Talk:Wicker man

Cite

Anyone care to cite the reference in the Gallic Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.241.183 (talk • contribs)

Done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Author

Who wrote in a poem or novel the line, "we are the wicker men..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.249.196 (talk • contribs)

Are you thinking of "We are the hollow men"? That's from T. S. Elliot's "The Waste Land". I've never heard "we are the wicker men".--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Cuchullain, I believe you are correct about 'Hollow' men... so, I shall freely claim (with homage), "We are the wicker men." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Lama (talk • contribs)

Awesome. I'll quote you on that ;).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Butser Ancient Farm

• Butser Ancient Farm - see Events

Within the Events section, there are references to celebrations of festivals in which wicker men have been burned.

• Wicker Man - The Burning Question

I am curious to know why these links were removed. They do depict modern examples of the burning of a wicker man or extremely similar figure, so surely they are relevant? Unless this article is meant to be about the historical wicker man, but the inlcusion of modern examples like the Burning Man festival suggests that this is not so.

Also, I am pretty sure that the links to Druids and Druidry in See Also are also relevant, as the wicker man sacrifice is supposed to be a Druidic practice (still continued, though without people inside, thank heavens!) abdullahazzam

It looked like those links were just spam; they were not reliable sources for information on the subject, they are just a record of how some group burns a wicker man at festivals. Also Druid is already linked in the body of the article, so it doesn't need to be in the "See also" section (druidry is just a redirect to druid.) For lack of a better option I included that second link for evidence of the "modern use" of the figure; but if you know of any more reliable source, please include it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds clear enough to me. I guess we're trying to focus here on historical info, i.e. Celts and Romans? I guess the same applies thing applies to BBC 2's series Coast? abdullahazzam

P.S. Thanks for the tweak :) abdullahazzam

BBC 2 - Coast

I was watching the trailer on BBC 2 for the new series of Coast, when I noticed a scene of a wicker man burning on the beach at the edge of a village. I wonder where this is and who is doing it, and why? Worth including in a future edit, possibly? abdullahazzam

Illustration

There are, I recall, two particular illustrations of the Wicker Man that seem to keep cropping up. I would like to include one or both of these at the top of this article. (I have just noticed that there is an image request at the top of Discussion.) abdullahazzam

• Wicker Man No.1
• Wicker Man No.2

Both drawings are old fashioned in style. There a a few different sources for each. The questions I am asking about this are, if we use these drawings to illustrate the article, which sources do we use? and, who were the original illustrators and where did these works appear? abdullahazzam

These look like illustrations from the original VHS release and stills from the movie. I doubt any of them are available for Wikipedia use, being still within copyright.

Septegram 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the shots from that movie, I'm referring to what appear to be old style drawings that look as if they were drawn centuries before Robin Hardy. I think these specific drawings may be copyright free, if they're really that old. abdullahazzam

I've uploaded some shots related to the film, as the dB only seemed to have one, purported to be a poster (wasn't). Search for my contributions in the image namespace, I think the one I've just added to the article is relatively illustrative. ... I would guess those old woodcut illustrations are in the public domain if you wanted to use one. David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: section "The Wicker Man in History"

The claim that the author of "De Bello Gallico" needed to fabricate propaganda against the Gauls is absurd. It is simply a projection backwards from the contemporary practice of justifying wars by such claims. While the book itself was propagandistic in nature, that propaganda was based on Caesar's military victories and success in extending the power and wealth of Rome. The Romans didn't need to defame their enemies because they looked upon it as their right to conquer and rule others, even such established civilizations as those of the Greeks, Jews and Egyptians. The contention is also absurd because the Romans themselves practiced human sacrifice on certain special occassions; the captured leader of the Gauls, Vercingetorix himself met such an end at Roman hands after being exhibited in Caesar's triumph. And surely, the Roman practice of burying alive delinquent Vestal Virgins is fully as barbarous as the use of the Wicker Man? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.91.213 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

The article doesn't imply Caesar "needed" to defame his enemies with the rumor. The Romans did, however, look down upon the druids and Celtic religion, as evidenced by the suppression of it by several emperors. As for the Roman human sacrifice, that is not something the Romans would have considered comparable to the Gaulish practice, however we may see it--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The part about "scholars" who believe the caesar's account to be mere propaganda, that should be sourced with citations to the alleged scholars claiming this so we can examine their own motives and biases. I suspect this claim is just the work of some modern-day pagan trying to whitewash history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.248.171 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

while I'm not an expert on the ancient Roman sources, I suggest that Julius Caesar *DID* have a reason to defame Celts by allegations of human sacrifice (or exaggeration of the scale of the real practise). After all, in 97 BC, when Julius Caesar was at the age of 3 years (infant), human sacrifice has been prohibited by Roman Senate; though it was very rare or non-existent, Senators considered it as something evil and despicable. Greeks had similiar views about the thing. Therefore, it means that the practice was NOT accepted in Rome at that time.

Moreover, gladiatorial combat, punishment of oath-breaking Vestal Virgins, or killing of enemy commanders/leaders etc. was cruel, but it wasn't human sacrifice per se and I don't think that it was ever considered h.s., though it might have derived from it. The first was generally accepted as a brutal sport, when death of participants was rare, though occuring. The second was nothing more than a death penalty which was accepted in antiquity for many reasons (oathbreaking was one of them). And the third was an example of Victor's Justice and application of the Roman motto "Vae victis" (Woe to the conquered) - showing of a total victory over an enemy); even if it had a religious background, it was no 'human sacrifice', but a typical military vengance.

On the other hand, Celts might have punished their criminals by sacrifying them to the Gods, and it would probably not shock the conscience of ordinary Roman person. However, sacrifices of innocent people would be thought of as barbaric and mindless.

Also, there are other accounts (mostly Christian) about the alleged sacrifices by Celts, which turned out to be a total kibosh; for example, allegations that on Samhain Druids walked from door to door, demanded young maiden to be handled to them, killed her and used her fat to make the candles. Or that May Queen on Beltaine was killed when the feast ended. There is NO confirmation for ANY of these accounts, and in the case of Christians the defaming power of such libels is even stronger, since Christianity vehemently opposes ALL kinds of human sacrifice.

Besides, despite this, first Christians living in catacombs were accused of infant sacrifice and praying to the head of the donkey. The latter accusation has even an ancient counterpart in the mural graffitti, depicting crucified (on a "tau" cross) Jesus with a donkey head. I don't think that you would believe in such relations, only because they were written or told? Critto (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, as you said above, you are not an expert on the sources, so your opinion is of no value to the article. What would be of value are actual secondary sources that discuss, inter alia whether Caesar's tone actually is sensationalistic, how the Romans of the late Republic viewed the practice of human sacrifice, etc. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with the anon's analysis above, and have tagged the relevant sentence as disputed, not merely a probably-true statement requiring a citation.Robert A.West (Talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Example

In the US, perhpas the ebst known example is the burning man festival.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Burning_Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.191.103 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Human Sacrifice

The claims of human sacrifice by Julius Ceasar, who had a history of animosity with the Gauls (to put it mildly) and never actually witnessed such sacrifice first hand are hardly reliable. We know that leaders in Ancient Rome often spread sensationalist propaganda against their enemies, and given that the only alternative accounts for such a thing are by Christian missionaries who also had a vested interest in demonizing the event and also often never claimed to actually witness it, the accusations of human sacrifice are very similar to Blood Libel accusations. The claims that humans were sacrificed at the Wicker Man are based on rumor and hear say, they are hardly credible and should not be presented as if they are factually true. --67.58.85.57 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things to consider here. First, there are several references by classical writers to human sacrifice among the Gauls. Second, the Wicker Man itself only appears in Caesar's writing, and he does not claim to have witnessed it. However, the veracity and significance of any of this is for the scholars to discuss, not Wikipedia editors. All we can do is quote what the editors in the field are saying, we can't interpret the primary sources ourselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just changed that bit about Caesar being the only ancient source to mention wickermen; not only is it wrong, the source cited doesn't even say that. The relevant text from Strabo, with a reference to the original, is at the webpage already cited in the article. This is a bit of a drive by edit, as I've been reading stuff from Strabo about Celts, and checked in here out of curiosity as to whether anyone else said anything about wicker men. It's fairly clear to me that a lot of what Strabo says about Gaul is derived directly from JC, but I suppose someone would need to find a more reliable authority saying so to clarify that in the article. Sonthonax (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the article lede states "In modern times, the wicker man has been revived as a part of some neopagan-themed ceremonies, generally without the human sacrifice." "Generally"?? 68.113.225.4 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Burning Man

Does this have anything to do with the burning man festival? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander v99 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no connection. http://www.burningman.com/press/myths.html#wicker Ellsworth (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe the claim of this association should be removed from the article? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggest moving of § "Contradicting the Roman sources ..."

Read the article for the 1st time - the following paragraph doesn't make any sense in the opening. It contradicts information that was not even properly stated at that point and disrupts the reading flow. It would well make more sense in the ANCIENT section IMHO??

BTW the statement that "there is no informationen of the practices Caesar described" is strange, because many historical "facts" are based solely on Caesar - Caesar himself is an eye witness and arguably one of the best sources about history of that time, if not - in many cases - the only?? Thanks!

Contradicting the Roman sources, more recent scholarship finds that "there is little archeological evidence" of human sacrifice by the Celts, and suggests the likelihood that Greeks and Romans disseminated negative information out of disdain for the barbarians. There is no evidence of the practices Caesar described, and the stories of human sacrifice appear to derive from a single source, Poseidonius, whose claims are unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymx (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wicker man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924194133/http://www.wickermanburn.org:80/_Dev/index.htm to http://www.wickermanburn.org/_Dev/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029051115/http://www.thewickermanfestival.co.uk/gallery.html to http://www.thewickermanfestival.co.uk/gallery.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Says “…just after the Spanish Civil War in 140.”

should that be 1940? 2603:300C:1898:C160:58FF:FC3A:CDC3:34DD (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)