Talk:Germanic paganism

scope, lead etc
The way the article is currently written, it would seem to take it for granted that there was, uncontroversially and knowably, one single Germanic religion of all Germanic peoples who had not converted to Christianity. It could be that this is simply because of the way the article has grown organically, or is this really the position of the editors? If it is not then I think it should be looked at with this point in mind. Some questions to consider, all just thinking around the same type of thing: To me it seems like thinking about these types of "constitutional" issues can help in many ways when an article gets older and bigger.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was not one religion, were there several, is it perhaps simply not known how many there were?
 * Germanic peoples can be defined in several different ways, so which definition is being linked to the title of this article? For example are the Gothic peoples (often included on a linguistic basis) known to have followed a Germanic religion?
 * A previous poster has pointed out that this article has an overlap with Norse paganism. Potentially this article is intended to focus on discussions about the idea of a bigger and/or older forerunner of the Norse paganism that was also present on the European mainland, and maybe England? If so, then this might be something to lay out for the reader so that they can see the connection between articles.
 * Just to be clear, someone might reply that I am being unfair, because there are bits which are very different from what I am implying the article is like. So I will point to the first two sentences, which are of course critical for all readers and indeed all future editors.

The first sentence refers to a very broad category which could include the Gothic peoples, and it implies unity which I think just Tacitus on his own shows to be unlikely, or at least difficult to reconstruct. (The article, broken into different regions etc, does not necessarily agree.) The second sentence seems to be purely Wikipedian in its origin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Contesting that a much later culture derived from Indo-European is an "Indo-European topic" per se
I had an edit removing the "Indo-European topics" header from this article reverted. Understandably, the reason give was that "scholarly consensus supports the I-E theory". But I'd like to add a point and further ellaborate on the removal & the criteria for the addition of such a header.

No doubt scholarly consensus plus linguistic and genetic evidence supports the fact that Germanic peoples have ancestry from the Indo-Europeans and are an IE-speaking people. That said, the Germanic peoples and their culture & paganism are not an "Indo-European topic" per se, as they doesn't refer to the original Indo-Europeans or add information about them, but are just one of the many branches who have descent from these people & lived thousands of years afterwards (than the IEs, their original culture & expansion). Indo-European being mainly a language group, the Germanic and other IE languages can be referred as an "Indo-European topic" (and thus such header is appropriate on these articles) but the many peoples who live thousands of years after the Indo-Europeans and speak a language derived from their branch are not an "Indo-European topic", or else African Americans (to make a hyperbole) would also be an Indo-European topic since they happen to speak a IE language (English). Peoples directly descendant of the Indo-Europeans, such as the Corded Ware, Proto-Indo-Iranians, Andronovo, etc. can be referred as an "Indo-European topic", as they directly descend from the IEs and their articles add information on things like their immediate expansion. But every single group who happen to speak a language derived from the IE family & their respective cultures, religions, etc. are not "Indo-European topics" & do not merit such a header on their articles.

This specific header is extremely widespread & very often misplaced. I think someone overly enthusiastic about the topic may have gone on a 'rampage' spreading the header across multiple articles without much criteria. It is a broader discussion that could be expanded to that header's Talk page, but I will leave this for now, as an argument against having that header on this specific article. Maybe someone could hypothetically take the header to the 'History' (Proto-Indo-European, before the Roman Iron Age) or 'Influences' section (Germanic paganism was influenced by PIE mythology before the Celtic Iron Age) and it would fit the article, but not at the very beggining as if implying that the article at broad is an Indo-European topic (it isn't). User:CaptainKaptain 21:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you ranting about here? Your bizarre edits and comments regarding Indo-European studies—and evident lack of familiarity with the topic, judging by your comments—is doing you no favors. Here's a tip: Due in particular to the North Germanic corpus, the Germanic branch has played a major role in Indo-European studies since its inception and continues to do so today. This goes well beyond linguistics and reaches into motifs and essentially every other aspect of modern scholarship's discussion regarding the ancient Germanic peoples. Anyone familiar with the basics of this topic would be aware of these facts. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, you bring lame personal attacks and generalizations, but nothing addressing any of the arguments brought to this section. You also claim that I am 'unfamiliar' with a topic I am interested in, and of which you must "obviously know better". This, alongside your zealotry towards any discussions about Indo-European topics, does you no favors.


 * The fact that a lot of the scholarship about Indo-European studies were made in Northern Europe, using the North Germanic corpus as a basis for comparative religious studies, still doesn't make Germanic Paganism (and other themes) an Indo-European topic (thus meriting the header at the first-sight of the article) per se. The religion and cultures of peoples who lived thousands of years after the Indo-European expansion and happen to speak a branch of the Indo-European language family are not things that relate to the original Indo-European peoples (Proto-Indo-Europeans). Their languages, though, are (and merit such header), because Indo-European is a language group, after all. If you think otherwise, then you must add such header to every article about any people, culture or religious tradition derived from IE speakers, a criteria which would mean the header would have to be displayed in an article about African Americans, since they speak an IE language (English) - to give a hyperbole of how absurd that is.


 * You say: "This goes well beyond linguistics and reaches into motifs and essentially every other aspect of modern scholarship's discussion regarding the ancient Germanic peoples" but Germanic peoples (living thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-Europeans) are not an Indo-European topic, the fact that they were largely used for comparative religious studies to determine some basic elements of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology doesn't change that. African Americans living a few hundred years after the Germanic peoples, also not an Indo-European topic. Germanic languages, though, stemming largely and directly from the Indo-European language group, unlike culture or religion, that is an Indo-European topic. The Corded Ware culture, the first known expression of Indo-European language groups in Europe, that could count as an Indo-European topic. Germanic peoples and things don't. That seems very simple to me, but you're welcome to give factual arguments convincing otherwise. User:CaptainKaptain 08:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * CaptainKaptain, you have very fixed ideas about the time periods involved (including that the Roman and Celtic Iron Ages are normative historical cut-off points, and also by implication that the Germanic peoples have died out and that African Americans' ancestors had no culture before their enslavement?) and a fixation on reconstruction. Sadly, a lot of mythologies and religions have to be reconstructed, and this is one of the better-attested branches from the Indo-European cultural tree (in the generally accepted scholarly view), partly because the North Germanic peoples were not incorporated into the Roman Empire. Nonetheless, despite your insinuation that Germanic paganism has been over-emphasized in comparative Indo-European studies because the scholars were in Northern Europe (I invite you to read any of Georges Dumézil's works and see whether you can detect a Northern European emphasis), this article is about Germanic paganism. As I have just stated in an edit summary, there are scholarly theories that Germanic paganism was significantly influenced by, for example, Finno-Ugric religion. If that's the kind of thing you were thinking of when you modified the "rooted in" statement, you need to add a well referenced exposition of the argument in question to the body of the article; but these are minority views so will require attribution in the text. And that's not the same thing as emphasizing that the Proto-Indo-European substrate can only be known through reconstruction—of course we don't have direct evidence of it, and saying that the Germanic was rooted in the Proto-Indo-European does not imply otherwise; consider the implications of the metaphor. (Note: I'm also truncating your huge section header to facilitate useful edit summaries.) Yngvadottir (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "having very fixed ideas about the time periods involved". I don't think I have said at some point that the Germanic peoples have died out or that the African American's ancestors had no culture before their Indo-Europeanization (using that same logic, did the ancestors of the Germanic peoples & other current I.E speakers have no culture before their Indo-Europeanization?), again, Indo-European is a language group, first and foremost. I don't understand why you brought up reconstruction as it is not relevant to this talk section & the discussion about this specific article. I brought that up on the mythology template article, because I thought that was a relevant criteria there (reconstructions compared to firmly historically-attested groups). In this article, though, all I mentioned about reconstruction is that "Germanic paganism is rooted in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology". I understand, though, what you say when you mention it wasn't reconstructed when the roots grew out of it and I have to agree with the wording there. I will add though that, about reconstructions, the proposed PIE mythology group, since it is not fully attested and is a (something poorly done and biased) reconstruction, it might be that what is defined as it and as PIE mythology was just an outgrowth & another ordinary branch of common European pagan religions of the time (as practiced by the peoples living in the Pontic Steppe/Central Asia/Anatolia or wherever one puts the Urheimat in), not something distinct & with distinct motifs just because of the language difference. But since the "reliable scholarship" doesn't hint at that & seems, for some odd reason, blinded to that possibility & keen on making IE a distinct, even dualistically-opposed group of 'migrants' to Europe, foundational to all the later European culture despite the thousands of years of history preceding them, I will leave it at that, unless I happen to miraculously stumble upon some good "scholarly sources" stating this. I will stress though that Proto-Indo-European mythology in itself is something reconstructed, that is a fact and beyond any discussion and I don't think it's a fixation to point out that fact & its possible implications.


 * That Germanic paganism has been over-emphasized in comparative Indo-European studies was not my insinuation but a factual statement by user bloodofox. That some of it was due to the fact that many of the scholars who first researched and theorized it were from Northern European countries (i.e Germany and England) is verifiable by the fact that these studies & research on 'Aryans' & the 'Indo-European connections' were largely studied and first propagated in Germany and England during the 19th century, owing to no small part & mixed with, a load of romanticism from the period (plus the fact that Britain had large access to India, its colony at the time, and an interest in its culture & that Germany had large 'nationalistic' and identitarian interests up to 1945). A clear attestation of this is the fact that Indo-European languages are called even today as 'Indogermanische' in German. A minority of these studies were conducted in other countries and this scenario remained so up to the beginning of the 20th century, but even today, Northern European countries are still prominent in Indo-European studies.


 * As for the "rooted in" statement (saying that Germanic paganism was rooted, in no small part, in the PIE religion) that was just to guarantee that one wouldn't interpret the statement as meaning that Germanic Paganism was 100% derived from PIE religion (and, as you said, it is clear it isn't, and that there is discussion regarding other influences. The fact that such discussion exists seems enough in itself to me to add that clarifying line, which in no way diminishes the PIE influence, without the need to point to specific theories & bring them to the corpus of the article). It was a double-insurance, and one that only made the text clearer without doing any harm to it, I stand by these changes and think they should ideally be reinstated. User:CaptainKaptain 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I concur with bloodofox and Yngvadottir that Proto-Indo-European mythology and Template:Indo-European topics are relevant to this article. Krakkos (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "That Germanic paganism has been over-emphasized in comparative Indo-European studies was not my insinuation but a factual statement by user bloodofox" is a false statement and certainly not reflective of one I've uttered. Don't misquote me. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You said a few comments above, and I quote: "Here's a tip: Due in particular to the North Germanic corpus, the Germanic branch has played a major role in Indo-European studies since its inception and continues to do so today", you stated that the Germanic branch played a major role in Indo-European studies. One could debate if stating "having played a major role" is the same as "something being over-emphasized", but, really, I just wanted to mean what you said (that the Germanic branch was emphatic in the development of Indo-European studies and continues to be so even today) with that staement, not to make an intentional misquote. CaptainKaptain (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate other users imputing on this but could you explain, even briefly, why? That Proto-Indo-European mythology is relevant to this article was never questioned nor was mention from it removed from the text. The question is if this article is an Indo-European topic & thus merits the header. So far, I've seen no conclusive arguments on the favor of it being an Indo-European topic other than vague references to the scholarship. In fact, at this point the discussion is so petty that what is being questioned is if the Indo-European topics header is relevant to this article at its start or at the part about the origins of Germanic Paganism. I think the latter should be the case as the influence of Proto-Indo-European religion on Germanic paganism remounts to its origins, not to its core - at its heyday, Germanic paganism was not something 'Indo-European', it was something… Germanic, a different group, existing thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and surrounded - on all sides - by other Indo-European speaking groups. But if anyone can justify historical Indo-Europeans as anything related to Germanic Paganism other than in its origins, please go ahead and explain it (also a reply to @Yngvadottir). User:CaptainKaptain 23:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear that both and  have explained this to you, yet you still are going on about this. In keeping with the additional editor's statement by, I am in complete agreement with bloodofox and Yngvadottir that Proto-Indo-European mythology and Indo-European topics are both relevant to this article. Stop with this bludgeoning behavior and accept that consensus is against you on this matter.--Obenritter (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have read what the above-mentioned users have argued about in this Talk page. And, considering what they have said, I brought forward arguments and raised questions to be answered, that would clarify the topic of discussion. This was about two days ago and there have been no further editions to the article, or answers, ever since. You then show up and say that I'm "yet going on about this", that I have "been explained by, by other users" & that I am maintaining a "bludgeoning behavior".


 * The discussion about the theme (& the questions raised) has not been concluded "because you say so". No one is obliged to further reply, or is being pressured into doing it. No harm is done by leaving the Talk page as it was. And no unconsensual further edits were made. I appreciate your (and more people's) input on the matter, and as I have told user Krakkos, I ask if you could explain, even briefly, why? Why do you think that Germanic Paganism is an Indo-European topic, thus meriting the template? Germanic paganism being something influenced by other sources than just Indo-European and Germanic as a group existing thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-European & surrounded on all sides by other Indo-European speaking groups. If you can justify historical Indo-Europeans as anything related to Germanic Paganism other than its origins (which would merit the template at the head of the article & not at the part about Germanic Paganism's origin - which is what the discussion we are having here is boiling down to), then please go ahead and explain yourself.


 * What I don't appreciate is your pretentious behavior towards discussions held between other users or the assumptions that I disregard consensus on the matter before editing. No one here has ever stated that Proto-Indo-European mythology wasn't relevant to this article, so your opinion as spouted there is of little relevance to this discussion. Try reading the actual discussion & the points raised so that, if you are interested, you can make meaningful contributions to the Talk section in the future.


 * And, as you pushed this on & so to leave no doubts, I will clarify and unnecessarily repeat myself, that I think: 1. The IE topics template should ideally be removed or placed in the origins of Germanic Paganism section, as it isn't an IE topic per se (culture existing thousands of years after the IEs speaking an IE language =/= an IE topic. See: African Americans, Brazilians, Pakistanis, etc. - the Ger languages? that's an IE topic as IE is a language group; the origins of Ger Paganism? That Relate more directly to and stem from PIE religion so a template about IEs could be added. Elsewhere, there's no place for such a template in the article). 2. the line that said "rooted in the PIE religion" could be changed to "rooted, in no small part, in the PIE religion" so to be further clear & leave no doubt that Ger Paganism is not a 100% derivation of the PIE religion. These are suggestions for other users if they wish to edit the article. CaptainKaptain (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on draft to replace this article
As some of you already know, I've been putting together a draft of to replace this article, which you can find here: User:Ermenrich/sandbox. I invite anyone who contributes to this article to make suggestions for improvement. Feel free to advertise as well. I'm not sure when I intend to finally move the draft over here, but there is not yet any hurry.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does the draft use the term "idol" instead of cult image? The former is a pejorative term. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, for one thing, people are unlikely to know what a “cult image” is (for the average person the word “cult” is probably far more pejorative than “idol”) but feel free to alter/remove.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I’ll also note that the three citations in the lead of that article stating that idol is a pejorative do not actually say that it is pejorative.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My leaning is in line with this quote describing Cult image on the Idol disambiguation page: "a neutral term for a man-made object that is worshipped or venerated for the deity, spirit or demon that it embodies or represents". Cult image appears more neutral in its usage from where I stand but I haven't read up on the scholarship - this is just based on what I have come across in papers. From my understanding, "cult" typically lacks pejorative connotations both historically and in religious studies contexts. Ingwina (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a neutral term in scholarship, but having tried to teach my students about "mystery cults" and gotten quiz responses like "The Romans thought other religions were cults", it's worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of people understand the term to be highly pejorative.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion would be to have this page as a platform for educating people in line with scholarship and so address the misunderstanding, with links being offered where possible to help. That's just my view though. I'll drop back and let other people voice their thoughts. Ingwina (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'm happy to remove the term "idol" if people don't like it, but I don't think "cult image" is an improvement.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sieht sehr gut aus. Zweivellos eine Verbesserung. You've done a lot of research here and it shows.--Obenritter (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now moved to main space. There's probably still a few things to improve, so please feel free to discuss or be bold and fix problems!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done and many thanks for your labors. --Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Giant vs. joetunn
, I've changed your change of giant to joetunn back in most cases. My reasoning is thus: Beyond that, I think it's important to use a term our readers will be familiar with. I'm aware that "giant" is imprecise for the beings in Norse Mythology, but "giant" is the established translation and is used as such in scholarly literature as well. Moreover, outside Old Norse there's no reason to speak of "joetnar". Are the giants who show up in German folklore "joetnar"? is Grendel? Not in the sense used in Old Norse. It's therefore better, in my opinion, to use a less specific term.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the article in Pre-Christian Religions of the North is titled "Giants (joetnar)" and uses giants throughout;
 * the article in the Reallexikon is titled "Riesen"
 * the article in Simek's dictionary is titled "Giants"


 * Hi Ermenrich. Firstly I'd just like that thank you for the amount of work you've put in with this page.
 * Secondly, I do understand your points and agree to some extent it is more familiar to people and easier in that way.
 * My reasoning is as follows:
 * - The page we are linking to is called "jotunn" and thus I think it's useful to be consistent with that. The page for "giant" is about all cultures rather than just Germanic ones. The page also explains fairly nicely (from my biased point of view) the distinction between the term "jotunn" and the being the page is talking about called a "jotunn" which could also be named a "risi" or "thurs" and so on.
 * - I think "giant" can get confusing to people who aren't aware of the translation issues given that they are not necessarily notably tall in the early sources, which are also those that likely give a best account of views in Germanic paganism.
 * I think regarding your points, if we follow the discussion on the "jotunn" page, it talks about the terms for "jotunn" I mentioned earlier. It thus to me makes sense following that line of thinking to include "eotenas" like Grendel and "riesen" too. I may be being a muppet but I can't see bits talking about folklore but in general I'd still say it should be okay given that they'd be referred to like "jaette", "yotun" and "riese" in modern Germanic languages. It is debatable I concede but I'd say the best argument against using jotunn for these terms here is lack of continuity, even if I personally disagree, and thus potentially using "giant" for all the beings too could be misleading for the same reasons. Lumping together beings that don't belong in one group.
 * Let me know your thoughts - I'm keen to hear what you think :) Ingwina (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go along with whatever the majority thinks, but I still believe that saying giants is the best way to go, and one commonly used in the scholarship. It's true they may not originally have been large, but it's equally possible that their size is just inconsistent in the myths. When Clunies-Ross mentions the size issue, she merely says: Whereas huge size and physical ugliness are traits strongly associated with both male and female giants in fornaldarsögur and in Scandinavian folklore of the post-medieval period, they are not prominent in early skaldic poetry or in the poems of the Poetic Edda, or indeed in Snorri’s Edda. (pp. 1531-1532). I think a lack of prominence is a bit different from concluding that they were not thought to be large. I believe I've run into that argument before, but I can't judge have prominent it is when it doesn't show up in any of the three sources I've mentioned here.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I bow out and leave room for other people to give their opinions I'll just pop in a supporting example from the 'jotunn' page that in the foreword to Jeramy Dodds's translation of the Poetic Edda, Terry Gunnell says that "jötnar is "sometimes wrongly translated as 'giants' " and instead uses jötunns."
 * I do think the matter is complex and similarly will happily go with whatever the majority thinks. Ingwina (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, John Lindow, for example, doesn't hesitate to call them a race of "giants", but he says, "And the other group, the ones who aim for the destruction of the cosmos and disruption of order, are certainly not "giant" in the sense that they are demonstrably larger than the gods. They are usually called the "jötnar", and again as the term is used in the mythology it feels more like a tribal or kin group than anything else." Carlstak (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We could really use a section over at jötunn featuring discourse among scholars about the use of "giant". I've seen a few recent articles discussing the use of the gloss and its various problems. A handful of English translations of the Poetic Edda avoid it too, like Dodds's and Thorpe's. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll happily get to work on that. It'd be really helpful too if you could share those articles you're thinking of. Ingwina (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you have an opinion on whether we should use giant here or not?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer concision and jötunn, while also a catch-all term, avoids the issues surrouding giant and, in turn, association with ideas about gigantes (as similar as the concept may be, in a comparative sense). However, some kind of survey would be useful. Ultimately, we'll need to get into specifics the more we drill down on the subject instead of the catch-all gloss of "giant" (eg. the use of risi, thurs, etc.). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an update on this folks - I've added a section to Jötunn explaining the glossing issues. We could do with plumping it up with more sources but I think it's good for now. Following this I'd push again the proposal to explain the gloss giant but principally use jötunn in this article to avoiding its misleading nature. Ingwina (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ermenrich @Bloodofox I don't know if you saw my last post but I've written a short section on Jötunn about the issues with glossing as "giant". I'd propose that we follow the format in other pages where we say "Jötnar (often glossed as "giants")" and then go on using jötunn for reasons discussed above. What do you think? Ingwina (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

, I have some problems with the suggestion. While you've shown that some scholars dislike the equation, I don't think you've shown that all scholars do. I've already mentioned how Clunies-Ross frames the issue (fairly neutrally), and Petzold in the Reallexikon says Die Eigenschaften der R[iesen] drücken sich in ihren Kollektivnamen aus: anord.þurs, germ. Thuris (belegt im Abecedarium Nordmannicum), ahd. duris, thuris, ags. Thyrs gehört zu dem Adj.turas, ,kräftig, stark`. Eine zweite Bezeichnung ist anord.jötunn (Jötun) zu etan ,fressen`, was beides auf die ungewöhnliche Größe und Kraft hinweist. Beide Bezeichnungen werden in der Edda synonym verwandt (8, 80). Schließlich der Name as.wrisi, ahd. risi ,Riese`, dessen Etym. unsicher ist. Vielleicht hängt es mit dem germ. reisa, sich erheben, zusammen. (The qualities of the giants are expressed in their collective names: ON. þurs, Germ. Thuris (attested in the Abecadarium Nordmannicum), OHG. duris, OE Thyrs belong to the adjective "Turas" "powerful, strong". A second term is ON jötunn (Jötun) [related] to etan "to eat", which indicates both the unusual size and strength of the giants. Both terms are used synonymously in the Edda. Finally the name OE wrisi, OHG risi "giant", the etymology of which is uncertain. Perhaps it's related to Germ. reisa, to rise.") The Reallexikon would seem to support an identification of the Jötnar with giants.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem with citing German discussion that doesn't directly address the English gloss giant is that they're of course using the German term Riese, which is cognate with Old Norse risi, a term itself used in the Germanic corpus for these beings and without the issue of glossing Classical concepts over Old Norse concepts. The traditional English language use of the Classical gloss giant by translators is a big point of contention in contemporary English language scholarship on this matter, for example discussed in the introduction of the most recent English translation of the Poetic Edda (Edward Pettit, 2023, Open Book Publishers). In it the translator feels the need to defend his use of it against expected criticism. As another example, Lindow also feels the need to defend his use of the gloss "giant" and discusses its criticism in his recent Old Norse Mythology (2022, Oxford University Press). I doubt this would be a point of contention if translators historically used something like ettin over giant in English. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that saying that it’s a point of contention is as far as we should go. I think Ingwina’s section has taken one side too strongly. The reason I quoted Petzoldt is because he etymologically connected the word Jötunn with gigantism. And What about Clunies-Ross then? All she says is that unusual size is not emphasized in the earliest sources. Another point worth making is that Grendel and the earliest attested German Riesen definitely are imagined as larger than normal people. As this is a pan-Germanic article, I think it’s a point worth keeping in mind here.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to present my start of a section as the finished work and it would of course benefit from further expansion but I think it at least establishes the point that this is a really controversial topic in this field and that even among those who use the term "giant", they still sometimes note that they are not necessarily large. I will do my best to fill it out though to cover the topic better over time. I agree with your point that Grendel is presented as big and I trust you about the German Riesen but I don't think it's clear if even Grendel's mother is large, let alone others in the Old Norse record and thus I think we should use a term that best covers all the beings. Using the outside term "giant" as a gloss is only good if they are all large and that doesn't seem to be the case. Jötunn however is a term from the cultures we're describing and thus avoids these issues. We already have jötunn in brackets at the start so we're saying they are the same but I think we can put jötunn as the principal term. I believe that using "giant" will give readers who know less about the topic the wrong idea, leading them to think that all these beings are defined by their largeness which is not the case, even if some are large. Ingwina (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also as a further point, we currently have it set that the title is "Giants (Jötnar)" with the main article link below to "Jötunn". I think it makes sense for the title to be consistent with the main article link and further to be consistent with the main article title. If "giant" really is the better term, we should be using it as the main article (or at least with a differentiator in the title e.g. Giant (Germanic) ), and I feel this discussion is best held on that page. I don't fully see why one term would be preferred here on the summary of the topic and another on the main page on the topic. Ingwina (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Jötunn is a WP:natural disambiguation, meaning it's a better title than "Giant (Germanic)" (or [Norse]). If we change the title here, I'd at least argue for Jötnar (giants). Giants (including non-Germanic giants) are of an inconsistent size throughout world mythology - the same giant can even appear as a different size. It's certainly the case that, say, the Eckenlied presents giants who seem to be of differing sizes (sometimes from one scene to the next): Ecke is so large he can't ride a horse and Dietrich needs to sheer off a large part of his armor to wear it, but his giant brother Fasolt is introduced riding a horse, etc. In Norse myths, Ymir is supposed to have been so large that the whole world was made out of him. There's a giant in one of the myths in the Prose Edda (I think) that's described as a mountain with trees for its beard (if I'm remembering correctly). When Thor visits Utgard Loki they spend the night in the glove of a giant and think it's a hall. If these are "late" sources, they at least show that Jötnar could be imagined as giants. My point is I'm not completely aware of all the arguments about whether we should call Jötnar giants, but I've pointed to sources that are at least agnostic on the issue or seem to argue for Jötnar being giants in the classical sense, which means we need to be sort of circumspect about how we present the whole thing. Where there is scholarly controversy, we should present it as scholarly controversy.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we should cover the scholarly controversy and I aim to flesh out the section on the Jötunn page more to cover this. The arguments against using the gloss "giant", other than it being an outsider word is that being large is not an intrinsic property of jötnar. Like you said, some are large for sure but that doesn't seem to be a necessity whereas I imagine it would be for a giant, even if they aren't large all the time? While I of course would prefer a full swap with a reference to "giant" often being used as a gloss, I'd accept a compromise with shifting to Jötnar (giants) for now though if you two are @Ermenrich@Bloodofox? Ingwina (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As this article expands, I think precision is going to be the key to keep this from being very confusing for readers. I would personally just stick with jötunn and then just discuss it all in a dedicated section, sticking to specific terms thereafter. Glossing all the terms as either "jötun" or "giant" is just confusing. What is going to be more tricky yet is getting into discussions about terms that vaguely fall under this umbrella and don't always, like troll and thurs. I would personally advise keeping separate pages for those two. There are a lot of terms that seem to be nearly-but-not-exactly synonyms that could use at least sections covering their proposed etymologies and use in the record. These differences often get swept aside in translation, so it's going to require some digging. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant that if we change the title here I would support writing (giants) on the section name and after the first mention - cross referencing them every time isn’t practical, as you say. Most of the in-depth discussion should be on other articles, since this is just a brief, pan-Germanic summary.
 * On another note, *thuris appears as an element in some continental Germanic names (Thurisind, Turismund). I’m not familiar with research on the topic, but I would assume that that indicates a more positive or at least ambivalent attitude toward them than the Norse sources indicate, similar to the elves. On the other hand, a giant named Thyrso appears in a late medieval Tyrolian legend connected to the hero Heime, even though in MHG the wird durs is never used pto describe giants that I’ve encountered (I suppose I could do a database search and find out). I don’t know how well these sorts of connections have been researched, but I assume there’s a lot of fascinating pan-Germanic things people could say about these terms.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've phrased it badly and you two have misunderstood me - I wasn't meaning using the two together every time - just like how you just said @Ermenrich. Either way, how do we feel we should make a decision moving forwards? The options I see it are as follows, with 2 being my preferred choice as said above:
 * 1 - Stay how it is with "Giants (Jötnar)" being the subject heading and "giant" being the main term for the beings
 * 2 - Jötunn as the main generic term with the common use of "giant" as a gloss being briefly described
 * 3 - Another generic term as the main one to be used
 * 4 - Mix and match throughout though I feel we all think that would get confusing on a brief overview page like this
 * In all I imagine we'd keep the brief discussion of terms for the beings that is there already as this seems useful to me?
 * Any other thoughts?
 * Also I didn't know about those names - that's really interesting. In Old English and Old Norse being a thyrs is rarely a compliment. I'm planning to do some work expanding and improving the Jötunn article and I'll be sure to factor this in! Ingwina (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

New archaeological finds and old debates
Right now we have a statement from Pohl 2004 discussing proposals about the age of 'the cult of Odin'. However, a recent find just pushed back the date of a clear reference to veneration of Odin to the 400s and squarely in Scandinavia, only a few hundred years after Tacitus's Germania.

We can now say that we know for certain that Odin was venerated in Scandinavia in 400 and this is information Pohl did not have access to when producing his survey. This presents a problem unique to platforms like Wikipedia, where make immediate updates from initial reports before the peer-review process has any chance to catch up.

In short, how should we respond to older survey of arguments that can be shown to be missing a key piece of data that we now possess? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We now have earlier evidence for Odin's name (400s). However, the question of how old the cult of Odin is not about whether he was worshipped in the 400s, but deals with whether he was worshipped in Roman times ("Germanic Mercury"), or even whether it is meaningful to discuss "Odin" that early if the God may have differed substantially. There's a good summary in Schjødt's chapter on Odin (he's in favor of the existence of a god of the "Odin-type" back to PIE times). That's why I reinstated the sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The matter is more complex. Over the years, scholars have proposed a variety of things regarding the development of the god, including that Odin derives from southern influence or was a Migration Period innovation due to increased militazarion or even a result of Hunnic influence, just to name a few examples. Our first known mention of Odin by name now occuring in the 400s on a C-type bracteate—with all this bracteate type's ruler associations and Norse myth-like iconography—in Denmark makes for a huge find. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you’re arguing that the debate was about whether Odin was worshipped in the 400s, this new find doesn’t actually change anything about what I just said, namely a statement of WP:RS/AC about how old the cult of Odin is. I’m not disputing that the find is very important but it just moves the first mention back 100 years, not to the time of Tacitus.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion below. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "how should we respond to older survey of arguments that can be shown to be missing a key piece of data that we now possess?" Strange question by a veteran Wikipedian like yourself Bloodofox. Wikipedia has a policy on such matters: Age matters:


 * "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. " Dimadick (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My comments and questions are in response to an edit restoring a survey from Pohl that long predates this crucial new find, which I had removed. We usually use consensus/survey statements wherever possible. Yet in this case, we suddenly have a huge new find: A clear attestation from Denmark only a few hundred years removed from Tacitus's Germania. This newly announced item would be a key component of any contemporary survey (and discussion of the deity's history in general). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I feel like you're just talking past me. If there is debate about whether or not Odin is deity from c. 1 AD, having something from c. 400 AD is probably not going to make any difference to the people who believe that Odin wasn't worshiped in 1 AD.
 * Anyway, aren't we jumping the gun on this? We need to see how scholars react to a new find (outside of a newspaper article) before we start making inferences about how it will change the scholarly landscape. We are WP:NOTNEWS after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenrich (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a student/scholar of ancient Germanic peoples with focus on their dealings/borrowings from Roman culture, this is an enormous find (as indicated). However, before we go making carte blanche changes, it would be best to wait for some responses from leading scholars. That being stated, I do think that the first mention of Odin deserves an informational note about this recent discovery and its potential implications as posited in the scholarly source from which it derived.--Obenritter (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree it should be mentioned, and that it's important. I just don't think we can say that it upsets any existing scholarly consensus (or lack thereof) without a statement that meets WP:RS/AC that there is no longer disagreement about whether Odin was worshiped in the time of Tacitus - if such a statement can be found, after scholars have absorbed this new find, I will happily remove the sentence cited to Pohl myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)