Talk:Norse mythology

Norse mythology (Q128285)
Hi! Please see d:Wikidata:Project chat. Can you please help? Regards gangLeri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏[//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/user_talk:%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%98?action=history Th]‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 08:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Details
I have found that the bibliography is full of sources and yet the article is very vague. There are opportunities to include various information such as the trio of gods that made the first man and woman are Vili, Odin, and Ve. Also I think that it should be mentioned the names of Odin's wolves and ravens since they were mentioned, but not named. It is easy enough to find these and if we are going to mention them, then the names should be included or linked to. Additionally the article could use further details on origin and there is little mention of Ragnarok. Many people who look up Norse Mythology will not want to search through various links to find a huge subject of Norse Mythology, Ragnarok deserves its own section. --Chrisray1110 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

white supremacist 'influence on the popular culture' inclusion request
I noticed there is a section in the article titled 'influence on the popular culture'. I noticed Norse mythology has influenced White Supremacists. I think this topic needs to be included in the article. Either as its own section which I believe would be appropriate and could be titled, "Connection to white supremacy" or at least as a subsection under 'influence on the popular culture'. For instance, the mass shooter/murderer in New Zealand wrote, “…if I don't survive the attack, goodbye, godbless and I will see you all in Valhalla!”

I think denying this information a place on the article would reflect a bias. Can anyone help develop a section on the article?

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that the New Zealand shooter was in any way particularly influenced by Norse myth. If he were a heathen (Heathenry (new religious movement)), he might be notable enough for mention there, but that's hard to say. However, he appears to have been a Christian. His mention of Valhalla is also nothing special—as mentioned here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

His use of the Cross of Odin on his weapons and his use of the word Valhalla are not 'nothing special'. Regardless of whether he was a heathen or not has little to do with his choice of using the Cross of Odin and his use of the word Valhalla. I think you do not have a neutral point of view on this topic and that you are too engrossed in it. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:899E:2798:D5E8:1F91 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources on the topic, go ahead. Otherwise what you're suggesting adding here and at Talk:Valhalla is original research, which is not allowed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OR concerns aside, what is this "Cross of Odin" you're talking about? The Celtic cross? The Sun cross? The Black Sun (symbol)? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation
It appears to be missing relevant in regards to the Nine Worlds still. I'd also like to bump the alternative names response by a previous commenter.

Jackpr12 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

New "genealogy" section
Recently a user added a section titled "genealogy". Unfortunately, this misleads readers and is ultimately WP:SYNTH. This article is not about a specific source, such as for example Gylfaginning, but rather about the myths of the North Germanic peoples as a whole. In turn, unless this section presents a specific genealogy from a specific source—which raises the question as to why we'd be spotlighting this particular description—we can't expect this to be anything more than misleading. For example, Adam of Bremen seems to describe Thor as the 'head' of the gods, and sources—and even manuscripts—contradict one another regarding genealogies. I think this section needs to go. , — what do you think? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it after looking at the sources. Judging by 's initial edit summaries, there's an earlier version of the template that covers more than Ymir and a few generations after him, possibly all the Æsir? but it's clear that it swallows Snorri's expansive claims for Odin's parentage of other gods, and as you say, it doesn't fit the focus of this article, which is on the mythology, not just the pantheon. I am positive it was well intentioned, and the use of Lindow's handbook shows an effort to reference it adequately, but I believe it would puzzle readers more than it enlightens them. There have been other efforts to put a genealogical table of the gods on Wikipedia; see the above section on Family tree of the Norse gods, which now redirects to this article, but an article would get pretty complex, with Ernst Alfred Philippson's writings requiring careful explanation, along with some of the suggestions for equivalencies; Fjǫrgyn and Fjǫrgynn, to name one issue, and having looked at several attempts at a family tree of the gods online (all IMO better than the one in that now redirected article), I'm not sure a table can be done clearly even if there's an explanation to guide the reader: to give a few examples, Sif's parentage of Ullr creates a diagramming problem, there's the Prose Edda statement that Freyr and Freyja were born only after Njǫrðr's marriage to Skaði, we don't know who was the mother of two of Thor's children, and how do we accommodate Hœnir and Lóðurr ... Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The reason I added a Ymir only family tree is because when I did research on this it was really complex also there are certain parts in the family tree that are missing, like there isn’t much information on the genealogy regarding the Vanir and there was no sources on the genealogy of Surtr.


 * I tried making an article on this subject right here but a reviewer suggested I place it here.


 * But, I’m not entirely sure what was wrong with my family tree, I checked the sources and they were from decent scholars on the subject. Also not sure how it was WP:SYN because the sources did say the things added. Did I miss certain details mentioned in the sources?CycoMa (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I made this earlier version.

Key
 * important figures are written in bold texts.
 * worlds are in gray.
 * Æsir are in pink.
 * Vanir are in blue.
 * Jötunn are in green.
 * Dwarves are in yellow.
 * Elves are in orange.
 * white represents other or unknown.


 * Right here.CycoMa (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe an article of Norse god genealogy would be a good idea, it’s just the reviewer said put it here.
 * I do research on mythology in my free time but, I’m not too familiar with Norse mythology. Do any of you guys have ways to help with that?CycoMa (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the family tree looks OK. It would be good though to explain that it is based on what was remembered in Iceland in the 12th and 13th centuries.--Berig (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Snorri technically scholars only source on Norse mythology?CycoMa (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He is the main source, but we also have the Poetic Edda (not Snorri), and complementary and sometimes contradictory information from sagas, folklore, place names, runic inscriptions, image stones, Adam of Bremen, Saxo Grammaticus (Gesta Danorum) and medieval Scandinavian ballads, and probably some other sources I don't recall at the moment.--Berig (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (Before I forget, the plural of jötunn/jǫtunn is jötnar/jǫtnar. And I think there's a more specific link for the Álfar/Elves, possibly a section; scholars disagree on their status.) Berig's list is good, but what has to be underlined is that the Prose Edda systematizes material that was quite complex and contradictory. We also don't know how many of Snorri's sources, both oral and poetic, we are missing (the poetic sources include skaldic poetry as well as eddic; almost all the skaldic verses with mythological content that we still have, we still have because Snorri cited them there, but he cited them primarily as examples of kennings, and there are obvious gaps). But in addition to Saxo's very agenda-driven versions of stories of the gods, variant versions in Ynglingasaga (the first part of Heimskringla; the majority of scholars still ascribe authorship of both the Prose Edda and Heimskringla to Snorri, although it has been suggested that most of the Prose Edda was written by committee) and the euhemerized stuff in the Prologue and the so-called epilogue, plus wonky points like admitting to the reader that "some people say" Thor killed Jǫrmungandr the first time, demonstrate that he was making the material as neat, tidy, and proto-Christian (see the introduction of Odin) as possible. There's also influence from Classical thought; how much has been debated, but for example Jọrð's ancestry from Nótt looks as if it's from Greek thought (and Snorri initially presents her as Odin's daughter).


 * Even if it were possible or useful to settle on a single version of such a genealogical table, and even if it was kept to the deities and their ancestry (removing the fire and ice and dwarfs and treating jǫtnar and elves only incidentally), it would be much, much bigger than this; where are Týr, Ullr, Heimdallr, Loki, the children of Thor (for that matter the avenging sons of Odin, the sons of Loki, and the entire Vanic group—you've defined a color but they aren't there—even Snorri says there were 13 gods, and the next generation is important to his emphasis on the arc from creation to Ragnarok and beyond), and almost all the goddesses? And it would be immensely complicated. I mentioned above the problem showing Sif's relationships clearly; Iðunn is once called an elf; there are figures for whom scholars disagree on their status (Bragi, Ægir, Vǫlundr, Hermóðr, Forseti, the group of "handmaidens of Frigg"). Look at how many have "Old Norse" in the left, "Name" column in List of Germanic deities. (That's the alternative article to which suggested merging your table at Draft:Genealogy of Norse Mythology.) The last version of Family tree of the Norse gods before redirection is here (note that it is very wide, there's a scroll bar); it has a more complete genealogical diagram that begins to indicate the challenges of getting even one version of the family tree into a diagram; it's in two sections, has footnotes indicating unknown stuff, and is still both bewildering and inaccurate. Your use of general sources, of which I see only Lindow that I would call reliable, means you haven't noticed a lot of the problems.


 * Also, even if those problems could be overcome, I really don't think this article should cover the genealogy of the gods. This article is about the mythology: the stories and what underlying meanings scholars have discerned in them, including comparative mythology. We have separate articles on not only all the figures, including non-deities such as Ymir and Jǫrmungandr, but on Old Norse religion; between those, the hope has been that the reader can discern what scholars think the nature and importance of the relationships between various deities was to Norse heathens/pagans, from whom Snorri was removed by a chasm of time and worldview, but to whom he was also connected by an inherited tradition that he revivified and preserved.


 * I've so far left out the issues of likely regional differences in Viking Age heathen tradition, and of likely influence in both directions from Sami and Finnish. But they should be mentioned as further checks on just plumping for one view. In addition, as I mentioned above, there's a school of thought that the relationships between the deities changed over time, represented in particular by Philippson; the title of his most cited work, Die Genealogie der Götter in Germanischer Religion, Mythologie, und Theologie [The Genealogy of the Gods in Germanic Religion, Mythology, and Theology] demonstrates that "genealogy" is itself problematic for this reason; it can mean either a family tree or origins. (By the way, Philippson was a refugee from Nazi Germany; he continued to publish in German, but he was at the University of Illinois.)


 * This is why I think any family tree is going to confuse more than it enlightens. In my view, in an ideal world, this article would be a guide to the stories and how they have figured in academic work, and Genealogy of the Norse gods (I would advocate moving Family tree of the Norse gods to that title to keep its history) would be a prose article on the pantheon, including family relationships and relationships to jǫtnar and elves and also the two groups of the Æsir and Vanir, as represented in the sources. It would include points about how some figures may or may not be the same (Vili and Vé vs. Hœnir and Lóðurr, for example) from the point of view of conflicts between and within sources and scholarly theories, including Philippson's, which would necessarily involve a small amount of comparison with information from non-Norse Germanic sources. If it included family trees at all, I would advocate having several, both to break up the complexity by focusing on small sections at a time in single diagrams, and to illustrate differing views. (That would be the way to show Snorri's "Odin was everybody's father", as an alternate diagram.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is exactly where the situation is confusing that a genealogical tree helps. It's the basic way for schematizing and it's also the best memonic. For an expert who already knows the literature it may not be necessary--they're thinking more of the details, and they know where they fit in. For the more casual reader they're essential. They can be done at various levels of detail. Using the analogy that  I (and I think many people here also)  know best, which is England 1000+, a beginner or general reader will be helped by just the key relationship between the monarchs, leaving off side lines and disputed successions. The specialist knows that the real interest and the key to what people's motivations were, lies in exactly those side lines and the relationships between them; they will have the general table in their head, but need detailed trees of the various branches. Getting much nearer this topic, take Beowulf. Every modern version has a genealogical table; even though the poet has taken care that it can all be deciphered from the text itself, it helps the reader.  And the table still needs footnotes, to indicate at least which are at least partly historical, and which mythological.   So I agree with  that we need a series of detailed tables, but I think we also need a simplified consensus table, for without it the general reader won't be able to see the basic structure or use the detailed tables. It doesn't have to be definitive.  There may be more than one way to do it; there's no reason not to use several.
 * In my own field, I recall a long dispute about which form of the periodic table of the elements to use as the general table; the fr and de WPs have settled it by always presenting the two main versions together.  There is no dispute on the facts, rather on what aspect of he facts to focus on.  DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think either regnal lists (esp. leaving off disputed successions) or the periodic table (assuming you're right that there are only 2 competing versions; you might be surprised how little I know about science) are good analogies. This is a case of trying to reconstruct based on flawed, unclear, and contradictory information, with a lot of major figures for whom we just don't know, and the possibility that varying things were held to be true in different times and places (even within Scandinavia). Plus the difficulty of making it not resemble a bowl of spaghetti or a 2-dimensional diagram of 3-dimensional chess, although someone with a gift for diagramming might be able to do it better than I've yet seen it done :-) I also don't see the importance of knowing who was whose grandparent and how many different other parents someone's children had (especially since part of Snorri's version appears to be based on a Greek philosophical model, and especially with the likelihood that different names have been assigned to the same figures in some cases; to be frank, both identifying Norse deities with each other and seeing things in Norse mythology as based on medieval Classicism and Christian/Biblical models have been popular arguments among scholars since WW2). I believe the idea was given a chance with the former diagrammatic article and proved unworkable. I've laid out what I think should be done if there must be diagrams somewhere, but I think the downside outweighs the upside, and that includes both giving readers the impression there was a consensus, or is a scholarly consensus now, and having those who do know this material write a very difficult and rather recondite article (i.e., the genealogy of the gods in either meaning is only borderline notable so far as I know). Yngvadottir (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yngvadottir gave a very good explanation above. Norse mythology is a very messy field, and Snorri's accounts can only be described as a reflexion of what Viking Age Scandinavians believed. We all know that you have the best intentions here, but sorry, Norse mythology is too messy a field for a generalized family tree of the gods. The best we can to is something like "Family tree based on the Prose Edda".--Berig (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's also worth highlighting that this is hardly restricted to the North Germanic corpus—we see the same thing in, for example, Greek mythology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk)