glengordon commits hypocrisy any time he uses the term "sourceless"; therefore, his edits are all worthless and should all be reverted. -- Scottandrewhutchins 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Civil by Scottandrewhutchins (here and on my talk page):

Glengordon01 demonstrates he has no writing ability. (chuckle)
You are a hypocrite, therefore your edits are worthless and should all be reverted. (chuckle)
You're unashamed because you refuse to recognize that you are incompetent. (chuckle, chuckle)

--Glengordon01 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Glengordon01, "0 sources=sourced, eleven sources=unsourced". This could only be the belief of someone not in their right mind or deliberately creating a nuisance. The former belief would be characteristic of incompetence; the latter belief would be characteristic of an internet troll. No other options for interpreting that belief are valid. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications from Terpening

Clarifications from Terpening:

- Without commenting on the original Wikipedia article on Charun, let me clarify one or two points, since my book on Charon and the Crossing has occasionally been cited in this discussion (which, I have to admit, I've only skimmed in haste). - 1) I deal with the transformations in literature of the underworld boatman from his first appearances in classical literature, through the Middle Ages (primarily Italian), and the Italian Renaissance. I'm interested in literary representations of Charon, though I do include illustrations of Charon (and Charun) in art, without discussing them however. - 2) I deal specifically with the Etruscan Charun in the introduction and as part of a very brief presentation of what "Comparative mythologists in the late nineteenth century" had to say about a ferryman of the dead. Quite often, these comparisons are far-fetched. (I'm not referring to Charun when making this statement.) - 3)My comments on the Etruscan figure reference both Franz De Ruyt (1934) and Serafino Rocco (1897), as noted in the discussion (thus the use of the term "hammer" or "mallet"). - 4)Re: "What could you possibly use a double-bladed hammer for in the real world, honestly?!" How about a sledge hammer? They look remarkably similar to what Charun is holding in the illustration on pp. 14, 45, 81,and 91 in my book. Compare these "mallet"-like implements to the labrys on Wikipedia. Quite different. The so-called blade (in the Charun scenes) is not curved as it is in a double-bladed axe. Compare an Etruscan axe (such as the fasces, an example of which can be found at this site http://www.ronterpening.com/extras/fasc_symb.htm) to what Charun holds and they're quite different. The "mallet"-like implement seen on the "Sacrifice of Trojan prisoners with Charun," a reconstruction found in the Archaeological Museum in Florence is CLEARLY not an axe. It has round objects at each end of the "mallet." Looks like croquet! - 5) What about the Charun-like figure in the Roman Colosseum, used to dispatch (with a mallet, if I remember correctly) any victims not yet dead (and about to be pulled out of the gate of death)? Can't remember the source for this (it's been 20 years since I worked on Charon) and don't believe I mentioned it in my book, but I do recall reading about it somewhere. [No need to attack this as a vague reminiscence; that's all I'm presenting it as.] - 6) There are numerous depictions on sarcophagi of Charun leading the defunct, seen on horseback (the dead, not Charun). - 7) There are depictions (identified as Charun) on Etruscan amphorae, showing him with, not a caduceus, but the same object carried by Hermes (p. 94 and most clearly p. 100 in my book). I'm not an expert on these visual images but it almost looks like a Dionysian thyrsus! (Feel free to criticize this conjecture of the moment.) - 8)Re: Ronnie H. Terpeling. Very creative! I've occasionally used pseudonyms for books I've published, but this is not one; maybe I'll think about it for a future title. - 9) Krater vs crater. As an Italianist, I'm influenced by the Italian "cratere" and less concerned than some with preserving an archaic Greek spelling, even though it's more "scholarly." I checked the four English dictionaries near my desk as I write and every single one cites both usages. - 10) Monster, as I used it, is a synonym for "death-demon." Charun often assists at violent death (which is how I believe I may have expressed it in my book, using "assists" in the Italian sense of "assistere" (to be present at) or "attendere." Charun does have frightening features in some illustrations. That's all "monster" means--a creature who deviates from the norm (grotesquely often), thus Charun's pointed animal ears, hooked nose, big lips, snaky hair, etc. I have many images (not in the book) of Charun as a horrific figure. - That's it from me. I may not have grasped the crux of several of these issues, since I had time only to skim these entries, but I've tried to hit a few of the main points that reference my name and book (Charon and the Crossing: Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance Transformations of a Myth). - Ronterp 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Ron Terpening

Charun image

re: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Charun_dead_souls_CdM.jpg

Here we have an image of Charun leaning casually on either his double-bladed axe, as some of you would have it, or on his mallet (as others have it). Let's see, we all lean on our axes because we know they don't really cut, right? I doubt this is an axe. Since we have no written ETRUSCAN sources that refer to either object, I guess it comes down to what you can see with your own eyes, right? Everything else is the conjecture of a scholar or a layman. Ronterp 18:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)R. Terpening

This is more a matter of semantics. It may be a "hammer" in a literal sense (yes, yes, yes :P), but I'm not looking at the surface when I say it's a "labrys". It's still a "labrys" in the sense that this is the immediate source of the hammer symbolism and the labrys is in turn traceable to Anatolia. It's like arguing about whether different types of crosses are still able to be called "crosses" or whether they are too different and need a new terminology. Ugh, who cares about these semantics?! It doesn't change the past. It doesn't change where these symbolisms came from. Things aren't just invented ex nihilo, not even religious symbols.

However, in this article (if it's EVER unblocked again, sigh) we should then say something like "Charun carries a hammer" FULL STOP. Anything about interpretations should be labeled as such explicitly, even when sourced, in a new paragraph. The very first paragraph should only deal with facts and no doubt this introduction will be tiny. A following mention of, say, an iconographic relationship between the labrys and hammer should be added, and I have found quotes pertaining to this connection under the topic of general European comparative mythology (listed somewhere below under a pile of bitter Scottandrewhutchins comments). --Glengordon01 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Question on Charun image

re: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Charun_dead_souls_CdM.jpg

One final question any viewer should ask (when looking at the image referenced above) is this:

Would Charun be casually leaning on a religious symbol?

Or (a second question): Would he more likely casually lean on a "mallet"?

Which seems more likely? You don't have to be an expert to answer this!

Earlier, when I referred to the mallet-like object in reconstructed scene found in the Archaeological Museum in Florence, I used the term "round" for the ends of the mallet. By round, I mean in circumference. The objects at each end of the "mallet" have the shape of a hockey puck. They assuredly do not have the shape of an axe.

Ronnie H. Terpening 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Ron Terpening, Professor, University of Arizona

If that were an axe, Glengordon01, why is he not impaling himself? The gods frequently get injured in myths, so that's not a good reason. You'd really have to force yourself pretty darn hard against a mallet to do any damage. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Glengordon01 self-incriminates his own violation of Wikipedia credos on his own talk page. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion page

This was listed at the 3rd opinion page. I have read the entire lengthy discussion here, purused the article history, read the article on the french wikipedia and its talk page, and read everyone involved's talk pages. I think the first thing that is really needed here is A nice cup of tea. I think Scottandrewhutchins and Glengordon01 need to take a deep breath, step back from the computer, and go do something outside in the lovely August sunshine, and come back when they are more relaxed. I think it was wonderful of Ron Terpening to come to wikipedia to clarify the statements in his book, which Scottandrewhutchins has been using as a source, and respond to Glengordon01's questions. I really think it would be polite and prudent for Scottandrewhutchins and Glengordon01 to thank Ron Terpening on his talk page.

All of that said, I took a look at all the images of Charun pictured here, and to me that object looks like a hammer or mallet. However, what I think the object looks like does not matter, what matters is what published writers (of which Ron Terpening is one) think that object is. As Scottandrewhutchins has repeatedly pointed out, Glengordon01 has not told us who (other than he himself) believes that object to be an ax.

Ancient mythology is a problematic area for study. Ancient cultures left little in the way of written records (much of their mythology was oral), and much of what they left has subsequently been destroyed. We are left with confusing, and sometimes contradictory, fragments of worn, barely-legible manuscripts in often dead languages and with fragments of artwork which were made for people familiar with the myth and require some interpretation. Even among dedicated scholors there is often disagreement as to what is what.

In cases where there is such disagreement, Wikipedia should embrace it, presenting the contradictory viewpoints and the reasoning behind them, and naming scholors who maintain each position. By working together to ensure that all such information is included in the article the layperson is able to make informed decisions as to what to believe.

But instead of working together Scottandrewhutchins and Glengordon01 have been fighting and engaging in an edit war that has gotten this article protected so that no one can edit it at all.

With dedicated time and effort the two of you working together could turn this into a good, or maybe even a featured article. I don't think that's too high to aim for this article that was once called a perma-stub and erroneously re-directed.

In sum, my opinion (which you asked for on the 3rd opinion page): Please, calm down, work together, stop acting like children, mention the dispute (and both viewpoints) in the article, source your information well, and shoot for an article that is of a quality to be nominated for Good Article.

Of course, the page will have to be un-protected before that can happen. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well put ONUnicorn! I will unprotect this page as soon as Scottandrewhutchins and Glengordon01 both agree to try their hardest to follow the suggestions that you gave and not engage in an edit war. —Mets501 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as Glengordon01 doesn't delete stuff he doesn't like and put up his own ideas that he can't cite, I have no problem with ending the edit war. He can put his comments up as long as he doesn't delete the well-source material I have provided, and if he puts his labrys claim I can put ^{[citation needed]} by it and have him not revert it. --Scottandrewhutchins 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, once I get Glengordon01's thumbs up, I'll unprotect the page. —Mets501 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the page still needs to be protected by a third party, even if it means that I don't contribute to it. --Glengordon01 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so you can put your unsourced information in and keep my sourced information out. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't start this again! We don't need any more attacks. —Mets501 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely why (in re of this charged emotivity). --Glengordon01 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I was simply reiterating the facts of the case. Glengordon01 has repeatedly refused requests to document his claims, and has demanded we take a leap (his word) that constitutes original research. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, your misinterpretations of me or "what I demand" are not "facts" by any recognized definition. If you have trouble separating facts from your emotional rhetoric, you will not be able to contribute effectively on the Wikipedia. --Glengordon01 06:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole problem began when you couldn't separate facts from your opinion. I don't see where I was getting emotional. You were the one using charged, uncivil language. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have been using emotional language and uncivil tactics. That's why one of my first suggestions was to get off the computer and go do something else until you were a little more calm and willing to listen to reason and make compremises. I'm beginning to think this might be a situation where a RFC might be appropriate. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Have I been now uncivil? I'm really trying to move on despite continued ad hominems but I don't feel reciprocation.

The "Charun bashes souls" idea may be popular and published but no literature I have ever come across has justified this idea by the existing artifacts. We cannot let author opinion supercede reality. Ergo, all I want is that this opinion is explained as such and not contorted into an "absolute fact". When an Etruscan artifact is found with Charun literally chopping people or some Etruscan text that explains that this is what Charun does, then we can finally call this "fact". All known artifacts only show Charun present with his hammer, nothing else.

A sensible third party must not only be arbitrator between people, but be sufficiently knowledgable (or at least willing to learn) in the subject in which they intervene. --Glengordon01 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't think you have been uncivil, Glengordon? Do you believe that name-calling is civilized behavior? You have called Scottandrewhutchins a troll, a vandal, and implied that he and the authors he cites as sources are stupid, uneducated, incompetent, and even illiterate in at least 2, probably 4 different languages (I can only read English and French). That is uncivil. He has also engaged in name calling, calling you a crackpot, and I believe a troll and a vandal as well. Hence my statement that BOTH of you have been uncivil.

At its heart, I believe this began as a genuine content dispute, and as such it should be about the information, not the people. So I would advise EVERYONE to quit with the Ad hominem attacks.

You said,

The "Charun bashes souls" idea may be popular and published but no literature I have ever come across has justified this idea by the existing artifacts. We cannot let author opinion supercede reality. Ergo, all I want is that this opinion is explained as such and not contorted into an "absolute fact".

If you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote as my third opinion you would have understood that this was more or less exactly what I was suggesting. Ancient mythology is a difficult area of study. The Etruscans are especially difficult. There is very little scholars definitely know about them. Part of archeology and research of ancient cultures is to interpret the artifacts. Not everyone will always agree on one interpretation. Perhaps Charun bashed people with his hammer. Perhaps he did not. No one alive today knows. All we have are theories and best guesses. The encyclopedia entry should reflect that using language such as;

"Charun is nearly always depicted with an object which most scholars, such as Mr. X, believe to be a hammer. However, some scholars, such as Mr. Y believe the object to be a Labrys. Many scholars, Mr. X among them, think he may have tortured souls in the underworld by repeatedly bashing them on the head with his hammer for all time. Little direct evidence has been found to support this theory however, and Mr. Y has an alternate theory. He believes that the Labrys is merely a symbol of Charun's divinity and power..."

See how that works? Both theories are presented, and their scholarly supporters named. This is what I meant when I said work together and present the disputed facts as disputed facts. The opinion is presented as an opinion held by Mr. X, and an alternate opinion, held by Mr. Y is also presented. This is what I suggested, and it's what you say you want. Scottandrewhutchins agreed to this, what about it do you still disagree with?

Finally, about your statement, "A sensible third party must not only be arbitrator between people, but be sufficiently knowledgable (or at least willing to learn) in the subject in which they intervene." I do know a little about the subject of the study of ancient cultures (though I know very little about the Etruscan culture), and I am more than willing to learn. The main problem here though had little to do with the disputed facts themselves, and a lot more to do with both of you violating WP:DICK. Hence my reply was formatted to politely say, "Stop being a dick, both of you. Present both sides of the issue in the article as is standard practice on Wikipedia."

Requesting assistance on WP:3O, and then ignoring the third opinion presented simply because it differs from your opinion is sort of pointless, don't you think? WP:3O is only useful if (1) the person offering a third opinion does his or her research (which I did) and (2) the requesting party and the other party both agree to abide by the decision reached (which you, the requesting party, apparently have decided not to do). If you weren't ready to accept a reasonable compromise, you shouldn't have asked for a third opinion. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if you two don't want to follow the third opinion given by ONUnicorn, then you shouldn't have asked for a third opinion. Glen, it's obvious how much work ONUnicorn put into this, reading everything on this talk page and yours and Scott's talk pages. I think he has been a good arbitrator and he has demonstrated his knowledge of the subject and seems willing to learn. One thing I was too quick on was almost unprotecting the page. It is clear now that neither of you (Scott seems more ready than Glen though) are ready to start editing the article again, and if I may add another opinion, I think that neither of you should edit this talk page or talk to each other for a while, until both of you can cool down. —Mets501 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the article reads things like:

Charun loves violence and participating in warfare.

This is opinion worded as though it were fact. It is not how an encyclopedia is written. Surely you can agree. If you paraphrase my position wrongly, you are not a fair third party afterall. So please refrain, step back and listen to what I'm *actually* saying. You'll find that we agree on some points. --Glengordon01 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Calim that Charun carried a labrus as a purely ceremonial object is an opionion you worded as an opinion and got mad at me for callling attention to it. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if you two don't want to follow the third opinion given by ONUnicorn,[...]

This is an example of paraphrasing something non-existent from my sentences. Please refrain from imagination. --Glengordon01 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the way the article is currently written is not the way it should be written. That won't change however, until the two of you work together. (P.S., I'm a she, not a he) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, there we go. (Erh, why does it matter whether you're a female, male, assexual or transsexual? :P) --Glengordon01 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, any mention of the labrys would have to get a ^{[citation needed]} from me, since no one published seems to share Glengordon01's theories, which ought to exclude them on the basis of Wikipedia:notability. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that everyone calls Tuchulcha a "demoness" when the artifacts show clearly that he is bearded should prove how shoddy people's research skills are and how popular baseless ideas have become in this field. I will continue to be unpopular because I'm not like everyone else and don't want to be. --Glengordon01 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That, I think, is much clearer than the link that because certain figures carry a labrys, ergo Charun must, too. It's more like jumping to conclusions than using a beard to identify a figure as most likely male. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can add something silly like "Encyclopaedia of Monsters" as a reference, then anything goes and I shouldn't feel hesitant, as I had been, with presenting the following equally mediochre sources which confirm my point of view, despite your derogatory attitude:

The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols & Sacred objects by Barbara G. Walker
The Sun-God's Axe and Thor's Hammer by Oscar Montelius, Folklore, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1910), pp. 60-78

--Glengordon01 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a tempest brewing. Are the winds changing direction?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Labrys

Mjolnir, the hammer wielded by Thor in Norse mythology (equivalent to the Labrys/Pelekys).

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/450232

I would like to see some evidence (artefacts, hopefully) for the claim that Charun cut or chopped off peoples' heads to free their souls from their bodies., written Nov 17, 2004 by another healthfully analytical individual who delves deeper than shallow into Etruscan religion.

--Glengordon01 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For some comparative imagery here are a some illustrations from archaic Athenian vase painting of divine figures wielding a mallet and a labrys-axe as weapons:

Justice beating Injustice with a mallet

Hephaestus splitting Zeus' skull with a labrys-axe to release Athena

To muddy the waters even further another two-headed tool appears in Greek vase painting - a type of spade used for breaking clods of earth after ploughing. You could easily apply any of the three to the figure of Charun: a axe to symbolically split the skull (as in the image of Zeus) to release the spirit from the body; a mallet to beat the dead into submission and/or drive them by force to the underworld; or a clod-breaker to symbolise burial and the path of the dead down through the earth. I would be curious to see some more images of the Charun figure. Can anyone suggest any links on the web? (I recall coming across some fine wall-frescoes a long time ago of a blue-skinned Charun). More images on the god in various contexts might clarify how he was perceived by the Etruscans as employing his tool. Theranos 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, Spanky. The birth of the goddess Athena from Zeus' split head and the legend of Dike are quite different from the issue of the fate of the soul in the afterlife. Don't mix things up and keep on topic. Sufficed to say the symbolisms of hammer and axe are indeed relatable. We know that even Celtic motifs are ultimately traceable back to the Near East and Etruscans surely play a part in their transmission. --Glengordon01 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've already supplied links to various Charun pictures as you requested, up above, buried under the title "Edit protection by a troll". --Glengordon01 11:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted Nancy de Grummond, an Etruscanologist at Florida State Univeristy, and she sent me a response. I've asked permsision from her to post it here. Among the things she says are that Charun is more accurately spelled Charu, that he definitely carried a hammer and not a labrys ("You are absolutely correct about the hammer (it is NOT a labrys) and yes, he does sometimes have an oar (probably to swing at people, like the vile old Charon in Michelangelo's Last Judgment). "), and that "Aita" should be removed, as well as Rovin's claims about "Nathuns", and the claims that he is "bulky" and "bald". She says that Charu guided dead people mounted on horseback, but there is no evidence that he actually presented the horses to them.

She also sent me her chapter on the Underworld from her new book, Etruscan Myth, Sacred History and Legend, pp 213-220. The book will be published this fall by University of Pennsylvania Museum. She also has referred us to The Religion of the Etruscans, ed. N.T. de Grummond and Erika Simon, University of Texas Press, 2006, and follow the index for information on Charu(n). --Scottandrewhutchins 12:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it known what sort of hammer? The English word is rather vague. Different types and sizes of hammers or mallets were used by ancient smiths, masons, woodworkers and farmers. Looking at the images above, the size and shape would suggest an agricultural implement (the sort used for breaking earth) or perhaps a mason's tool for splitting stone. Theranos 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

de Grummond doesn't say what sort of hammer, but she does confirm that Charun uses it as a weapon:

Indeed the hammer is the weapon of choice for Charu, and though most of the time he merely holds it in a menacing way, occasionally he is shown demonstrating its purpose. In a relief on the sarcophagus of the Tarquinia nobleman named Laris Pulenas, a pair of Charus swing their hammers toward the head of the central figure (Fig. X.13), probably the soul of the deceased. (Unfortunately due to the accidents of preservation, the figure is actually missing its head.) A similar usage of the hammer was maintained down into the period of the Roman Empire, when, in the gladiatorial games, a demonic character using the name of Dispater (Father Underworld) would go out into the arena and finish off the contest between two fighters. The loser, groveling in the sand, was pounded with a hammer by Dispater to make sure that he was dead.

The hammer is not always used against the soul, though, but even may be used to help it out. On the Orvieto amphora (Fig. X.5), Charu swings the hammer towards serpents that threaten the path of the deceased. At other times, the weapon is simply set upright on the ground as a staff for the spirit to lean upon (Fig. X.), as he greets or lounges about chatting with souls. On a red-figure vase from Vulci (Fig. X.14), he converses with a group of wounded, bandaged female souls, evidently Amazons (one of whom is called Hinthia(l) Aturmucas, i.e., Soul of Aturmuca, probably =Andromache, a common Amazon name), supporting himself upon the head of the upended mallet.

--de Grummond, Etruscan Myth, Sacred History and Legend, Chapter X.

Here we have a respected Etruscanologist saying words to identical effect that Charun bashed souls with a hammer.

She asked me not to reproduce her message to me here. But here is another source I forgot to mention that she included.

"Charu(n)" in the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, a superb research tool, filled with a corpus of images of Greek, Roman, Etruscan and peripheral deities of the ancient classical world. The article on Charu(n) is in Vol. III, pp. 225-236. It is in German (by I. Krauskopf and E. Mavleev) , but even if you don't read the article you can still look at the pictures.

--Scottandrewhutchins 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the Charun article could be improved by first describing the appearance of Charun in various Etruscan works of art followed by a section titled "Interpretations." For a general reader like myself this would make it somewhat easier to differentiate between the factual and interpretative material. A number of other mythology-themed wiki-articles employ this approach. Theranos 07:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, things are getting more reasonable finally. Thank you, Scott. Now the points.

Charu vs Charun

Correct, we can read "Charu" in the very picture links that I provided above if you know your Etruscan alphabet well enough. Nonetheless, authors still call him Charun. Another meme to smash perhaps?

Hardly, all she says is that "Charu" is a spelling that occurs more frequently on artifcats than "Charun". That hardly makes "Charun" a meme. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aita removed?

Click here. Aita is the man with the fashionable wolf headdress who has "Aita" written from right to left next to his face (alpha-iota-tau-alpha). He stands behind "Persipnei" (written from top to bottom, left of her face). Persipnei is clearly Persephone, the lass who descended into... you guessed it... Hades. So in what way then is Aita not the Etruscan name for the realm of the dead? --Glengordon01 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Aita appears to be simply the Etruscan form of the Greek name Aides or Haides (the Greeks often dropped the aspirant). I would agree that since the Etruscans employ this name for the god they would also follow the Greek tradition of applying it to the Underworld as well. Presumably they also had another more indigenous name. The Romans at least used several. Theranos 07:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And in Greek, the aspirant wasn't even a letter, it was more like punctuation. --Scottandrewhutchins 10:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. A statement totally irrelevant to Greek phonology just as it's irrelevant that you might call Hebrew vowels imaginary merely because they're "punctuation" too.--Glengordon01 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, chew on some more stuff from "The Religion of the Ancient Celts" by John Arnott MacCulloch (1911):

Irrelevent to this discussion. Claiming that Charun's hammer must be an axe is reductive, as though a culture must needs have only one symbol. __Scottandrewhutchins 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Primitive men, whose only weapon and tool was a stone axe or hammer, must have regarded it as a symbol of force, then of supernatural force, hence of divinity. It is represented on remains of the Stone Age, and the axe was a divine symbol to the Mycenæans, a hieroglyph of Neter to the Egyptians, and a worshipful object to Polynesians and Chaldeans. The cult of axe or hammer may have been widespread, and to the Celts, as to many other peoples, it was a divine symbol. Thus it does not necessarily denote a thunderbolt, but rather power and might, and possibly, as the tool which shaped things, creative might. The Celts made ex voto hammers of lead, or used axe-heads as amulets, or figured them on altars and coins, and they also placed the hammer in the hand of a god."

The iconographic relationship between axe and hammer has thus been understood since at least 1911. As well, in two depictions of Charun (pic 1, pic 2) you can clearly see the basic labrys shape still there (the otherwise pointless crossed "x" pattern) overlayed on top of the "hammer". So it really doesn't matter whether you want to call Charun's so-called "weapon" a labrys, a hammer or a giant ice-cream cone. Clearly the symbolisms are related nonetheless. --Glengordon01 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I will ask you again to stop imposing your quotes WITHIN mine. Beyond being irritating, it's confusing. Keep your comments separate from mine, please, please, please. For the sake of other readers. --Glengordon01 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You knee-jerk: "Claiming that Charun's hammer must be an axe is reductive [...]" yet I couldn't have been any clearer when I said: 'So it really doesn't matter whether you want to call Charun's so-called "weapon" a labrys, a hammer or a giant ice-cream cone.', I'm saying the two are related." ??? Whatever. You're skimming, not reading attentively, as usual. --Glengordon01 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Laris Pulena's sarcophagus .

A man who goes to the bother of creating an inscribed sarcophagus for his funeral, detailing his lineage, his heritage and his services offered to Tarquinian citizens during his lifetime in the inscription, is not a man that fears his "soul bashed by Charun" whatsoever.

People who go to the bother of creating pictures of Charun and Vanth (both doubled for symmetry's sake; there are no "Charus" in the plural unless there are two Vanths here!) is not a man that fears being tormented by Charun for all eternity. A faith without incentive or hope is total nonsense and could not have lasted a millenium. Yet, Etruscan religion apparently did because it did have some sort of incentive that most "experts" obviously have yet to understand.

So quite simply: The very existence of Laris Pulena's sarcophagus, the very fact that effort was made for the afterlife, proves in itself that Etruscan faith knew of no such thing as "Charun bashing/tormenting souls" of the innocent deceased for all eternity.

Charun is merely Grim Reaper. At best, one might conceive of the mere touch of his hammer as seperating the soul from the body but Charun in the end delivers the soul safely to the Great Below (ie: the touch of Death). In this less violent interpretation there is no violation of commonsense human psychology. Etruscan faith now makes sense. In this way, the incentive to worship Etruscan gods is not made redundant by anachronistic drivel.

(PS, Michelangelo was born in the 15th c. AD, is a millenium too late, and not even "Etruscan" except perhaps by distant heritage. With that sort of associative "logic", we may as well assume too that 20th-century Santa is an accurate depiction of how people thought of Saint Nicholas in the 12th c. AD, complete with Rudolf). --Glengordon01 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what de Grummond says later in the chapter, they are both Chaurus. She does go into detail about Vanth later.

--Scottandrewhutchins 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever say they weren't Charun? You're not reading. I'm saying that this is clearly just artistic symmetry. If de Grummond asserts from this that there are TWO Charus, then you must also accept that there are **two Vanths**. Did you not see the two winged creatures on BOTH sides as well? --Glengordon01 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Palena sarcophagus, it appears the central figure surrounded by the two Charuns with their weapons raised has his head bowed down. If he had an upright head like the other figures, one would expect the break marks to extend to the top of the relief panel, but instead they end at a considerably lower level. The forward sculptural extension required for such a pose might also expain why this piece of the work alone was torn free. A bowed head before two raised axes (or mallets, if you will) might suggest the sacrificial rite (I believe animal heads were lowered before the sacrificial blow was struck). Naturally in the context of passage to the underworld, a sacrifice performed by Charuns would be purely symbolic, a dedication to the gods of the afterlife (?). Now, are there any Etruscan works of art showing animal sacrifice for comparison?

I agree that the artist of the tomb fresco has attempted to portray Charun's device here as an axe (clearly a difficult endeavour in this medium) for the blades seem to a sharp edge: notice the detail on the edge of the forward facing blade, it is clearly not the flattened head of a hammer. Theranos 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it quite clearly shows a hammer, and every scholar I can find agrees. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your only purpose here is to disagree with everyone and feign "competence" at others expense as you have done before on other forums outside of Wikipedia. More quotes that you need to read

The Etruscans by Massimo Pallottino (1975), p.149:

"To judge from tomb paintings and reliefs, the fate of the dead was inexorably sad, and the same for all: the merciless law spared no one, not even the most illustrious dignitary — his superiority is expressed only in the sumptuous clothing, the attributes of office and the retinue that accompanied him on his journey to the underworld. However, a number of references to consoling doctrines of salvation, more or less explicit, exist in literary tradition (Arnobius, II, 62; Servius, ad Aen., III, 168; Martianus Capella, II, 142); these mention the possibility of attaining a state of beatitude or even deification, by means of certain rituals supposed to have been described in the Etruscan Libri Acherontici."

(The quote is also available online here in case for some reason you can't walk your legs to the library as I did today.)

Pallottino is a foremost Etruscanologist who is at odds with your simplistic notion of Charun as a "soul-bashing demon" who torments innocent souls like Satan. So perhaps you should think twice about calling anyone incompetent again and look in the mirror for once. --Glengordon01 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arnobius, II, 62:

"And be not deceived or deluded with vain hopes by that which is said by some ignorant and most presumptuous pretenders, that they are born of God, and are not subject to the decrees of fate; that His palace lies open to them if they lead a life of temperance, and that after death as men, they are restored without hindrance, as if to their father's abode; nor by that which the Magi assert, that they have intercessory prayers, won over by which some powers make the way easy to those who are striving to mount to heaven; nor by that which Etruria holds out in the Acherontic books, that souls become divine, and are freed from the law of death, if the blood of certain animals is offered to certain deities."

So again, the so-called "demonic" Charun isn't tormenting everyone for all eternity as the Christian-motivated historical revisionism rhetoric purports as promoted by the likes of unscholarly, purely imaginative zealots like, say, Werner Kelly (who wrote The Etruscans in 1974, yet disturbingly also The Bible as History in 1956). However, Arnobius here is quoting from references unavailable to us after being lost since the 4th century AD. Since Arnobius' works are also available online here, physical handicaps are no excuse to not do your homework, so I do hope there isn't another handicap at play here. --Glengordon01 09:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Charun -> hammer -> nail -> stars

Ya know, I just had a brilliant flash of insight but it has no bearing on whether Charun's "hammer" originates from the labrys or not. I just realized that while the idea of "Charun bashing/tormenting innocent souls" appears to be a cartooney and baseless view, the idea of "Charun touching souls with his hammer" as a kind of "touch of Death" in order to bring them to the afterlife is interesting for many reasons. I've already mentioned above that it explains why people even bothered to prepare for the afterlife in the first place. Clearly they didn't feel they were really going to be tortured, otherwise what's the point? Charun is not so malevolent as sensationalized. It's an oversimplification.

If Charun's hammer is, shall we say, truly "bonking" the individual though (but only in the moment of death, not for all eternity), the very notion suggests that the individual's soul is like a nail to be hammered. Hmm. Now that idea is interesting to me because there is a possible linguistic connection in the Etruscan word pulumχva (as attested on the Pyrgi Tablets) with both "stars" and "nails". The connection between "stars" and "souls" was understood already by Greeks (Timaeus, 42) and the connection between stars and nails is suggested by the cult of Nortia where nails were hammered yearly into a wall in her temple to track the passage of time. (Livy vii 3 7). Kinda gives a whole new meaning to "dead as a doornail", come to think of it... --Glengordon01 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, everything fell into place quickly. I found a direct star-nail connection by a classical author:

Anaximenes of Miletus stated he thought that stars were nails driven into a crystalline sky.
Timaeus stated that each soul is assigned to a star.
Ergo, if both derived from an Etruscan world-view, souls are therefore associated with nails.

Nifty! --Glengordon01 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the earliest known instance of "dead as a doornail" dates only to the 14th c. AD but no one is still sure the connection between death and nails. Hmmm. --Glengordon01 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thias is interesting suff, I grant you, but Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page is for... (surprise!)... discussion. You're confusing the discussion page with the article page where "original research" is enforced. The discussion page is for discussing ideas, testing them, and if agreed upon (and only then), added to the article page. It's called constructivity and it can't happen without ideas. No one made you thoughtcrime dictator so stop nagging and start contributing. --Glengordon01 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I only mention it because you repeatedly put your labrys theory on the main page without any citation, because you have none, which is what led to the page being locked. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I already cited: "The Religion of the Ancient Celts" by John Arnott MacCulloch (1911). Obviously you can't or refuse to read. --Glengordon01 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still not understanding. Your source says absolutely nothing about Charun. Any conclusions about Charun you draw from the quotes you have presented constitute original research. why do you want to put such information here and not in a paper with your name on it?

Wikipedia's policy: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

Eveything you've been posting that I have been reverting is a source that provides nothing directly related to Charun, and therefore had no place in the article.

In other words: Glengordon01 and Scottandrewhutchins interpretations are not ok. Reporting on interpretations from de Grummond, Terpening, and Rovin is ok. Interpretations by Glengordon01 and Scottandrewhutchins would be ok if we were citing something previously published. If you have your interpretations on the page, then it becomes your soapbox, which it should not be. If you could demonstrate you understand this, the page could be unlocked. It was locked because your actions showed that you didn't.

--Scottandrewhutchins 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're waiting for a book to think for you. You're not realistic. The quote mentions the interrelationship of the hammer and labrys. That suffices. --Glengordon01 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why I called you incompetent. As the Wikipedia page says, "Competence is the ability to do a task. Incompetence is its opposite." You're not competent to edit Wikipedia because you do not yet understand the "No Original Research" credo no matter how many times it is spelled out for you. Your quotation says nothing about Charun carrying a labrys, and is thus not a sutiable source, for the reason of dirctness that is bolded in the original credo. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're starting up again. What is wrong with you? Have a time-out at WP:Civil. --Glengordon01 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attacking your theories, I'm simply reminding you that you still haven't grapsed what does and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I'm not waiting for a book to think for me; Wikipedia demands that a book, and not an editor's thinking, be the source cited. You have shown yourself unable to do the task of editing Wikipedia based on the rules. Placing the correct word for that on what you're doing is not uncivil.--Scottandrewhutchins 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins, maybe its time to move onto something more constructive. If you both feel so passionately about this subject, perhaps you should collaborate on working to improve the Charun article. It sounds like you have obtained some useful and interesting material in your research. Theranos 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a nice theory. Although Charun's hammer would appear to be too large for hammering nails, a carpenter's tool would be a much smaller compact device. A heavy implement of the type held by Charun would probably have been a sledgehammer, the sort used by masons for the splitting of stone into blocks - i.e. in ancient masonry, a groove was carved in the rock to fit a wedge, and then a weighted hammer raised above the shoulder and slammed down upon the wedge to split the rock. Pick-axes, by comparison, were used in the related work of excavation, and some of the images seem to depict this in Charun's hand in place of a sledgehammer. I don't see any reason why the pick-axe and hammer might not be used interchangeably as an attribute for the daemon. Both tools would naturally have been connected with tomb construction, and tomb art appears to be the natural home for the figure. Theranos 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then again, religious iconography usually functions on multiple levels: practical association and religious symbolism. So a tomb-guardian (on an artistic level) might hold the hammer of tomb mason, with the hammer containing a reference to a religious belief, such as the star-hammer idea you put forth. Theranos 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Yeah, when symbolisms keep morphing, it's hard to say, I admit. In an interesting twist of fate however, I found this as I did my daily data-mining through google:

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/25218/FSU_Etruscan_expert_announces_historic_discovery_at_ancient_site.html

Also of great interest to de Grummond was the discovery of some 10 iron nails deposited in the pit, all in an excellent state of preservation.

"These reflect what we know from ancient texts in Latin that note that the Etruscans treated nails as sacred, and regarded them as symbolizing inexorable fate," she said. "They had a ritual practice in regard to their deity Nurtia in which they would hammer a nail into the wall of the temple each year as a tribute to the goddess. We cannot yet be sure about the cultic significance of the nails of Cetamura, but they may well relate to the passage of time and thus to the sacred calendar of the Etruscans."

Oh no! De Grummond has betrayed Scott's absolute assertions, hehe ;) Anyways, that's why we all (including me) keep searching for new info to learn more about this brain-blowing topic of iconography. --Glengordon01 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

I came here through an alert posted on 7 September. Based on the way the alert was worded I expected to see an edit war and that is exactly what I found. This dispute has already been through the third opinion process. Here's my take on things:

Scottandrewhutchins has cited a marginal source in The Encyclopedia of Monsters. Nonetheless it is a reference book from a reputable (not vanity) publisher. More scholarly citations ought to supercede it. Until those better sources actually emerge, it passes WP:V and belongs in the article.
Glengordon01 appears to be knowledgeable about Etruscan mythology. However, he rarely cites sources. Those he does cite are superior academic works, yet as Scottandrewhutchins correctly points out those sources are not directly on topic for this dispute. As things stand, the inferences Glengordon01 draws (however reasonable they may be) constitute original research and violate site policy. If Glengordon01 does locate some scholarly work that does address this matter directly then his conclusions would deserve a place in the article.
Both parties could save frustration and really help the article by seeking better references, through interlibrary loan if necessary. The average municipal research librarian would be delighted to request books about Etruscan mythology from a university collection (a welcome break to the normal routine of children's reading hours and diet book recommendations).

How about calling a two week truce? Go chase down better citations and take a break for a bit, then shake cyberhands and get to the real work of improving the article. Remember, nobody ever got trampled to death because they were editing an encyclopedia.Durova 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Monsters is far from the only source I've cited. I've found 12 sources that say essentially the same thing, while Glen is still trying to post OR, good as it may be. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know you've found multiple sources. I hope you'll be ready to add line citations when the article is unprotected. Now there are two editors here: I'd like to see a response from both sides. Durova 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the page as it stands, you'll see I've listed a number of sources, exceptt de Grummond, whose work I found after the page was locked. I'm not sure I can put page numbers yet, because she sent me a chapter of a forthcoming book and told me the page range that the whole chapter would be, but it has no page breaks. --Scottandrewhutchins 12:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nods. Have you seen the alerts page that brought me here? The main complaint is about civility. Having read the talk page posts, I suspect what happened was that some early posts that were probably written in haste and anger wound up spoiling the assumption of good faith. If both sides are willing to discuss this in terms of straight policy - WP:V and WP:NOR - then I think you could unprotect the page and really help the article.Durova 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on Glengordon01's talk page yesterday and haven't seen any response. He's edited after I started responding to this page. If he rejoins I hope you set aside animosities and collaborate together. Otherwise I'd suggest you wait until Sept. 15 (one full week since the alert) before asking admin to unblock. Durova 19:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Durova et al,

I like to connect the dots, instead of just spinning in circles. So let's assimilate the existing data on our agent provocateur's behavioural issues into a time-saving format to get to the heart of why I feel that I can no longer successfully "cooperate" with this person despite any attempts.

Scottandrewhutchins has set a decidedly negative pattern for himself, persisting right up until just ten days ago, by:

edit-warring against me on Charun where we see a total of 50 edits spanning five hours on the same article!
calling me "incompetent" many times for lack of sources he finds "valid" based on purposely unreasonable, hyperspecific criteria.
edit-warring against me on Vanth.
edit-warring against me on the French WP on Charun but only under two anonymous IPs instead of using his own name.
edit-warring against CanadianCaesar and Doc glasgow on Gremlins.

Scottandrewhutchins hostile comments were erased from Doc glasgow's talk page but still readable in his history here under Scott's "Liar" subtitle, together with CanadianCaesar's previous comment of distress with which I strongly identify.
Scottandrewhutchins also accused Canadian Caesar of vandalism for deleting his poorly sourced edits.

acting belligerent by calling multiple people concerning seperate edits "liars". (see Scottandrewhutchins' own talk page)
earning a vandal-block for 24 hours due to constant disruption and edit-warring elsewhere.
being a continuation of his old tactics of absolutive idées fixes and simultaneously belittling opposing points of views through emotive rhetoric (Click here):

"Corporal punishment is a morally repugnant non-solution for non-thinkers."

"Any parent who hits their kid is asking to get hit by their kids, and if thety complain, they're hypocrites."

"It's an incompetent and valueless way to teach."

Summary: From Mr Hutchins' murky perspective, everyone who disagrees with Mr Hutchins is automatically invalid by decree.

The pattern is clear, consistent and long-term. It's illogical to insist on "cooperation" with proven troublemakers who defy everyone to stimulate their own internal advocatus diaboli with newly presented facts that they just refuse to adapt to anyway whilst they roam free to libel everyone as "liars", "hypocrites" and "incompetent people". His behaviour must change first, then cooperation.

I've already presented some sources that support my view of Etruscan world-view that negate the "Charun deathdemon", "everyone's getting tortured" stereotype that's promoted by books (which I've also tracked) provably imposing Christian concepts of a narrow-minded "evil Hell" scenario on the more moral-neutral and polytheistic world that Hades/Aita was.

There are other sources as well. A valid opinion on Etruscan mythology requires a coherent Etruscan "world-view structure" within which Charun may be understood. Understanding a different culture's world view demands an intuitive ability to think in very different people's shoes without disgust, feelings of moral supremacy or penchant for absolutes. If Scott is willing and able, I invite him to explain this coherent world-view structure (with sensible references) that supports Charun's equal-opportunity "soul bashing" as Scott had initially claimed. --Glengordon01 07:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit block I received for Gremlins was completely unjustified. My sourced edits were being reverted, and I reverted back. The guy doing the reversion just happened to have been made an admin earlier this year, so he went un[inished despite being the instigator. You have a pattern of reverting edits without providing sources to back them up that are in accordance with Wikipedia's no original research credo. You insist, despite the assertions of multiple academics who disagree, that Charun carried a labrys and not a hammer, yet you cannot source an expert who agrees with you, and you insert such changes without any citation whatsover, and delete the citations of all other points of view. That I disagree with someone does not make their point of view invalid, but when one comes to a forum with rules, one must present your point of view in a manner that follows the rules, which Glengordon01 has repeatedly failed to do, and instead argues with the rules while saying he agrees with them. Kind of like this guy:

"I define myself above all things as a Marxist. I am indeed a passionate Marxist. I am what I would call a Marx-intoxicated being. However, the words of the Communist Manifesto were fashioned inside a worldview that no longer exists. That fact is so obvious that it hardly needs to be spoken. It was assumed that people would still work even when there was no profit motive. We know today that that is not so. People are inherently lazy and will not work for the common good. It was also assumed that without competition and a profit motive, manufacturers would still produce quality goods. So while claiming to be a Marxist, and still asserting my deeply held commitment to Karl Marx as an economic genius, I also recognize that I am exiled from the literal understandings and world-view that shaped the Manifesto. There is no truth in Marxism if we can’t move beyond the socialistic economic models of the past. "Can one be a Marxist without being a socialist?" becomes a powerful question. If Marxism depends on a socialistic definition of Marx, then we must face the fact that we are watching this noble economic system enter the rigor mortis of its own death throes. Marxism is not defined by me as the narrow-minded, socialistic economic model that requires a mental lobotomy to believe. It is defined by me as liberating the proletariat from the shackles of poverty and hunger. And we do this by allowing a free market with a minimum of regulation, which allows people to invest in whatever they choose in order to make money for themselves. This in turn lowers unemployment, causing shortages in the supply of labor. When this happens, the bourgeoisie must raise wages, offer medical benefits, paid vacations, and stock options in order to attract and retain workers. Increased competition will result in higher-quality, less expensive consumer goods, and then, at last, my brothers, the proletariat will be free from the shackles of poverty, hunger, and Kleenex that feels like sandpaper. Long live the revolution!!!"

--Scottandrewhutchins 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I never made that quote, you're also libelous, on top of your above crimes. --Glengordon01 22:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Call for calm

Let's step away from personalities and look at the article itself. It's been page protected for three weeks in a form that satisfies no one. We're really here to get it into better shape. Even if you'll never be best friends, it seems you are the only two Wikipedians who want to improve coverage for this bit of Etruscan mythology. If I saw clear evidence that one side only had violated WP:CIVIL then I would ask an administrator to take action. What I see instead is a conversation that broke down. That amounts to a lot of smoke which obscures the core issue: Glengordon01, the way I read policy Scottandrewhutchins has satisfied WP:V and so far you have not. So far your citations have been just far enough off point that your conclusions constitute original research interpretations. Please find a good topical source that states your opinion directly - you seem to know a lot about the Etruscans so that shouldn't be hard to do. Then both opinions can go into the article. Durova 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Scott has proven himself by his online behaviour as listed above. Facts are facts and cooperation with him, as opposed to you or others, will be difficult if not impossible.

Durova says: "[...]you seem to know a lot about the Etruscans so that shouldn't be hard to do"

Taking time out of my life to travel to a library and spend hours and hours to track down relevant sources on a very specific and obscure topic "shouldn't be hard to do"? Ugh. I shake my head.

Do any of you have time constraints or jobs? Most people lead busy lives and so we need patience and respect for other people's time constraints. I'm acting alone here because no one else seems to know this topic at all on WP. Unlike Scott, I've participated avidly on yahoo! forums for years pertaining specifically to the details of the Etruscan language (phonology, morphology, etc) and comparative linguistics.

Second of all, besides time constraints, it's doubly hard because Etruscan studies offer so little in way of trustworthy references rather than second-, third- or fourth-hand armchair scholars. I trust 3rd c. AD Arnobius' account of Etruscan religion despite his Christian bias (and that negates the deathdemon view of Charun right there) over Jeff Rovin (an n^th-hand source). And even Etruscanologists Massimo Pallottino and deGrummond have to count for something over and above Scott's less dependable sources. I believe in finding the most primary sources and in assessing properly the potential biases of the author, not just swallowing what any one person has to say. Caveat emptor.

This will take time and deep thought in a busy world. Have respect!

In the meanwhile, the answer to the labrys-hammer connection may never be found in these godawful Etruscan books. That doesn't mean that everything else is invalid! The answer lies in things like "Comparative European Mythology" and apparently Johannes Maringer has written on "Proto-European" iconography in 1956. Johannes Maringer was a professor of prehistoric archaeology, not a sci-fi author, who wrote books like "The Gods of Prehistoric Man". The answer might also lie in Near-Eastern mythology because of Etruscan origins in Anatolia. At any rate, that's a head's up. I will try to track down a variety of sources and relevant quotes pertaining to Charun's hammer symbolism... **it'll just take time**!!! I hope you understand that any quotes with "Charun" directly in them are like trying to find chunks of gold on Jupiter.

Sufficed to say, the current version of Charun is so badly written that it would be better if it were left blank for now instead of deceiving people with misinformation and POV. --Glengordon01 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In my first post to this page I suggested a two week cooldown to do research. For most people it's about a one hour errand to work out an interlibrary loan request with a reference librarian. Once you have the right books the citation itself is simple: for Marie Curie it took me ten minutes to verify two references about the nomination dynamics of her 1903 Nobel Prize. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. If it is too much for you, then site policy requires you to concede the point since the other editor here has already provided multiple sources. You could always come back and add the labrys interpretation later when you have more time to get citations. Durova 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish?

I'm sick of having it bandied about that my source is Jeff Rovin. My sources are De Grummond, De Ruyt, Müller, Rocco, Rose, Rovin, Starr, Terpening, and Turner, all of which verify my side of the argument. I ask you again, Glengordon01, what sources do you have that state something usable for the purposes of Wikipedia without getting into original research? You're claiming to have a monopoly on the truth that my nine sources lack, not to mention the works of fiction that draw on one or more of these sources, one of which invokes the Charun in the Colosseum idea that Terpening mentions he encountered in his research. I don't understand why you're calling me stubborn and disruptive when there are nine print sources that support what I've posted, and none that support, according to the OR credo, what you've posted. I've gathered together the research of others. Have you? No, you've concoted a theory that is inadmissable in Wikipedia terms, yet you call anything else "badly written and POV". This sounds like you're the pot calling the kettle black here. Facts are facts as you say, but everything you have posted has been opinion, opinion, opinion. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The tone of that post isn't going to help the situation. I've acknowledged that you have multiple sources, which makes your position amply referenced, and that Glen needs to provide at least one source for his to be included. Unfortunately, while you both lock horns this article also remains locked. It's very unusual for an article with only two editors to remain locked this long. You're both educated people. Keep the end goal in mind: we're here to improve an encyclopedia. Durova 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Durova chirps unfairly: "[...] Glen needs to provide at least one source for his to be included"

If Etruscanologist Massimo Pallottino's quote from The Etruscans doesn't even count as a valid source (!!!) by the unexperienced whims of a weapons enthusiast despite it talking directly about Charun and the underworld in the *same* context on the *same* page, it's legitimate at this point to say that this is a mob-rule circus. If Jeff Rovin, who is simply a sci-fi writer without academic legitimacy, is given equal footing to known Etruscanologist DeGrummond (!!!), then this is most certainly a mob-rule circus.

Whatever, Durova. I don't need to contribute to this Mockipedia to prove to ignorant right-wingers that Charun is not Satan. This is a mob-rule circus because it's being guided by film-and-toy hobbyist User:Scottandrewhutchins and now military-weapons guru acting as third-party, none of which have any true interest or experience in the subject in which they intervene. (And Durova, be honest: You have no experience in researching Etruscanology up to this point so why are you here? Don't be a robocop. Start taking out some interlibrary loans for yourself. You're in this for the long haul or not at all. Join us in the literacy campaign.)

Durova again: "Once you have the right books the citation itself is simple: for Marie Curie it took me ten minutes to verify two references about the nomination dynamics of her 1903 Nobel Prize. That doesn't seem like too much to ask."

Comparing Marie Curie with Etruscan religion (??) is like apples and oranges. The former relates to empiric science that *everyone is taught in gradeschool* (assuming it's adequately funded) with a billion and one reasonably trustworthy sources to choose from. The latter is a completely obscure topic that few university students are even aware of, let alone gradeschoolers; a topic based on hearsay, repetition and off-the-wall interpretations, not empiric science. It lacks the thing that scientists would respect the most: structured thought.

So Durova, stop doin' the talk and start walkin' the walk. Try taking out an interlibrary loan yourself on Linckenheld (1929), Drioux (1934) and Duval (1954) to look up a little something on comparative European mythology. You'll discover Sucellus and Nantosuelta have a one-to-one relationship to Charun and Vanth, and their depiction is available on WikiCommons here. Sorry to disappoint Jesus-freaks, Wiccans and Monster in My Pocket toy fetishists, but despite Sucellus being so transparently derived from Charun in iconography and function, there are absolutely no torturing "deathdemons" here whatsoever. He is a benevolent deity. Just because a god is subjectively misinterpreted as "monstrous" doesn't mean he's evil anymore than Egyptian Bes or Thoth are "satanic monsters from the pits of Hell". Grow up.

Laris Pulena's sarcophagus together with Arnobius' unbiased quote based on the Libri Acheronti is yet another important testimony for people with critical thinking skills that show that Charun is not a friggin' "demon". Laris was in no way thinking in his lifetime, "Gee, I think I'll have a sarcogaphus made and put pictures of scary deathdemons on it so that I can be tortured by him for all eternity with a mallet as though I were a fundamentalist Christian with insecurity issues which I'm not because Christianity predates me by centuries!" Get it through your thick, defiant skulls: When Laris Pulena died, rites were performed to protect him in death, and then Charun guided him safely to the underworld, a belief that comforted his grieving social circle with hope in the afterlife, not despair. Claiming Charun was an evil demon is in direct conflict with the **very existence** of Etruscan funeral rites. The hammer swinging is at most a metaphor for the one-time pang of death, still related to the labrys in symbolism, and taken no more seriously than the Grim Reaper and his scythe.

Scott's interpretation of Charun is invalid by sheer lack of coherent structure and an inability to account for **all** the facts as presented above. Playing infantile number games with references doesn't validate a hypothesized world-view when it so fundamentally lacks critical thought. So I really don't care what happens with this destroyed article because I've still discovered new stuff for myself despite the fiasco of Scott's proven vandalism and 24-hour block.

And yes, despite the many references that lack iconographic perspective, Charun's hammer is still a labrys underneath despite mob-rule but it's not as easy task to prove when children are demanding books that literally say "Duh, Charun's hammer IS a labrys-derivative!" instead of being capable of comprehending a more complex source describing comparative mythology and religious origins in detail. Look it up yourselves if you're such avid learners.

You're all acting like whiners that expect others to spend time looking things up for you. Be **your own** devil's advocate and think for yourselves for once. It's not a crime... yet.

--Glengordon01 23:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this article. You're right, Glen - I've got no expertise on Etruscan mythology. I do have several thousand edits, three featured pages, and experience with requests for comment and informal mediation. What I see here boils down to a few simple points: Scott has provided multiple on-topic references, your reference is just far enough off topic to fall on the wrong side of WP:NOR, and this discussion needs more civility on both sides. The rest, quite frankly, is a lot of smoke. It's very tempting to nominate this page for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, but I haven't because I'm biased in favor of scholarly topics. Durova 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Proven vandalism" is a categorically false statement on Glengordon01's part. and is another example of uncivil behavior on Glengordon01's part. Of course if I use the "L" word to describe a categorically false statement, I'll poribably be misconstrued as a vandal again by someone who is still not understanding Wikipedia's credos. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: what this discussion needs is for everyone to just calm down. Glengordon, you keep telling Durova to do research if Durova wants research done, but you are the one who is single-mindedly insistent that the article read the way you want it to read, therefore the burden is on you to do research. If you don't want to take time out of your busy life to do research then why do you want to waste your time on Wikipedia? If something's worth doing then it's worth doing right and putting a little effort into. This is the second time you have requested intervention from other wikipedians, and every time you have gotten essentially similar opinions. You keep talking about "mob rule" and "mob mentality" but that's not what I see here. Wikipedia is like a game; it has a structure, a set of rules, and if you want to play you have to obey the rules. If you're playing chess you can only move the pawn one square at a time. You can't move it 4 squares at once and say you've got a checkmate. That's essentially what you're trying to do here. Wikipedia's rules say you have to have a source that says what you're putting in the article; you are providing circumstantial evidence and saying "connect the dots" meanwhile accusing Scottandrewhutchins of cheating when he is only playing by the rules. This isn't "mob rule" or "mob mentality", this is simply following the rules. If you don't like the rules of chess, go play checkers. If you don't like the rules of Wikipedia, go get your theories published in a journal and then cite that.

You're all acting like whiners that expect others to spend time looking things up for you. Be **your own** devil's advocate and think for yourselves for once. It's not a crime... yet.

No, you are acting like a whiner, you are asking others to look things up for you to support your position. That's not the way it's supposed to work here. You need to support your position with more than circumstantial evidence, and more than your theories, opinions, and ideas; unless your theories, opinions, and ideas have been published elsewhere.

So far I haven't argued with your position, merely asked you to play by the rules. I'm not an expert on mythology (though I'm not totally uninformed in the area), and my knowledge of mythology does not extend much into the Etruscan. However, I would like to comment on one of your points, that being your repeated insistence that the modern view of Charun is derived from a Christian view of Satan and Hell.

You are right that the Etruscans predate Christianity by centuries. This is something important to keep in mind. Lets go back to the roots of Christianity. At its heart, Christianity is about a Jew, with Jewish beliefs, and a Jewish view of the afterlife, who was executed by the Romans a couple thousand years ago, and a few centuries after the Etruscan culture was absorbed by the Roman one. Most Christian beliefs are based on Jewish beliefs, yet some Christian beliefs look odd to Jews today, and would look very odd to Jews 2,000 years ago. One of those is the predominate Christian view of the afterlife with a heaven where you will live happily for all eternity if you are good, and a hell where you will be tortured for all eternity if you are bad. The Jews have no such view of the afterlife. The word translated as "hell" in our modern Bibles was the word the Jews used to refer to the local garbage dump outside Jerusalem where the city's trash was burned. By and large, the Jewish faith is not overly concerned with the afterlife. Many Jews at the time of Jesus believed in a resurrection, and today one of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith is "that there will be a revival of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator", other Jews at that time did not believe in any afterlife at all. After Jesus' death, Christianity spread far and wide; but by and large, the spread was among gentiles, not Jews. Modern Christianity has all kinds of influences from Greek and Roman culture, religion, and philosophy, and the heaven/hell view of the afterlife is one of those imports. In other words, it is NOT a Christian view of Hell that influences our modern understanding of ancient death deities, it is a Mediterranean view of the afterlife that influences the Christian view of the afterlife.

The Etruscans predated the Romans, and had extensive contact with the Greeks. The Roman religion was largely based on the Greek one, with major influances from the Etruscans (who lived where they were living before they lived there) and the Greeks and Etruscans had a large exchange of ideas. This isn't saying that the modern Christian view of hell is exactly copied from Etruscan mythology (far from!), it's saying that the modern Christian view of hell is a conglomeration of Jewish, Greek, Roman, and yes, Etruscan, influences. All these cultures influenced, and were influenced by each other.

Again, this isn't saying that the Etruscans believed that the afterlife was all torture and headbashing. The Greeks certianly didn't believe that. However, I see no reason why they might not have believed (like the Greeks, later the Romans, and ultimately, the Christians) in a place of punishment for some people who disobeyed the gods.

Again I say, unless you have a time machine, or are immortal and were alive back then (improbable at best), no one alive today knows exactly what Etruscans thought or believed. To quote the little message under the edit window, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The only way to verify is by reference to other published sources. This is what you agree to every time you hit the "Save page" button under the edit window on an article page. Play by the rules or take your chess set home.

Oh, and by the way, if you want references for all that I said about the derivatives of the Christian view of the afterlife, I have a book from the course I took on it in college, and I could cite the book, but why would I take time out from my busy life to dig through old textbooks and try to find the one I'm looking for, when you won't take time out from your busy life to source your position? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Christian author Werner Keller wrote The Etruscans and The Bible as History. He directly compares Charun to later Christian "demons" and Vanth to later Christian "angels", implying that Etruscans are a primary influence on Italian religious art and that Etruscans believe in a Hell-like Hades, as is the fun fad right now. Books can't be sold in numbers today without a little Atlantis thrown in.

Chess is a game of consequence, but Wikipedia is infamous for a blatant disregard for consequences. Anything labeled "The Free Encyclopedia" is not a "game" unless you mean "mindgame". This asylum of yours has been fun nonetheless and I've learned something from it. Tata. --Glengordon01 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: You're implying that Massimo Pallottino is incompetent when he himself admits to the possibility of a non-hellish afterlife by quoting Arnobius... which then implies that you have a time machine and know that Arnobius was making everything up about Etruscan religion. Ironically Arnobius was a Christian who had every reason to portray their religion negatively. He didn't because he wasn't a nutty, irrational Christian like the ones now that have taken over North American reasoning. --Glengordon01 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The above paragraph makes no sense. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC has been filed in this matter. It can be found atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Glengordon01.