Talk:Norse mythology/Archive 3

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

Minor Edit

I fixed a point in 2.2.1 where is said that Loki did not weep for Baldr's death. In Loki's article, it says that a giantess by the name of Thokk did not. It also mentioned that Thokk could be Loki in shape shifted form. I took out '(Loki did no weep.)' and put in a sentace mentioning the uncertainty of this. My added bit sounds a little off- if anyone can make it sound smoother, you're welcome to.

This was me, didn't know I wasn't logged in, sorry.

I helped- it was no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.137.184 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Anally?

'Most of this mythology was passed down orally and sometimes anally...' 

   Is this sentence right? What is it meant to mean? --Charlie Perry 04:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

According to my old edition of Webster's collegiate dictionary there is no adjectival form to the word annals, so the sentence should probably read 'Most of this mythology was passed down orally and sometimes by the records provided by annals...'

Haha! Quite funny double-entendre. =D 85.226.122.227 22:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Point Taken

It is not properly "mythology" unless you are willing to edit all references to religion to read "mythology" where various stories are told within the religion. In its current usage it is a pejorative term used by promoters of "religions" to portray some such stories as false, while presuming a factual basis for their [the religion's] own stories ... which are of course no more substantial than those labeled "mythology". The use is akin to using racial slurs to denegrate some and promote the superiority of others.

This is supposed to be an encylopedia of unbiased information. Hold over terms from politically motivated sources should not be continued.

DasV

I think that it is actually vandalism, a joke, and that it is meant to be "anal-ly", referring to anal sex, with "orally" being a euphamism for oral sex. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
I agree with Midnightblueowl; just look at it: orally and anally, quite sexual-referenced, mind you. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 02:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

This may reflect a pragmatic and empirical approach to life that contemporaries might label as "existentialist" or "Darwinian." In his work "The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans," Hans Gunther links it to the "naturalistic" views of Thomas Jefferson and other scholars of the Enlightenment.

An important insight into the laconic and pragmatic character of Norse mythology often neglected in encyclopedic works is that the Nordic peoples evolved in very harsh frost-zone environments of this planet, much like the Eskimos, and were very dependent on developing forms of technology to clothe themselves and survive cruel winters and fish in violent oceans in nasty weather. For fishermen (a relatively high proportion of the Scandinavian population) the outlook was bleak; they stood a much greater chance of dying at sea than living to a ripe old age. (This is reflected in the lack of middle-aged and elderly men buried in old cemeteries of Norwegian fishing villages relative to old women or young children of both sexes who died from disease). The Viking ship, referred to as "a poem carved in wood," was "high tech" for its era, as was Viking navigation. The Viking sword reflected advanced metallurgical skills. The Germanic peoples developed their own "runic" alphabet called the "futhark." Relative to other societies of the time, the Norsemen were an innovative "techno" people, and their attitude towards religion reflected a "technological" approach to life. To this day, Norwegians, Icelanders, and other Scandinavians (to include the Finns, who are actually more "Finno-Ugric" than "Nordic") have one of the highest literacy rates and book, magazine, and newspaper consumption rates per capita compared to other peoples on the planet. Scandinavia is also ahead of most other areas of the world in terms of the number of high tech companies per capita. This may have something to do with the sub-arctic Norse winters; when it's dark and freezing for eighteen hours a day, one hasn't much to do besides read, tinker and philosophize.

When one reads through the Heimskringla and other histories of the Viking era and its aftermath, and counts up who commits what atrocities, one does not necessarily get an impression of Christian moral superiority. The Vikings go from raiding and harrying each other as pagans in "intramural" tribal contests to William the Conqueror's utterly brutal conquest and consolidation of Britain as a "Christian." We see the Crusades where Christianized Germanic peoples massacre Islamic peoples in the name of Jesus who they previously peacefully traded with as heathens. "Christian" government also seems to be less decentralized and more intolerant, idelogically driven, and bureaucratic than in pagan times. In some instances we go from occasional "heathen" human sacrifices to massive "Christian" witch hunts and witch burnings. Is this progress? With the advent of Christianity we do not necessarily get rid of aggression, social injustice, and immorality, we simply rearrange and skew the style, motives, subtlety, and ideological nature of these things.

This is analogous to how Christian theology changed during the Crusades or during the America's horrific Civil War, when Northerners grimly sang about the "terrible swift sword (of the Lord)" while watching seemingly endless streams of loved ones come home in coffins or permanently maimed, compared to the brand of Christianity practiced in more normal times.

I found all of the above dubious/POV, strangely/poorly written, and/or exteraneous. Have a look to see if you think it can be rewritten and merged into this article, or articles elsewhere.
Sam [Spade] 02:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you think there is a lot of POV and extraneous comment in the above, well, yes, I tend to agree with you, but I also see a lot still remaining. Take just a statement like "Few other mythic systems can have as bleak a vision of the future as the ancient Scandinavian". This is a very broad statement which does not take into account the fact that in the dark ages most of christianity offered an extremely bleak view of the future for most of the faithful, and for all of the unfaithful (of which tere were many), to name but one famous mythic system. And all of the article seems to consider Norse mythology as stable through the centuries, when in fact there is as stark contrast between the early, dark stories and something that came long after like Trymskvida, which is full of pranks and merriment, and reflects the lighter world view of the last centuries of pagan belief in Scandinavia. AlainV 03:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, and I did not mean to suggest that the article as it now stands is perfect, nor that the material I removed is all bad. I encourage you to salvage anything you find important, and to make as many additions and edits as you feel are needed to explain things with a bit more perspective. I noticed a strong slant towards finding a "uniqueness" about norse mythology and culture, which may not be entirely without merit, but simply was not justified by the material provided. That said, overall, do you like the new format? Sam [Spade] 18:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I have a good idea of what you refer to by a concern (if not an obsession) with finding "uniqueness", since I encountered it several times during my vacation travels through Sweden, and before and after these summer excursions, in my readings. AlainV 04:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

advice

There is some good advice in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Norse_mythology on how the page might be improved. Sam [Spade] 05:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge Anglo-Saxon mythology ?

I am thinking of merging Anglo-Saxon mythology into this article, and Anglo-Saxon gods into Norse gods, etc... Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 16:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to merge Norse mythology with Anglo-Saxon mythology. The best solution would be to have an article named "Germanic mythology" with subsections, such as "Norse mythology", "Anglo-Saxon mythology", "Gothic mythology", "Saxon mythology", "Vandalic mythology", etc. However, only "Norse mythology" is well-known.
You cannot say that Norse mythology included Anglo-Saxon mythology. They were related but not identical, and Norse mythology did not include Anglo-Saxon mythology. One difference that shows this is that Frigg and Freya are two goddesses in Norse mythology. In Anglo-Saxon and in other Germanic mythologies, they were one and the same.--Wiglaf 17:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good point, thanks for your input, and good recent edits BTW. Sam [Spade] 17:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Although it seems that could likely be a mistake by Snorri et al, trying to fit different religious theories into a complete system... =S

Thanks, you have been doing a good job as well.--Wiglaf 18:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually no. Although the Norse Freyja and Frigga share some of the attributes of Freo and Frige. They are two different beings in both mythology.

Frigga is the same being as the Anglo-Saxon Frige. Freyja is the same being as the Anglo-Saxon (and South Germanic) Freo.

Frige is specifically love, and Freo is lust, more than anything.

But I agree we should not merge them as the two are different sects of the Germanic Pagan Religion. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Greenland

Sorry about that, I knew Iceland had been a bastion of old norse culture, and assumed Greenland to have been similar. Sam [Spade] 19:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The latest theory of why the Greenland settlement died out is that the Greenlanders, were too "good christians". The clergy actively forbade the greenlanders of following pagan ways, such as learning "pagan" hunting techniques from the Inuits. Since the Greenlanders tried very consciously to live like good Christian farmers, the deteriorating climate led to malnutrition, which lead to extremely high mortality among young women (the childbearing part of the population).--Wiglaf 19:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Because of Denmark and ignorant green peace rich kids Greenland is a mess. They had to give up all they're culture. This was a nation completely in balance with nature. But they couldn't hunt seals anymore, they had to get jobs. Now the country is plagued with alcoholism, teen pregnancy, aids, sexual abuse, domestic violence. It's staggering to look at the statistics. And this is supposed to be Denmark's colony but they hardly do anything to help! And about old norse culture in Greenland. Greenland did have many settlers coming from Iceland but it did not last. I suppose most of them went back to Iceland or to America.

The nine worlds

First of all, I have to say: "Hail warriors!"

This is the first time after some months that i took a look at the norse mythology page. I remember that there were described the nine worlds there. I wonder why you guys removed it. I also remembered that there were described ten worlds in all.

YGGDRASIL has three levels + the well etc.: Hvergelmir, Mímisbrunnr, Urdarbrunnr

HIGHER LEVEL: Alfheim, Asgard, Vanaheim

MIDDLE LEVEL: Jotunheim, Midgard, Nidavellir, Svartalfheim

LOWER LEVEL: Helgardh, Muspelheim, Niflheim

Those in italics are the worlds that usualy get lost. The problem is that I don't know which nine of them are the right ones, because in different sources there are different combinations of them. For instance:HELHEIM, NIFLHEIM, JOTUNHEIM, NIDAVELLIR, SVARTALFHEIM, MIDGARD, ALFHEIM, VANAHEIM, ASGARD or Asgard, Ljossalfheim, Midgard, Svartalfheim, Hel, Jötunheim, Muspelheim, Vanaheim, Nifelheim

Here in this encyclopedia I found out that Hel is a part of Niflheim and now I'm totally confused about everything...

Or it all depends on different periods or places in the norse history?

--Krofek 13:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do have Norse cosmology, but it could use some improvement, and I agree it could be linked more prominently. dab 08:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "nine worlds" or nine "heimar" 'homes' are only mentioned in extant texts in a single line in the second stanza of the Völuspá. All attempts to identify them exactly are guesswork. But secondary sources often don't indicate this is guesswork. Jallan 17:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What you are talking about here is actually the hebrew "tree of life" which you can see under the article about kabbalah. This has nothing to do with Norse Mythology, but I have seen it linked to norse mythology in new age books. Norse mythology is NOT celtic, not anglo-saxon mythology, and "the nine worlds" should not be mentioned at all in the article in my opinion. Try to keep it scholarly. --SWA 01:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually Snorre says it is indeed an Yggdrasil, and it is being taught as such i school as well when we touch upon the subject. You will find that the Jewish Tree of Life has differencies [sp?] from Yggdrasil, among which IIRC, sephiroth was a snake that went up and down the tree, whereas in Norse mythology, the snake is called Nidhogg* and bites at the tree's roots. When the tree is weakened enough, Ragnarok begins. There is a squirrel named Ratatosk, however who runs from the snake to the eagle at the top delivering insukts as a sort of old-school IM service.

  • Nidhogg comes from Nid and Hogg. Nid means roughly "grudge", and Hogg, means something like "Chop", or "Lunge".

HaakonKL 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ásatrú

Should we merge this with Ásatrú? Kwertii 05:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even the name "Ásatrú" is 19th century. Ásatrú builds upon Norse mythology but you can't bundle them up together. There should be links of course... --Wetman 08:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
while you're at it, can someone fix the horrible pronunciation hints on Ásatrú? dab 08:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
WHAT?! That ásatrú page is retarded. Ásatrú refers to old norse mythology, not the new age shitty "religion". Can someone please change that. And yes we should merge. That ásatrú page should be Ásatrúa_félagið.

I wonder whether "halm" should be renamed to straw, as that's what swedish "halm" usually refers to.. =S

____ I am not an expert, thus I cannot verify these contradictions on my own. Here is what I found, if someone could offer the correct information please: FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology In Iceland Ásatrú was recognized by the state as an official religion in 1973, which legalized its marriage, child-naming and other ceremonies. It is also an official and legal religion in all the Nordic countries except Denmark, though it is still fairly new.

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81satr%C3%BA 

Ásatrú was recognized as an official religion by the governments of Iceland (in 1973), Denmark (in 2003) and Norway.

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin Odin, along with the other Germanic Gods and Goddesses, is worshipped by Germanic neopagans. His Norse form is particularly acknowledged in Ásatrú, the "faith in the Aesir", an officially recognised religion in Iceland and Denmark. ____

Forn Siðr, the Danish version of Ásatrúa Félagið so to speak, was founded in 1997 and has been recognized as a legitimate religion in Denmark since December 6th 2003. More info can be found at: http://fornsidr.dk/ Gaukator (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Norse Mythology

The Norse mythology article must certainly not be merged with Anglo-Saxon Mythology. It would be preferrable to follow the suggestion above: to create a file on Germanic mythology and then have both under that heading. One mention of the Norse mythology file, it would be more desirable to have smaller sections that great big large ones. Couldn't Creation of the World and Ragnarok be one single page or even two shorter pages? Just a minor suggestion.

There is already such a page:Germanic mythology. You're welcome to work on it.--Wiglaf 14:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Table

I have adapted the nice table at Celtic mythology to this article. I am not sure of the colours, though.--Wiglaf 09:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed it. It was apparently not appreciated.--Wiglaf 11:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, Wiglaf, one person complained, and that was about the quarrel with the TOC, not the table itself! I think it's very useful. I went to edit the article, thinking to move the table, but realized I don't know what in the code it is that places the table where it is, I'm too ignorant to mess with it. Try to put it back, please! Why not put it on the right, and put the runestone image somewhere further down? Btw, the article could do with a few more images, surely. (I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to find appropriate ones, but it can't be that hard for someone who is, I should think.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, Bishonen, here it is. Go ahead and make your edits :-)--Wiglaf 12:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
sorry about my table complaint, Wiglaf. I have probably not given it enough thought to hold a definite opinion. I just voiced my spontaneous impression that it is not very useful, but I will think about it again, and I will certainly not dwell on the point. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, you're right about the main problem with the table, i.e. that many of the links go to non-substantial articles. Hopefully, they will be more accessible with the table and fleshed out in time. Another solution could be to remove those links that don't go to real articles.--Wiglaf 08:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes -- I guess a have grow a bit allergic to WP "listmania", but I think this particular list does make some sense in this particular article. Maybe more in the sense of an index though, i.e. the table does not necessarily need to be right at the top. But it can of course be useful to give an overview of characters. dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cultural perspective

I've been bold with the cultural perspective paragraph above the subsections, although I don't like to be when it involves deleting contributions. I think the graph only tenuouosly connected with the subject, though, as well as misplaced (compare my argument on WP:FAC today). I've included the protest about Tollund man (briefly) in the appropriate place, which is the previouos section. Here is the deleted paragraph:

Another problem is the lack of quantitative data on the degree of certain behaviors relative to other societies. The Norsemen had slaves, but so did everyone else; what is significant is that they had a large free farmer or "bonder" class which participated in parliamentary "things", later reflected in the large English yeoman class of the Middle Ages, and never had a large peasantry, slave class, or pyramidal social structure as did societies further to the south. This was a very "middle class" society. Most men in Germanic and Norse society were free men and were expected to carry a weapon such as a sword or spear as a mark of their manliness (recorded by the Roman writer Tacitus in his work "The Agricola and the Germania.") Their indulgences in human sacrifice were generally more sporadic and less characterized by institutionalized "superstition" relative to other societies of their day. The thought patterns of their leaders were very secular. Getting back to the Tollund man, we have no written accounts that explicitly interpret the cause of the hanging. It could have been no more "Odinic" (or more accurately, related to "Tyr," as explained later) than the hanging of outlaw horse thieves and bank robbers in the old American West. Truth be told, we just do not know what the real motivation was, and the scholars who associate Tollund man with "Odinic sacrifice" simply because Odin was associated with death by hanging (among dozens of other associations) may be telling us more about their biases than about the real Tollund man.
--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good move. I have been bothered by this part for some while. The info is not exactly incorrect, but I share your objections.--Wiglaf 14:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S.

Wiglaf, with the slowness of the servers and you and me editing at the same time, I think we may have been tripping each other up. For my part I haven't gotten any edit conflicts, but look at the History! I'll just reinsert the "Cultural perspective" heading--did you mean to remove it?--and then I'm out, you go ahead and edit.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No go ahead! I'll try to look for some nice pictures to add later, and I have a bunch of exams to correct anyway. I removed the "cultural perspective" heading too fast. I see now that there were subsections under it. Sorry.--Wiglaf 14:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What a coincidence, I have exams to grade, too. ;-( I'll be back in a couple of hour and fiddle around a little, unless you let me know that that's what you're planning too. In any case, please don't go thinking I know anything about this stuff. Or I know what all Swedes learn in school, which leaves me with a bit of a hankering to insert something sarcastic about Götiska förbundet and Fritiofs Saga under "Cultural perspective" :-). I'll resist it, though, as those guys were more into heroes and, well, uh, manliness, than gods, if I remember it right, and in any case somebody with more knowledge ought to write actual content here. (A scruple which doesn't necessarily bother all contributors, I realize.) Clearly some scholars and specialists have been involved in the article, are you one of them? I hope they haven't all taken off. It'll take somebody who's done research in the area to divide the bibliography (which is in some ways very impressive) in the way I requested on WP:FAC, probably.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I may return after half past nine tonight, but otherwise I won't do anything more today. I have actually written very little in this article, and my additions have mostly consisted of fiddling with the text. I also hope that some real specialists are around to do some work. Good luck with correcting the exams! :-)--Wiglaf 15:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good editing!--Wiglaf 08:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

various concerns

  • I agree that oral tradition is essential, and is rightly mentioned in the article. But "runes"? I don't want just to start deleting stuff, and I don't consider myself an expert, but what amount of Norse mythology has been preserved in runes? there's Eggjum stone (~200 characters), but afaik, that's about it. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Very little, I guess. The main contributions from rune stones are images from the legends, such as Thor fishing the Midgard serpent and the saga of the Völsungs.--Wiglaf 11:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
true, we should mention the depictions. They are certainly much more conclusive. dab (ᛏ)
Absolutely. I wish we had OlofE here. He knows more about rune stones than I do. I'll try to contact him and ask if he has time to contribute with more specific info.--Wiglaf 12:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "sometimes even referring to it as the work of the Devil." I think this is a cliche. The people who actually bother to write down the pagan legends usually treat them with respect. Snorri certainly did, and his own opinion is clearly set apart from the story itself. If we do say the legends were distorted by Christian scribes, we should give examples. The Edda appears untouched. So does Beowulf. Chrisian propaganda does appear in Saints' vitae who supposedly converted pagans, but I cannot think of any text that seems to have been rewritten with a Christian agenda. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I guess the men wrote down the stories did so to preserve them and so had a more positive attitude towards the traditions. IIRC, common priests did demonize the gods in order to compete with the beliefs and practices that people had in secret.
sure, I don't dispute this. But here, if I understand correctly, the point is to evaluate the reliability of the sources, i.e. Edda etc. dab (ᛏ)
Yes, my mistake. That part should probably be removed.--Wiglaf 12:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's ok to compare the characters of norse mythology with Christianity. But anything besides that is ridiculous. And i see there is nothing mentioned about how Christianity was forced on to us, because king olaf liked it. It had some good affects such as people learning to read. But it certainly destroyed a big part of our culture and has nothing but bad affect on the society of today. I don't know if you have read Bárðarsaga, but that has a very fun conclusion when Bárðurs son is fighting Raknar the king appears to him and tells him if he converts to Christianity he will save his life. So he converts. And when he's sleeping his father appears to him in a dream and tells him that he has for shamed his family and crumbled under the kings oppression and that he will be punished by loosing his eyes. The next morning he wakes up with pain in his eyes. They explode out of the eye sockets and he dies.
  • right at the beginning of the "Germanic worship" section: "Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson, author of "Viking: Hammer of the North," suggests that there was a stoic, pragmatic, rationalistic side to the Nordic character" — how controversial is this? To talk about "the Nordic character" already sounds fishy to me, and to attribute it such qualities (as opposed to what? myths of barbarians? non-Germans? non-'Aryans'? I must say "Viking:Hammer of the North" does not sound like a very confidence-instilling title, and the whole idea has a sort of 19th century reek to it (I mean, not to say that Scandinavians had common sense. I suppose they had as much as anybody. But the underlying, unstated assumptions that seem to lurk behind the statement bother me). It seems to say that other "primitives", as opposed to the noble vikings, are usually utterly naive vis-a-vis their mythologies. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the point is to show that the Scandinavians were not less sceptic than the ancient greeks. I think that part should be toned downed or greatly reduced, because you're probably not the only one who reacts like that.--Wiglaf 12:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sources

concerning "Sources of information": I think this section should be at the beginning, not at the end. We need to state, that basically we are summarizing the Eddas here. We also need to make clear in what way the scope of this article is different from the scope of the Edda article, what we know from the Gesta Danorum and the Heimskringla, and what other sources there are (runestones). We should also become clear about whether human sacrifice is within the scope of the mythology: we'll end up duplicating the same information here, on human sacrifice, on Tyr, on Goths and on Germanic mythology. It's difficult to draw a line, of course, but common Germanic stuff should probably no appear here. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

weekdays

I fiddled with the weekdays section, but I am not happy yet. Before I did, there was the implication that the names were given independently of Latin, while they are of course translations. Secondly, English is not Norse, so the English names are stricly speaking irrelevant here (but they are of course more or less equivalent to the Scandinavian names, excepting Saturday). Maybe it should be phrased more clearly, or simply reduced to the four names that are named after Germanic gods. Other traces in the language should be added (see Tyr). dab (ᛏ) 17:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image placement

I appreciate the nice images, but I'm starting to think that the article has as many as there's room for now (unless we get a lot more text). Readers will complain if the images victimize the text, which can be a problem on low resolution. Bear in mind that image width takes up a fixed number of pixels while the text does not, so the text gets only the left-overs, if any. The images have just been moved around quite a bit now, which is fine, they should be experimented with. Only I'm not sure about having them staggered left-right, at least the ones that are close together. I'm sure it looked good on the screen of the editor who placed them there, but the lower resolution you have, the more you're going to get a narrow midgårdsorm of a text column meandering between left-right images, which can be a stressful reading experience. It's a bit like that on my 1024x768 screen right now, and some readers are on 600x400 (which must mean that two 300-pixel images placed left and right will exactly meet in the middle). Think about it, but, again, please do not hesitate to experiment--images are easy to move and move back.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 23:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Contemporary" images

There are a few - very few - images on rune stones, with pre-christian mythological themes, only about 5% of the stones are pre-christian to begin with. A portrait or two usually interpreted as Thor (one on a rune block near Vallentuna), Thor's fishing (Ledberg stone) and the Völsunga saga (Ramsund). There's also a few on image stones from Gotland; Völund in the smithy, Odin on Sleipner, some ships interpreted as Nagelfar. Of these, I have only some really bad pictures of the Ledberg stone (which is in pretty bad shape and hard to photograph). The Swedish 'pedia has a picture of Ramsund, and I know I've seen an image stone in an article either on en: or sv: but I can't find it now. (Odin on Sleiper, taken from an image stone in Bunge, was also the motive of a Swedish stamp (5 öre, circa 1965 I believe - it's reddish brown in color)) Those sources are all Swedish material - I can't recall any images outside Sweden but there must be a few. (The Oseberg tapestries for instance, don't they have any religios imagery? What about the wood carvings in Norwegian churches, nothing there?). Finally, there might be interesting rock carvings as well, but I can't think of anything - scenes of fishing, certainly, but I don't think they've been plausibly linked to norse myth (one such image is in the rock carving article). Keep up the good work folks, I'll see if I can find/make an acceptable image of the Ledberg stone. // OlofE 10:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) (oh and I agree that the images should not dwarf the text - personally I consider a contemporary image superior to 19th century romantic renderings but that's personal taste I guess)


Well, I also prefer contemporary images, but Romantic ones are easier to find, and I am not sure about the copyright on photographs of contemporary images.--Wiglaf 10:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True, of course - any image is better than no image. Old depictions or drawings of monuments however should be possible to find, and they're usually much clearer than photographs. Photographs are free only in a pretty narrow time-span (up to 1925 or whatever) so it's rarely worth the effort looking for them imo. I'll have a look around and see if I can find something. // OlofE 15:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks :-)--Wiglaf 15:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A small update; I've located a surprisingly large number of depictions of elements of the Völsunga saga, I didn't realize there were so many of them. The Ramsund carving is both representative and of sufficient quality to fill that slot, but I've been on the lookout for better pictures of it for a long time. Depictions of truly religious entities however, remain scarce. There are a number (about half a dozen) of depictions of Thor's fishing trip, but none of them better than the Ledberg stone, really. I'll try to make a visit there during new year's (with my new camera, heehee). The image stones of Gotland is the only other major contender, apart from some items I believe are in Norwegian museums. The Norwegian items I'll have a look into at a later time, it's not something I can easily get ahold of. There are also "scary faces" on some older runestones, but I don't believe they're appropriate for an article on religion. // OlofE 12:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • slaps forehead* There's no fishing trip on the Ledberg stone - the scene there is Fenris foot-biting, I dunno why I slipped that way. Anyway, I did go out and snap a shot or two this weekend (like 30 actually but nevermind). This is Fenris, this is a composite of all three scribed sides. I'll have a fishing-trip-picture for you eventually, I promise... // OlofE 11:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very nice pictures! Well done :).--Wiglaf 12:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this stone might also be of interest for rune articles - the final words of the inscription (on the back side, starting under the wolf and all the way down) is a magical incantation whose meaning is lost today - it consists of the sequence þmk:iii:sss:ttt:iii:l(l)l, read as "þistill:mistill:kistill" (thistle, mistletoe, casket). The cross shape on the side (centre of composite image) suggests christian influence, the imagery pre-christian. The wording lacks specifically religious phrases ("Bisi placed this stone in memory of Þorgautr (...) his father. (Bisi) and Gunna, both (raised the stone) þistill:mistill:kistill"). The stone is "Ög 181" in Swedish archives, it was found in the walls of the previous church on the site and taken out when the new church was built. // OlofE 14:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Altuna runestone, U 1161, image: Image:Altuna_U1161_20050205.jpg. I have images of the rest of the inscription as well but it's not very interesting apart from the fishing image. This carving has a lot more connection to the myth (than the fenris picture, which could allow for different interpretations - this one leaves no doubt whatsoever): In the picture, you see Tor in the fishing boat. He has baited with the head of an ox, and the Midgard snake has taken the bait. The fight has caused Tor's feet to go straight through the hull of the boat, and he's holding his hammer high, probably he is just getting ready to strike the snake - Tor's fishing companion, Hymer, who isn't in the picture, will soon cut the line and end the fishing. This is to my knowledge one of the clearest depictions of norse gods in any runestones. Image stones from Gotland is the source we should look inte next. I will create an article about the stone on the Swedish WP, for reference (since we don't create individual articles of all runestones on en:). It will be located here, sv:Upplands runinskrifter 1161. // OlofE 11:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I made an edited version of the fishing trip image, at sv:Image:Altuna_U1161_20050205c.jpg, since the contrast was a bit tricky (lousy photo weather and poorly maintained stone). Any suggestions welcome. The raw image is identical to the one I uploaded previously. // OlofE 23:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...and mentions in rune text and placenames ... and stuff

I forgot about mentions in runic text; here goes... The most visible deity in runic text is Tyr. The name itself, and the rune, was used for a long time as an incantation of power. Many old inscriptions consist only of a tyr (T) rune, often repeated or multiplied (a stem with 7 bars on each side for instance). This is especially common in old, short inscriptions on weapons. Beyond that... I have to rummage books for a bit, I can't recall a single mention of other gods. There's placenames, though - Odin, Tor, Frey (Frö), Tyr and Brage all have placenames still extant in Sweden and Denmark (I'm less sure of Norway, Britain, Iceland - there's Torshavn on Færöya at least... maybe some places in Germany?). Associated with this is the phenomenon of the -vi and -tuna placenames of Sweden (plus the -lunda and -åker names, less mysterious and less common). Auxiliary connection to those placenames are indications of popular activities in connection with cult, particularly intriguing is the horse racing and horse fighting as evidenced in the -skede names (Skövde and Enskede for instance, after skeið). The skeið still shows through in the celebration of Lucia and "Staffan stalledräng" in Sweden (incl. Åland and Swedish-speaking parts of Finland) and in Norway. Celebrating religious events with eating horse meat is also examplified by the Swedish king who refused and was rejected and replaced by one who would do so (Blot-Sven) - though the accounts of those events are of course colored by the Christian belief that horse meat was unfit for eating.

Although I'm too lazy/busy to make proper additions to the text, I hope the above gave some more openings to the subject. At least it might expand the text so you can fit in more mages :-) // OlofE 10:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talkpages Jallan/Bishonen

I'm pasting below an interesting conversation from Jallan's and Bishonen's Talk pages. Well, Jallan's part is interesting.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doubling in Norse mythology

Hi, Jallan. The Bibliography at Norse mythology seems to have gotten doubled when you edited it, would you like to take a look at it? (I'm uncertain as to which bits represent your changes, I'd better not mess with it.) Incidentally, if you know about this stuff, would you maybe like to turn the primary sources (the eddas) into proper bibliograpical references, from their present sad state? There's also a need (proclaimed by me on WP:FAC) for subdivision of the bibliography into References (=sources actually used for the article) and Further reading, if you're up for it. Several people are working to improve the article now it's been nominated for FAC, but I'm thinking maybe you have the most expertise of them, and that's what the referencing job needs.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply

I've fixed the accidently doubling of the Bibliography which you informed me of. As to the article in general, it seems to me to have a number of gross errors and dubious statements. For example, what text actually states where Asgard was located, outside of the eumheristic locatation in Turkey by Snorri or the identification with Constantinople in Saxo? And a few sentences later, though Asgard, was previously located at the center of the earth disk, we are told that Midgard lies between Asgard and Niflheim, in apparent contradiction. I think the only sources locating Niflheim at all, locate it in the north. We have a statement about the dualism between Jotüns and gods and a later statement that Norse religion had no clear-cut dualism. The identification of Honir with Vili and Ve with Lodur is very dubious. (That one god replaces another in the same story does not necessarily make them identical, for example the Greek Prometheus, Hephaistos, and Typhon are not identical, though they share traits and story motifs.) The statement that Skuld describes the death of Baldur and fall of the gods seems to be from someone's idioysyncratic theory identifying Skuld with the Vala in the Völuspá. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is certainly not an example of lost mythology, other than a few genealogical traditions. There is an overabundance of Tolkienism here. Unless there has been something discovered I am not aware of, an etymological connection between Old English ent and ettin (= Old Norse jötun) is still considered to be very dubious. And it oversimplifies and claims far too much to say that Tolkien based his Middle-earth on Midgard.

I wonder if something like the article Iceland would prove a good model, that is a series of short summary pieces each linking to a fuller discussion.

I do not see any point in distinguishing between "References" and "Further Reading" in a listing, unless "Further reading" means material not so closely connected to the article. I'm a full convert of the MLA school of documentation and the Harvard scientific style of documentation in which one uses in-text references, usually last name of the author, sometimes year date, and often page number of other indication of location in the work, said work so referenced to found in the Bibliography. This is far easier on the reader than end notes or footnotes and is the recommended style at Wikipedia:Cite sources. That all works in a Bibliography are not referenced is quite acceptable and quite normal.

The Bibliography was mostly added by myself, basically comprising (arguably) the most important reasonably available secondary works in English, one German work that is the current accepted authoritative standard work, and others not so important but reasonably available, whether on the web or in book form or both. I don't think it should be necessary to especially document secondary material that is general knowledge and that can be found in almost every one of the General Secondary Works. Also, if each section of the Norse Mythology article links to a more complete article, that is where fuller documentation would go. In some ways Norse Mythology should be a summary article, summarizing what is more fully expounded and documented elsewhere.

But I agree that some documentation is needed in the article as it stands.

As to citations from primary works, mostly, for Norse mythology, these should have their own articles and many now do. Accordingly, one would do citation by links, that is link to the article on a particular eddic poem or to the Skáldskaparmál and so forth. My plan was to rework the articles on the Eddas, give them more complete Bibligraphies: reasonably full listings of editions of the Old Norse texts and of most English translations, whether on web or only hard published. I have not got there yet. I may try shortly.

Essentially, the Primary Sources section would continue to contain only internal links: a link to the main article on Snorri's Edda, a link to the article on the Poetic Edda, but also an additional link to the article on Gesta Danorum and yet another link to an unwritten article on Fornaldarsögur. Each of these articles would have its own Bibliography. (There might be a few other links also. I suppose Faroese material should be considered Norse, and there ought to be a link to Faroese sources which would contain, among other information, a bibliography to sources for Faroese primary texts and translations. And there are probably other individual works that might be linked to, perhaps dividing the Primary Sources section into Major and Minor.)

There should probably also be an article or section on modern novelistic and fictional use of Norse mythology (beginning with Wagner?). I know enough to at least start one, but have other things I'd rather be doing here, when I have the time.

Jallan 01:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Norse mythology II

Jallan, thank you very much for your full answer. I'm only sorry to say it's a bit wasted on my Talk page, this is far from being my field. I do know about references and bibliographies, I deal with them in my day job as you do, and I have a couple of points there (though I don't honestly know when/if I'll find the time to make them--I'll just say that the WP:FAC hardasses are going to insist on a division into "references used" vs. "further reading", they always do). But that's unfortunately the sum of my competence here, I only got drawn into some superficial copyediting of Norse mythology through voting on it on WP:FAC. Is it OK if I copy your post to Talk:Norse mythology, along with my original question? It's quite an active page at the moment. I hope you'll agree, but I won't do it until I hear from you, in case you'd rather not get inexorably drawn into the Ginnungagap.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 02:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply Norse mythology II

You can copy my post anywhere. I think the Norse Mythology article is far from being a good article at the moment. But when I have time and inclination to write in that area, I generally prefer to work on detailed articles covering a single aspect of Norse mythology and try to get that right, rather than attempt the impossible task of surveying the entire field in a short article. So I'm not the person to dive in and rework it. And I prefer generally working with the primary sources, often throwing out material that has crept in from secondary sources. In respect to mythology and legend, if you can't find it in a primary source, it didn't happen (and anything if that kind must be referenced as speculation if included).

I have nothing particularly against "references used" and "further reading" when that fits, except how do you distinguish if you and other editors together have read all the works listed? To take an example from Norse mythology, that Odin has two brothers named Vili and Ve is something mentioned in some primary texts (both Eddas) and in every secondary text mentioned. So all the works can be listed as references to this.

Anyone insisting that sections called References used and Further reading must appear in every feature-level article, should be requested to first obtain consensus from Wikipedia members to include this as a requirement in Wikipedia:Cite sources. Until that is done, and I doubt such an attempt would succeed, this seems to me to be an advocacy attempt to impose one particular style of reference, one that does not especially fit in an encyclopedia. It makes sense that a book on the subject of Norse mythology might contain a Further reading section listing works discussing Scandinavian culture, Scandinavian history, medieval Icelandic history, a survey of theories on mythology in general, and so forth. It makes far less sense in an encyclopedia where those topic are discussed in other articles with their own references, those articles possibly referenced in a See also section.

Jallan 16:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


In respect to mythology and legend, if you can't find it in a primary source, it didn't happen — very true, and, unfortunately, quite to the point here. dab (ᛏ) 21:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interactions with Christianity

I have expanded that section, by summarising a chapter in Ebbe Schön's Asa-Tors hammare (2004). AFAIK, he is Sweden's foremost scholar in Scandinavian folklore and I hope they'll translate the book into English.--Wiglaf 22:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We need a spelling standard!

Someone just changed the article modifying the spelling of Völuspá and a couple of other names. We really need to get our house in order on the issue of a Wikipedia standard for the spelling of Old Norse names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English%29

yes spelling seems to be an issue in this article. also has anyone here consider the other way of spelling and saying frigg which is frigga? Binglebongle2000 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian folkloric creatures

Yesterday I edited in some things into the content table in the main article, specifically creatures from Scandinavian folklore. But as it was removed, and I recieved a message telling me to take it up on the discussion page before making any further edits regarding the matter. So here's my point, many people think of Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore as fully interchangeable, but, Scandinavian folklore developed mostly in the aftermath of Christianity's arrival to Scandinavia, with the possible exception of some things which were already there but further developed later. But, should we include that part into the content table, as people are more likely to check here than any other part regarding the matter, and in the context "Norse mythology and folklore", they are in the same group, as in here:

Topics in Norse mythology
Scandinavian folkloric creatures Askfru, Bäckahästen, Changeling, Draugen, Elf, Erlking, Havsfru, Huldra, Kraken, Moss Folk, Myling, Nisse, Nix, Skrømt, Mara, Troll, Tuss, Vætter, Will o' the wisp, Ysätters-Kajsa

Or, should we put links to those creatures in the article Scandinavian folklore, and then link to that page either in the actual article, or in the content table, like so:

Topics in Norse mythology
Scandinavian folkloric creatures For more information, go here

Nevertheless, if we're to go with the first main option, then we should improve the spelling of the names into it's most original form.

I'm open for suggestions here.

I think that the article clearly states the relationship between the two versions of Scandinavian beliefs. The solution you suggest could easily be misconstrued as making them synchronical.--Wiglaf 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Nordic religion

I only just came across the Nordic religion article, and think it may be better to merge it into this one. What do you think? dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I can understand the sentiment but I'd prefer to do exactly the other thing - take the religion information out of this article and put it there :) There will eventually be more than enough information for two excellent articles. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
this is sort of the same problem as between Germanic Neopaganism and Asatru: Norse material is clearly most abundant, but differences between Scandinavia and other Germanic parts cannot just be ignored. There is Germanic paganism. The "Viking Age" section there links here as its main article. If you do as you propose, you'd need to change that link to Nordic religion. Btw, is "Nordic religion" even adequate? You would assume that most "Nordic" people today were Christians. Maybe this should be "Norse paganism", or "pre-Christian Norse religion" or something similar. Similarly, we don't have "Germanic religion", we have both Germanic Christianity and Germanic paganism. dab (ᛏ) 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this is currently a mess. I agree that Norse paganism is much better than Nordic religion. I'll move it now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention on Norse mythology up for a vote now

A new proposal on representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology in fiction

I removed this section from the article. It's a badly written indiscriminate collection of information on books, computer games and television series - mostly from the last 10 years or so. There's already an article on Norse mythological influences on later literature which is mentioned in the lead and there's still a "Modern influences" section in the article where Wagner is mentioned. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

::celebrates:: I am glad someone else did it. I figured if *I* did it, being a comparative 'newcomer' to the Wikipedia community, that a bunch of people would make chicken-squacking noises and toss me in a Wikidungeon. Thank you, Haukur. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
well done; but, unless you dump it somewhere like Norse mythology in popular culture, it will just accrete again -- look what we did on Odin --> References to Odin in popular culture. dab (ᛏ) 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I've dumped it there and removed it from this talk page. Now we need to link to it in the article so the IP-contributing pop-culture-dumpers can find it. The thing about these sections is that they tend to become ridiculously unbalanced in favor of very recent stuff. And writing a properly balanced one is very difficult because it involves knowing so much popular culture. I certainly can't. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the popular culture section from Hugin and Munin. I could not in good conscience create a separate article for it in that case - but I didn't feel it belonged in the main article either, being irrelevant and uninteresting. Maybe it could be dumped into the central Norse mythology in popular culture article? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
yes, all this stuff is perfect cruft. It's okay to stash it away in some "pop culture" article, just don't delete any of it, since it may serve as raw material if ever somebody wants to write a coherent article about it. dab (ᛏ) 17:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

tiwaz and tyr

anyone fancy pulling something useful out of Teiwaz? GraemeLeggett 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Well, I would just assume delete the copy and paste job and simply turn it into a redirect page for Tyr, which already includes factual information about Teiwaz/Tiwaz. :bloodofox: 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the page and turned it into a redirect page for Tyr. Problem solved. :bloodofox: 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Prehistory

Norse paganism is pre-Christian and similar to the Roman and Greek pantheon. There seems to be another more primitive source of beliefs included in Norse mythology which was a form of animism and may date from hunter-gatherer societies. There are sprites and wights in the form of elves and dwarfs and giants. One finds more of this in folklore among people who live close to nature. It is possible that this tradition was passed on in more remote areas contemporaneously with paganism. Take for example the circumpolar religion of he Sami in northern Sweden. --Jbergquist 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See Rock carvings at Alta; Alta, Norway; and Kungälv, Bohuslän, Sweden --Jbergquist 04:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The petroglyphs in Bohuslän are north of Kungälv at Tanumshede and date from the Nordic Bronze Age. On the west coast of Sweden one finds the Göta älv river and Tanum and this leads one to wonder if this how the Æsir and Vanir became connected. The Göta älv river drains Lake Vänern. The home of the Vanir is referred to as "Tanakvísl or Vanakvísl" by Snorri Sturluson. Álfheim is the ancient name of Bohuslän. --Jbergquist 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See also History of Scandinavia for the influx of the Proto-Indo-European Battle-Axe culture during the 3rd millenium BC. The oldest settlements in Bohuslän are from the Fosna-Hensbacka culture. When Thor Heyerdahl found similar petroglyphs in Azerbaijan he hypothosized that Swedish ancestry could be trace to this region. --Jbergquist 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See articles on Trollhättan and Mímir. Älv (Sw: river) and Älva (Sw: elf) seems to indicate that elves are water sprites. Trolls supposedly inhabited the rapids. --Jbergquist 09:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In the article Rus' (people) it says:

'From the Old Slavic name that meant "river-people" (tribes of fishermen and ploughmen who settled near the rivers Dnieper, Don, Dniester and Western Dvina and were known to navigate them). The rus root is preserved in the modern Slavic and Russian words "ruslo" (river-bed), "rusalka" (water sprite), etc.'

The conclusions are that the belief in sprites was very widespread or that populations were very mobile. The Vikings were known to have traveled via rivers through modern Russia to Constantinople. --Jbergquist 10:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The jinn in Arabic literature have a lot in common with the Æsir and elves. Some are good and others bad. They have powers of illusion, can change their form, conceal themselves from view and permit others to see them if they so wish. They "haunt" mountains and remote areas. They can be captured and exploited by humans but can't be trusted. --Jbergquist 18:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

my norse gods

Norse mythology In the beginning there was the land of ice Niflheim and the land of fire Muspelheim. As the fire from Muspelheim licked the ice in niflheim Ymir, the first giant ,and the frost maidens were created. First created god was buri, it was father of Borr and grand father of Odin. Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve slaughtered Ymir and created the world from him. They made the sky from his skull, sea from his blood and the earth from his body. The earth was encircled by sea. The place where people lived was called midgard and there was the wall around it made from Ymir’s eyebrow to defend them. Then Odin took the sparks from Muspelheim and made the sun, stars and the moon from them. Then the human race was created from the trees, the men Ask was cereated from ash tree and Embla was made from elm treeOdin then gave them the breath of life, Vili gave them wit and emotions, and Ve gave them senses and speech. They were parents of all humankind. But there lived also creatures like elves and dwarves. The dwarves were created from the stone The gods later gifted them with intelligence and human-like appearance. The dwarves are described rather ugly to the human eye, though there is little to indicate that they diminished at all from human size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.179.80 (talk)

"there is little to indicate that they diminished at all from human size." except perhaps the name? --Krsont 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something that struck me too. As it stands it is impossible to link a piece of information to a specific source - which weakens the credibility in a couple of places.NZ forever 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Making the article name more Neutral

Though I am a practitioner of Norse Paganis, I don't apply that as any bias in thinking that this page (and perhaps) any page that calls something a "mythology" should instead be renamed to "theology"; i.e. Norse Theology -- It would make it more neutral in application, and would make it seem that articles linking from this one don't cast a shadow over the practitioners as "beliving in a myth or a lie". M. 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mythology and Myth are terms of art in folklore (cf. Mythos in the modern usage). Myth does not mean not true or a lie in this usage (that's a modern lay usage). Theology is the study of a religion, as there are no seminaries or standard organs for Norse Mythology, it cannot have a theology (unlike Christian Mythology). Mythology is neutral as a term in folklore and herein. Thor Templin 15:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

precisely; see mythology. As a 'practitioner of Norse Paganism', you want to build as deep an understanding of the concept of "mythology" as possible. "theology" otoh is a rather foreign concept to aboriginal/tribal religions. dab (𒁳) 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Ragnarok

There should be an article abput Ragnarok, Asgord, and most the main Gods and Godesess in north Mythology such as: Loki, Thor, Odin, Frigga, Freya, Heimdahl, Tyr, Frey, Idunna, and the rest of the gang. Agree? Binglebongle2000 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you will find that these already exist e.g. at Ragnarok and Asgard (the anglicised spelling); the gods themselves all have articles e.g. Odin Thor Freya etc etc. Sjc 09:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

?????

Who is writing the little thing about the Gods and Godesess, the mixed up the Aesir and the Voneir, have NO idea who the Valkirie are, and says that Buri is an Aesir come on! Binglebongle2000 05:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

>> There are three "clans" of deities, the Æsir, the Vanir, and the Jotun. The distinction between Æsir and Vanir is relative, for the two are said to have made peace, exchanged hostages, intermarried and reigned together after a prolonged war, which the Æsir had finally won. Some gods belong in both camps. <<

I am not sure what you think the distinction between the two is, but I would be interested in your clarification. I think that the absolute lack of clear delineation between the two is made quite adequately in the above para. from the article. As for the Valkyrie, I am uncertain as to what you think precisely is wrong with it? I am also unsure about the nature of the Búri problem. Sjc 09:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the end days

It states the both chaos will rule the worlds as it did in the beggining and that chaos will be defeated along with the gods. Which one is it? --Ktrsaunders 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Both :) Sjc 09:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

9 Worlds?

Cosmolology says that there are 9 worlds, but only 7 are listed. Did I just count incorrectly? OrangeAipom 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apples

In popular culture, how about listing the phrase "an apple a day keeps the doctor away"? Idun was in charge of guarding the golden apples. The gods needed to eat one each day to keep their immortality. When they were prevented from eating their apple-a-day, they began to age. I think this warrants at least some notice.--75.48.24.189 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Norse Cosmology

I disagree with the listing for the nine realms of the Nordic universe. My sources say that Hel is the antithesis of Heaven, which is not listed as one of the realms and is said to contain three of the nine realms. Therefore would Hel not contain realms rather than actually existing as one on its own?

I was also of the opinion that Svartalfheim and Nidavellir are two seperate realms and, without Hel in the list of realms, would make the listing of realms as follows; 

                                                     Asgard,
                                              Heaven-Vanaheim,
                                                     Aflheim,
                                                      
                                                     Midgard,
                                       Middle Realms-Jotunheim,
                                                     Nidavellir,
                                                     Svartalfheim,
                                      
                                                 Hel-Niflheim,
                                                     Muspellheim

Please correct me if I am wrong as this is merely what resources I have available are telling me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggur (talk • contribs) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For details on this topic, please see Norse cosmology. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Norse Cosmology article there is no fixed list of realms so is the list found in Norse Mythology merely the more correct one? Also I have to ask, is Heaven a realm? Or is it the name for a group of realms? And, if the latter be the case, why is Hel considered its own realm?

I also need to be informed on the realms of Svartalfheim and Nidavellir. From my understanding Nidavellir is the realm of dwarves and Svartalfheim is that of the dark elves. The Norse Cosmology article shows that dwarves inhabited both of these realms, I can not understand this as aren't each of these realm supposed to be inhabited by a single race? Yggur 08:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that these nine worlds are taken from Snorri's Prose Edda, where they are most clearly defined. Heaven would be "the heavens" - the sky. Looking it over, I apologize in just referring you to the Norse cosmology article: for some reason, I seem to remember it being better than it is. Some of the more obvious problems are that it presents theory as fact, besides that it is altogether bad by Wikipedia standards (zero references, poorly written). I will go through it and try to turn it into something comprehensible now, and then take bigger steps later. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wild Arms 3 and Guild Wars: Eye of the North

I am new to adding to wikipedia, though I have been reading it for some time now. I merely wanted to point out a couple of things. I have found two video games that reference Norse Mythology. Wild Arms 3 and Guild Wars: Eye of the North both use an astonishing amount of material derived from this mythology.
Wild Arms 3 has many references, the ones coming to me right now are the dungeons "Mimir's Well" and "Yggdrassil".
In the game, Yggdrassil acts as a large pillar of "life", pumping nutrients into the barren wasteland known as Filgaia.
Mimir's Well is a dungeon visited later in the game that reveals storyline, however I am not sure if it references any future events in the game.
If I recall, Fenrir is a boss-styled enemy found in the dungeon "Deus Ex Machina".
Guild Wars: Eye of the North has a few references, almost all of which are found during the exploration of the "Norn" territories. In this expansion, the player must find allies within three areas of the world, one of which being the home to slightly larger humanoids called "Norn".
Many of the names used by NPCs are inspired by Northern Europe's history, such as "Olrun Olafdottir".
A race of giant humanoid creatures called "Jotun" function as enemies during this campaign. FallaciaSonata (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A Hellish Place In Hell

nibelheim or whatever is described as being a hellish place in hell? Really Now? see redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.218.238 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, fix it if you see it like that. But since it seems you can't, I guess I'll just step in and do it for you. *sighs*. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
NEW NOTE: It says Hellish place in Hel and not Hell. Check before you write, PLEASE! BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

alternative terms

The literature listed also has "Northern myths" and "Nordic religions". MSN Encarta has "Scandinavian mythology". "Viking mythology" is seen on the internets and on Fox News[1] but I doubt that this can be considered an encyclopedic term. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Books frequency:

I agree that "Viking mythology" is a pretty marginal synonym. Haukur (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but it does not provide any support Dab's removal of "Scandinavian mythology" and the use of it in encarta shows that it is indeed an encyclopedic term.--Berig (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Big clean up

this article needs a big clean up. people need to know about the gods, stories, and other infomation that isn't here. I should now, I used this article for school. Master of Hearts (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2009


Agree. The list of the nine worlds are incorrect. They are as follows:

above earthplane: Ásgarðr, world of the Æsir. Álfheimr, world of the Álfar (elves). Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.

earthplane: Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir. Miðgarðr, world of humans. Jötunheimr, world of the jötnar.

the underworld: Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice (Hel, underground world of the dead and Niflheim is the same world! Nidavellir, world of the dwarfs (this was not on wiki's list) Svartálfaheim, world of the Svartálfar (black elves). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.163.100.33 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Northvegr link

The external link to the resources available at Northvegr.org has been the lead link for quite a while, and nobody has had a problem with it until now. One editor has now proclaimed the site "blacklisted, "unreliable, "unnecessary," and "spam," without any elaboration beyond the fact that Google Books exists. Obviously, Google Books is not in the same category as a reference for readers of this article. As to the editor's reference to Northvegr.org as "spam," how is a nonprofit foundation considered to be spamming by making resources available for free? Rsradford (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons are given here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#northvegr.org :bloodofox: (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My reasoning, in summary:
On hundreds of our older and poorly referenced articles northvegr.org is currently used as a reference. This website, which not only claims copyright on a horde of freely available public domain material (see prominently placed "© 2009 New Northvegr Center." below menu bar) and is also commercial (see "sponsors" section; [2]—get your hair styles, online poker, Indian recipes, medical alert systems, mortgage advice, etc, here folks! But not before you get your Cafepress Northvegr coasters [can't link due to Cafepress blacklisting]) seems to be a leftover from those hazy Wikipedia years where referencing was optional but an external link would do, and sites like Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive, and Google Books were just coming along, thus making something like this handy, despite the obvious issues.
Fortunately, those days have long since passed, and, nowadays, the (largely 19th century) material that northvegr.org hosts and draws revenue from can be found complete on the aforementioned websites. As a result, this site serves no purpose on Wikipedia other than to simply funnel traffic (and thus revenue) to it. In other words, northvegr.org is simply spam. Worse yet, it is spam that openly proclaims that Wikipedia allows it as a source (along with some other eyebrow raising "credentials") on the northvegr.com home page!
The result of the discussion was that removing links to the "new" Northvegr website were recommended while, while, where necessary (which, really, is nowhere), using archived links to the old, less blatantly commercial version of the website. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation

What I think is the main problem with the current article is that it isn't focused enough on the myths, it overlaps too much with Norse paganism. Haukur (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to object to that as well. First of all, the lead claims that mythology encompasses "belief". In my opinion, this is a misunderstandnig of the term (unrelated to Norse mythology in particular). The mode of religious belief is as it were orthogonal to the mode of religious myth. This was obvious even to Varro, who (in my view rightly, usefully) distinguishes

This article deals only with the latter, while the Norse paganism should deal with all three, as this article's WP:SS super-article. The point I am making here for the purposes of this article is simple: it should deal with myths but not with religious belief or religious ritual. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on this. I'm surprised that in two full year the belief system remains incorporated throughout the article. Should we just delete them? I say we do. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a nice little classification scheme. We have an article on Norse pagan worship, mostly corresponding to "political theology" but I don't think enough is known about the "natural theology" of the Norse for us to write a separate article on that. But let's keep in mind the article statistics:

We have three orders of magnitude there! I think many people will start with the mythology article even if what they're really most interested in is the religion. We need to make it easy for people to find what they're looking for. Haukur (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree! That is what Google and Wikipedia search is for. This article is about mythology and there should be no linking at all with paganism, except perhaps in an extremely brief pop culture reference. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Just want to say that the list of the nine worlds are incorrect. They are as follows:

above earthplane: Ásgarðr, world of the Æsir. Álfheimr, world of the Álfar (elves). Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.

earthplane: Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir. Miðgarðr, world of humans. Jötunheimr, world of the jötnar.

the underworld: Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice (Hel, underground world of the dead and Niflheim is the same world! Nidavellir, world of the dwarfs (this was not on wiki's list) Svartálfaheim, world of the Svartálfar (black elves). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.163.100.33 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bibliography needs to go.

I am so sorry that someone has spent an apparently enormous amount of time outling the "bibliography" but it is completely irrelevant. I have tagged this article with a reference improvement because they have "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". That is, only one reference in the entire, exhaustive, lot (as of this writing) points to anything in the article. That is completely unacceptable. I suggest that everything, save the one actual reference, be removed since they obviously do not apply. An alternative would be renaming the Bibliography to something like For Further Reading, or perhaps even better For Further Study and place all that junk in there. Any votes on this subject? :: As a side note, I have Amazon'd two books on Norse Mythology and will be happy to place inline references when time allows. I have another book to finish first which will be quite some time. I generally only have about 20 minutes daily to read, so as you can see, it could be a long time before I get to them. If anyone wants to hop in and make inline citations to connect with the bibliography, more power to you. Please do. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point and agree. This article has actually needed a total rewrite for a long time, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it sure isn't a good article - but the bibliography is probably the best and most useful part of it. Haukur (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Nine worlds...

I really wish that people who like to give lists of the nine worlds of Norse myth, would actually READ the parts of the Poetic and Prose Eddas which refer to the different worlds. NOWHERE is a full exhaustive list of the nine worlds given. They are only mentioned separately and in different places, with different names given for probably the same place in the Prose and Poetic texts. Snorri Sturluson who wrote the Prose Edda, is the only source of the words "Svartálfaheim" , "Múspellheim" and "Niflheim". These terms do not appear in the texts of the older Poetic Edda. Niflheim is mentioned once, in the controversial Hrafnagaldr Odins which used to be part of the Poetic Edda, but is no longer included in modern editions and widely thought to be a much later work perhaps from the 16th century.
Snorri Sturluson was the one who used the terms "Svartálfar" (Black elves) and possibly "Dokkalfar" (Dark elves) as synonyms for the Dwarfs, and thus he used Svartálfaheim as a name for the home-world of the Dwarfs. This world is visited by Loki in Skáldskaparmál and by Odin in Gylfagynning. Conversely the world of the Dwarfs in the older Poetic Edda is called "Nidavellir" and nowhere is Svartálfaheim mentioned. It seems obvious that these are different names for the same world.
As for Niflheim being the "same world" as Hel, this is simply NOT the case in either the Poetic or Prose Eddas. In Sturluson's Prose Edda, Hel is the world of the inglorious dead and is located WITHIN Niflheim. The Giantess also called Hel rules over it. "Niflheim" is also a word that only Sturluson uses. The closest word in the older Poetic texts, which is linked to it, is "Niflhel" (Misty Hel) mentioned in Vafþrúðnismál and Baldrs draumar. In Vafþrúðnismál, Niflhel is mentioned as one of the Nine worlds to which Odin had travelled and that "here die men from Hel". In Grímnismál stanza 31, Hel is listed as existing beneath one of three roots of the world tree Yggdrasil. One of the other two leads to the Hrimthursar (Frost giants in Jötunheim) and the third to Mankind (in Midgard). This probably means that Hel and Niflhel were both worlds on their own, although Baldrs draumar hints that Hel is located within Niflhel. It would seem that "here die men from Hel" could mean that dead people who were too evil for Hel, or for some other reason not fit to stay in Hel, were sent out into the surrounding cold, misty world of Niflhel.
This theme is taken up in Sturluson's Prose Edda where he mentions Niflhel - "...but wicked will go to Hel and thence to Niflhel: that is down in the ninth world". Here he is seemingly calling Niflhel a place lower down in Hel (or FROM Hel?), while at the same time the Prose Edda makes out that Hel is located within Niflheimr. To me this seems like a misunderstanding of the mythology or a mix up of words by Sturluson. It has been shown that he mixed up the ideas of the older term Niflhel and his term Niflheim in other places as well:
John Lindow. Handbook of Norse mythology -

"The confusion between Niflheim and Nifhel is summed up by variation in the manuscript of Snorri's [Prose] Edda. In describing the fate of the giant master builder of the wall around Asgard, two of the four main sources say Thor bashed the giant's head and sent him to Niflheim, and the other two say Thor sent him to Niflhel."

So it seems like Niflhel and Niflheim were meant to be names for the same place, The cold misty world which contains the Hall of Hel, which is the world of the dead, and from there the wicked dead will be expelled into the outer surrounding wastes. Another place of punishment for a certain section of wicked dead is mentioned in both the Poetic and Prose Eddas and is called "Náströnd" (Corpse Shore) a place in Hel where Níðhöggr lives and sucks corpses of Oath breakers and murderers.
Similar to the case of Niflheim / Niflhel is the world of the Fire giants, in the Prose Edda, called Múspell and "Múspellheim", which in the Poetic Edda is only referred to as Múspell.


This gives us a list of nine mythological worlds (with their related Poetic and Prose Edda mentionings) :
This list is simply to be deduced from the limited sources given to us. As I said before, a complete list of the Nine worlds is never mentioned entirely in either of the Eddas. Please take time to read the source Eddas and don't just mash together a list from the different worlds that they separately mention. The Poetic Edda is OLDER than the Prose Edda and Sturluson is known to have misinterpreted / embellished terms and invented his own words for things, when he used texts of the Poetic Edda and possible other sources, for the writing of his younger Prose Edda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing

I have tried to Edit this article so that it was more accurate, due to the fact that there are a few misconceptions and the list of the Nine Worlds are wrong. But it seems that the author of this article would rather have an inaccurate article, and keep all her hard work then have a person come in a fix some of the issues present. For those of you who will read this before attempting to edit this, do not waste you time. It will go unappreciated and within a few hours will be changed back to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.6.30 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Family tree of the Norse gods

... is a new article containing only this information:

AuðumblaYmir
Búri
Bölthorn
BorrBestla
ÓðinnVéVili

Is it correct? Is it possible to merge the tree in the main article (Norse mythology) and create a redirect? Or is there a possibility to keep a stand alone article? Thanks for any hints. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I constructed the (as unfinished) family tree above from data taken from the Wikipedia website. So if it's not correct, then some articles need revision. Aithír (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Status of Rewrite

Users watching this page may have noticed that it has recently been rewritten. The previous version of this article lacked appropriate citations and at times presented misinformation. While this version of has been rewritten by way of Wikipedia:Good article criteria standards, it currently lacks a few vital sections. These sections are a "modern influence" section and something along the lines of a "history of scholarship" section. Contributors willing to assist in expanding, proof reading, and/or creating these sections are invited to contribute. Once everything is in order, I look forward to working together with other users to bring this article to featured status. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norse_mythology/Archive_3&oldid=1184587639"