Talk:Wōdanaz

title
please move it back to Wodanaz. We don't want the asterisk in the title (it will confuse people too much), and the ō doesn't display right for some Microsoft users. dab (&#5839;) 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I approve of the change to *Wōdanaz (as we've discussed before) though I don't feel very strongly about it. Haukur 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * um, ok. I suppose this calls for more general discussion, we should try to put it down in MoS somewhere, because it follows that Dyeus, Hausos, Perkunos and friends should also be titled with an asterisk. This is just a pragmatic question of what is more user-friendly, and I don't feel too strongly about it either. dab (&#5839;) 19:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should treat all reconstructed words the same. It's not a big deal either way, I just feel it's a bit more professional to have the asterisk. Haukur 19:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Using "ō" in place of "o" where appropriate is Wikipedia style. But what's with the asterisk? It's not explained anywhere in the article how to pronounce it, whether it indicates a reconstruction that may not be accurate, or what. This needs to be explained, or else have a prominent link in the intro paragraph (or else be removed entirely). I've added a technical template to the article for this reason. --Quuxplusone 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * as you can see above, nobody feels very strongly about the asterisk in the title, so I suppose you can move it to an asterisk-less form. However, to discuss the meaning of the asterisk everytime we quote a reconstructed form anywhere on Wikipedia would be horrible clutter, imho, but if you do feel strongly about that, I suggest you insert a footnote somewhere. dab (&#5839;) 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would, if I could. But as you can see from my comments above, I don't know what the asterisk means &mdash; it's not explained anywhere in the article. If you can fix it, please do. --Quuxplusone 06:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The asterisk is a standard way in linguistics to denote a hypothetical reconstructed word for which there is no direct evidence. We can't go talking about "Wodanaz" because we have no actual record of such a name ever having been used, but we do understand (or believe we understand) the way Germanic languages have evolved from Proto-Germanic, and "Wodanaz" is the logical ancestor of the various forms observed later in the Germanic languages.  One can also talk about *kuningaz, the precursor to king, König, etc.


 * That said, I don't think the asterisk needs to be in the title. It's a technical detail best left to the article. --Saforrest 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was bold and removed it. --Saforrest 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, now I see the debate at Talk:Odin. Well, I'm still content with having removed the asterisk. --Saforrest 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Asterisk link
As there's been some talk about bringing this matter to MoS, maybe I should mention one change I'd like to see, which is to link asterisks for the edification of those who aren't familiar with their use in historical linguistics. In the same way that (to pick a random example) Galileo positioning system says its cost "is estimated at €1.1 billion", this article could begin "*Wōđanaz or *Wōđinaz is the reconstructed name...". We might even start an article for the purpose: asterisk in historical linguistics. This way we can just link there every now and then, and we don't need to clutter up every article with a historical reconstruction with explanations. (Another possibility would be to use a template with a span markup: "* Wōđanaz is"...) QuartierLatin1968 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * good idea (I prefer the *). dab (&#5839;) 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Newsflash! I've talked to the good folks at, and we can use their template to produce something like this: *. This gives us the roll-over option, links to asterisk, and forces unicode-friendly fonts. You just type * and voilà. QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * that's not that great, since ideally you'd want a mouseover for the form itself, too, such as PIE ( * )... dab (&#5839;) 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh; I didn't know about the template. Shouldn't that template really include the asterisk anyway? It's not as though any PIE forms are directly attested. And leaving PIE aside, I don't think there should be separate templates for every possible proto-language, because that just reduplicates effort. We could add a new parameter to  toggling the span title if necessary. Would it seem more annoying to have to enter two templates à la * or one * ? QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 20:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no, the asterisk should be added manually. of course PIE is all reconstructed, but imagine a declination table for example: you'd not put an asterisk in each table cell, after all. I was intending to do a PGmc for some time: these are for language markup, much like lang, semxlit, ArabDIN and others. The problem of the asterisk is separate. You don't want it to give a "THIS IS RECONSTRUCTED" explanation every time, just the first time it appears in an article, so there should be a separate * for that. dab (&#5839;) 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, you've convinced me. And after all we can always just use wherever there isn't already a proto-language template. I'll make the necessary change to  and we can start using it. I think I may take the liberty of copying this exchange over to template talk:* for future reference. QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

myth review
I like this article if it was just me I would give it an A, but I understand you need to do a nominaton process to go higher than a B so consider my grade a B+++. Goldenrowley 02:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I give articles As (and used to give them "GA" before they attached an entire bureaucracy to that) just because I think they qualify. If people object, they can still remove the tag and take it to some review. Wikipedia isn't built by waiting for the red tape to catch up with events :) dab (𒁳) 11:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OKay B changed to A. Skip GA thing. Goldenrowley 03:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Merseburg Charms
The English translation is slightly misleading. The original has "Sinhtgunt" attempting to heal the horse, but the translation gives the impression that her sister is also doing the same. Then the original has "Friia" attempting to heal the horse, but again the translation gives the impression her sister is also involved. The two translations on the "Merseburg Incantations" page seem nearer the original in this respect. Thanks. Could you please also have a look at the charm texts on "Woden" page.

F on the etymology
I see you've rated yourselves an A and maybe the article deserves it, relatively speaking, but not on the etymology and technical details. I see up there a notification that this article may be too technical for some readers. I suppose whoever put that in did not put it in the article because he did not dare. I would start in on the etymology but I do not dare. It is very hard psychologically to break in on a solid group working very hard and all the time patting each other on the back. No doubt there is a lot to be back-patted about. I'll leave that to you and concentrate on the problems. Here is my partial list.


 * What is with the barred d? I presume by that you mean the barred d mentioned under Proto-Germanic. By the way, that articles cites no sources, so we are taking its word for it. I don't see it in Pokorny and I don't see it in Watkins and more importantly I don't see it in the title. Maybe they didn't care to get that specialized or maybe Proto-Germanic is too early for the barred d. Watkins uses the dh in the AHD, which is online, you know, but he doesn't use it in his proto-Germanic words. Ah well, I just checked my basic Gothic book. There is one there, but maybe it's later than the proto-stage. How is the public supposed to know what this is all about unless you tell them? You need a note there. In some articles I've seen a small insertion on script explaining what this or that letter is. You need to make clear whose proto-Germanic that is and why you don't usually see the barred d. Can you do that? If not, the English d awaits.
 * "the reconstructed name". Which one is it? "the" name is one name. Unfortunately I cannot espouse either of those because according to Watkins in AHD it is *Wod-enaz. Another possibility, another note.
 * "Odin probably rose to prominance". Got a source?
 * OHG Wotan. The dictionaries have Wuotan.
 * "traditionally derived". Whose tradition? Apparently none in this country.
 * (Sorry, which country?&mdash;New Zealander Koro Neil (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I'd put the obsolete etymology in a note, as the "inspired" one is pretty solid.
 * "it should be noted". Oh? Why? Too much detail. You don't need to prove the derivation. Reinventing the wheel. And the same with the paragraph after. We're not interested in vates but in Wodin. Be concise.
 * Pre-proto-Germanic? Give us a break. There's no evidence of a phase between PIE and proto-Germanic and certainly not a Celtic one. That's a major thesis and would require some back-up.
 * The meid paragraph looks all right at first glance but not the next one. -ina for odin, -ana for wotan, but what happened to -ena for Woden? In any case the point of the entire argument escapes us totally here. What's he trying to say? He is rejecting the ablaut in favor of what? What's the point? Either make it clear or drop it as not worth worrying about in this general article.
 * Pre-proto-germanic again. Is that term used by your author? If it is you need to make quite clear that the use is his and his alone because I've never seen it outside of this article and you cannot just use it in a casual way because it implies a whole body of reconstruction that as far as I know does not exist. Is he saying that this is a Celtic loan into the so-called pre-proto-Germanic? If so you need all the more to point out this is a special theory because everyone else thinks it went from PIE to proto-Germanic.
 * That gets us around to the main point. Where's the PIE on this? It isn't unknown, you know, and it isn't controversial. On the main points. I see you have Pokorny's *watu- (more or less) for Latin vates (note 7). I'm looking at Pokorny's page 1113 online right now. For the root it says "uāt-1, besser uōt-". I understand that to mean he prefers wot to wat (long vowels). Watkins does a much better job on this. The root is *wet-, "to blow". The winds of inspiration blow in Odin. Read it yourself under *wet-. Beware, when he gets into the laryngeals, the text symbols are disordered a little online, so you might need the hard copy. The long o is the lengthened o-grade of the short e in the ablaut system your author didn't like very well, which happens to be a major characteristic of PIE. Moreover, Pokorny doesn't have the laryngeals so he can't give the earlier forms. Now, a variants (instead of o) do appear but they are not of course part of the ablaut system (which varies e, zero and o grades) and are more rare. They probably have other explanations. The Celtic seems to have the a and vates seems to come from the Celtic. But all that is irrelevant to Woden, who had the o and not the a. There's no Waden anywhere. As for your author's very peculiar theory that Woden was Celtic in origin (if that's what it is), all I can say is, very peculiar, very far-fetched, nothing credible really, grasping at straws, look-busy work for the administrators. No book no job (unlike us).

Sorry this is all I got time for. Dig into it, use your skills, go to your library, rewrite the next version at least 10 times.Dave 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My main objection to "pre-Proto-Germanic" is that it is more cumbersome than "pre-Germanic". The concept seems to me a priori a reasonable one. The similarities between the Germanic languages seem to indicate a later common ancestor than that of, say, the Celtic languages. Proto-Germanic is more likely to have been contemporary with classical Greek or early Latin than with Mycenean Greek or Proto-Italic. Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume a fairly considerable gap between the time when the ancestral forms of the various IE families could be considered dialects of a single language and the time when they were recognisably the proto-languages of any of the families. This is particularly true of Germanic, and probably more true of Slavonic. The prefix "pre-" seems a sensible way of designating the forms the ancestral languages took in the long interim. If Proto-Iranian had developed and Proto-Indo-Aryan had died out, then "pre-Iranian", or perhaps "Late pre-Iranian" would be a reasonable term for what we now call "Proto-Indo-Iranian". Koro Neil (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

the root isn't "wet", it is most peculiarly "wāt". The long o is not "the lengthened o-grade of the short e in the ablaut system your author didn't like very well". The long o is the Germanic reflex of pre-Germanic long a. "Wōdinaz" is proto-Germanic, not pre-Germanic. The pre-Germanic is "Wātinos". The difference between the two also drives home the point of making a distinction between pre-Germanic and proto-Germanic. As for the barred d for the proto-Germanic /d/ phoneme, that's just one possible convention for writing proto-Germanic. Take it up with our Proto-Germanic article, we should aim for some consistency across articles. As for a source, I agree that Pokorny is just useful for an overview of non-Germanic cognates, not for an in-depth discussion of Germanic etymology. For that, we have the perfectly academic, recent and insightful article by Rübekeil, which has been referenced in plain views since about 2006. And, Dave, as for the "very peculiar theory", that is also in the Rübekeil article and not at all due to our author as you suggest. Perhaps you check it out next time you are in a library. --dab (𒁳) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Displacement of Týr
Etymologically the connection of the name of Týr/Tiw to Zeus/Iov- (and deus)/Dyaus is sound enough, but there are other reasons for seeing his position as a god of war as the result of an ancient demotion or departmentalisation. Hangatýr is an epithet of Óðinn. In a passage somewhere the Gylfaginning (sorry, I don't have immediate access to a copy, and I read it a long time ago), Gylfi is told of the custom of using the name of one god in conjunction with some attribute to refer to another god. All the examples given use the name of Týr. This parallels a similar use of Ζεύς in Greek as a part of epithets of other gods (e.g. Ζεύς καταχθόνιος, infernal Zeus, referring to Hades/Pluto). The Latin deus is from the same PIE root, and may result from a similar ancient usage, unless in fact the process is the other way round, and a PIE word for "god" was later narrowed to mean the god of the heavens. In Old Norse, the plural form of Týr, tívar, means "gods". (I assume that this is a parallel and independent development from that of deus in Latin, but who knows.) These are indications that the name previously either had a wider application or that *Tíwaz/Týr may have had a higher place in the Proto-Germanic or pre-Germanic pantheon. Koro Neil (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

indeed. It is well established that Norse Týr represents a remnant of a chief deity in early Germanic times. If there are alternative opinions, they can by all means be discussed, but not by way of unsourced skepticism placed in the article lead. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot are of the opinion that Wodan was always the highest germanic god everywhere:


 * pg 71. MacDowell, M. W. - Asgard and the Gods - The Tales and Traditions of our Northern Ancestors, 1884: "'…Wodan was the highest and holiest god of the Germanic races. His name is connected with the German word Wuth, and used to be both spelt and pronounced Wuotan, which word did not then mean rage or wrath, as wuth does now, but came from the Old-German watan, impf. wuot, i.e., to penetrate, to force one's way through anything, to conquer all opposition. The modern German water, and the English wade, are derived from the old word, though considerably restricted in meaning. Wuotan was therefore the all-penetrating, all-conquering Spirit of Nature. … But everywhere he was regarded as the same great god, and was worshiped as such by the whole Germanic race. … When man had freed himself from the power of the impressions made upon him by nature as a whole, he began to have a more distinct consciousness of certain manifestations of the forces of nature, and after that to pay them divine honours. … But when the mastery of the human race over the animal world was better understood, the god was endowed with a human form … described … now as a mighty traveler who studied and tried the dispositions of men … as an old man … (h)e had … one eye, for the heavens have but one sun, Wodan's eye. … he wore (that) … which represented the clouds that encircle the sun, and a blue mantle with golden spangles, i.e., the starry heavens. These attributes again prove him to have been the Spirit of Nature … There are many tales and traditions about Wodan in his original form … They are to be found in Germany, England, France, and Scandinavia, which shows how wide-spread the worship of him was. … These myths have their origin in the belief that the supreme One takes the souls of the dead to himself … As the Romans regarded Mercury as the leader of the dead, they thought that the Teutons also honoured him as the highest god. …'" :: Nagelfar (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ahem, the present tense is a bit daring when quoting publications from the 1880s. This is certainly intersting, but more in the context of "Wodan in Romanticism" than in the etymology section, because, needless to say, a connection of Wodanaz with the water root is completely untenable. And has been untenable since 1819, I might add. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

reviewing your addition, I can confirm that this is blooming nonsense. However, it is blooming nonsense published 130 years ago and as such may be "venerable" nonsense that might bear mention. But we cannot leave your paragraph as it stands. Fwiiw, you do not need such a dodgy source just to make the point that "Wodan was the highest and holiest god of the Germanic [peoples]" -- this is noted frequently, also by Grimm, quoting Paulus Diaconus, Wodan sane [...] et ab universis Germaniae gentibus ut deus adoratur, qui non circa haec tempora, sed longe anterius, nec in Germania, sed in Graecia fuisse perhibetur. Grimm concludes that "We need not be surprised then to find [Wodan] confounded with Ziu or Tyr, the special god of war ... Especially does the remarkable legend preserved by Paulus Diaconus  show that it is Wodan who dispenses victory, to whom therefore, above all other gods, that antique name sihora rightfully belongs, as well as in the Eddas the epithets Sigtýr, Sigföðr, vîgsigor, sigmetod." --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a recent take on this, from Otto Höfler (1992): ''The much-debated question whether [the supremacy of Wuoten] is a development of the late phase of Germanic antiquity I believe I can answer to the effect that ... *Tiwaz  retired or was displaced from his role as highest god, god-father or father-god by *Wodanaz, but that this happened at different times in different areas''

The upshot is that the displacement of *Tiwaz by *Wodanaz is "hotly debated", but not in the sense of "did this happen" but in the sense of "when did this happen", more specifically, did this happen before, during or after the Common Germanic period. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is assuming the "Germanic" religion was entirely Indo-European from the get-go. What if the Indo-European pantheon was absorbed from an older indigenous religion of the area, and their high god, this Wotan the all-father, was never displaced as such; This Tiwaz was added to the pantheon from the beginning as a subordinate entity. There is no concrete reason to assume one way or the other.... BTW, "Xauxaz" redirects here and that is a name I've seen associated with Woutanaz, however what is it's etymology or where is it ultimately attested to does anybody know? .... and of course to the original point, whomever added this link is of interest to the original argument. ;) 70.59.140.179 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * well, your scenario is conceivable in principle, the question is, has it ever been suggested by anyone quotable.
 * Xauxaz was pointed here last August. As long as this article doesn't mention the name, the redirect is worthless or worse. --dab (𒁳) 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This scenario seems implied via the "celtic" etymologies "Vatinos" etc. Anyhow, most Germanic gods aren't etymological cognates to other IE gods anyhow: Balder, Thor, Frey. etc. I'd also like to note, that if this old "Asgard and the Gods" source were adhered to, that pretty much makes Wotan etymologically the same as Vishnu. Interestingly enough. 70.59.140.179 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * no, the "Celtic" scenario is perfectly mainstream in that it suggests that first, Deiwos (Tiwaz) was the chief deity, and Vatinos (Wodinaz) was a foreign god who gradually took over more and more functions of Tiwaz.
 * Tiwaz is considered very archaic precisely because he is one of the few Germanic gods with PIE etymology. There are the aesir (~asuras), and perhaps the elves (~rbhus?), but that's about it. I've never heard of the Wotan=Vishnu equation. It doesn't seem very plausible to say the least. I do not think it is wise to keep a discussion of Anson (1880) around under "etymology". I do not think this is a quotable source for anything other than historical interest. --dab (𒁳) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But though proto-indo-european etymology may prove ancient connnection for Tyr, it doesn't "disprove" an ancient presence of Wodanaz; and I was only putting forth the etymology by Anson's reasoning as relative to Vishnu out of interest; Wodan, as the name became associated, would be more of a Rudra character if I had to make an association ;p I believe it should be left in the etymology section, just out of interest as an historic account; this isn't the Odin article but an indepth account of different interpretations of Wodanaz the original archetypal concept, and attested to sources, no matter how tenable, and the older the more (at least) venerable (if not wise) should be left as is for a cohesive article going into specific theories of the matter. 65.102.7.165 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * certainly, I appreciate this. You are obviously welcome to discuss an "ancient Woden theory" if you can cite the references. Woden does in fact have a PIE root etymology, discussed at Odhr (in the face of obstinate resistance on the part of another editor I might add), i.e. the wat root, which is "Western IE" (Italic-Celtic-Germanic) but by virtue of a possible Sanskrit cognate in a Rigvedic hapax. In terms of the archetype (not the name), I would also compare Rudra, i.e. Shiva, not Vishnu. Perhaps we can find a citation comparing Woden to Rudra? --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * edit, we can indeed: "The Indic god with whom Odin has most in common is not Varuna but Rudra-Siva." -- Jaan Puhvel, Comparative mythology (1987), p. 200. Also Greek Apollo. The PIE precedents of the Berserker aspect is covered in Kershaw (2000). --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the alternate etymology has etymological but not mythological connection to, not Varuna but Vishnu, *if* (and only if, which it is not generally) associated to the 'pervasive' meaning of 'wade' Anson gives. Though I even see an association to Shukra, the Indic god meaning "white" (like Shiva) who has one eye, and is the wisest of, and guru to, all the Asuras. Yet we might even connect to semitic sources if not considered of an IE stock to deities, in sound form, like Aten, if we think the early Odin as just a sun god. Though that is quite much more far fetched; well, maybe not in terms of where the runes (Odin being god of said runes) came as a writing system. 70.59.140.179 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But neither the article nor this talk page is an appropriate venue for our own thoughts on this subject. So let's bring on the (reliable of course) sources, please, or avoid original research. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Rudra. Outsider, arrows, disease. Sorry but no. But we could get nasty and feel like we know something about what the Norse meant by Bolverk... DinDraithou (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Late at night and drinking. Anyway I wonder about Puhvel (whom I haven't read) and suspect he might be misled by Siva's later acquiring aspects of Indra. The early Rudra little resembles the mantic Wodanaz except for also being a furious god, which anyone can be. Likewise any god can be an outsider to a tribe who don't worship him. The later Odin is like Siva in that he has also acquired the aspects of others, e.g. apparently whoever is behind the hypothetical Tiwaz. The article perhaps inaccurately says Tyr. DinDraithou (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug is right -- it's ok to be sidetracked in a bit of academic speculation on talkpages that see little traffic, but at the end of the day it comes down to what we can base on references. I have provided a reference connecting Odin to Rudra-Shiva and to Apollo. So far, we do not seem to have any other references on the question of Indic or Indo-European cognates of Odin. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indo-European mythology is about 90% percent speculation. Unless Puhvel goes into it at length and cites specialists in Germanic and Indic mythology then I don't think his claim "most similar" should be included in the article, unless others have made similar claims. A brief google brings in the Maruts and Einherjar but of course the former are led by Indra. Plus Puhvel says Odin, not Wodanaz. DinDraithou (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree none of the Indic associations, unless there is direct etymology, have any place in the article itself, but discussion of theories may spark someones memory as to a published connection or such. Shukra reminds me I believe one author (no source, this is from memory, but...) associated mimir with Vishnu. Ishwara & Regnator omnium deus have a similar ultimate meaning; but the "destructive" nature of Shiva contra Odin seems completely different; Shiva being a regression of the ego to a Nibbana type state; Odin the destruction is always for a greater creation and manifestation; though this is just a personal feeling garnered from the myths. 70.59.140.179 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes/Literature/References
Is there any reason why this article displays this curious mix of notes/literature/references? I don't mind doing the work of straightening them out. I'll do it tomorrow if no one objects. -- Aryaman (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing vandalism
I removed the following from the article: "By neo-pagans (not to confuse with the Ásatrú), Odin and the other Norse Gods and Goddesses, are twisted towards being part of some neo-pagan satanic-wannabe beliefs (see Odinism)." This seems a fairly obvious attack on neo-paganism. Posting here just in case there is some distinction between neo-pagan and Asatru that should be inserted in its place.--Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mercury and Tacitus
The section associating Odin and Mercury is confusing, and in particular the statement that Tacitus was likely referring to Odin when writing of Mercury is especially confusing. The section gets a little clearer as it goes, but it could ultimately be reworked to more clearly explain the connection (if any really exists) between the two gods. That is, it could better and more clearly convey the scholarly debate over the relationship between the two. Did one cause the other? Or, is this simply (as the section states at one point) a case of Greek and Roman writers interpreting foreign gods as their own under different names? What do modern scholars think on the matter? Is there a consensus? Or, is there a substantial modern debate? Clearing such matters up could help to better frame the matter and thus make the article clearer and more helpful to the casual reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wotan
It could be pointed out that the variant used by Richard Wagner, Wotan, is ahistorical; the modern German form would have regularly come out as **Wuten. de:Odin points out that Wagner used Wodan initially, which is the "West Germanic" form (actually the form attested in Old Saxon and on the unshifted OHG inscription on the Nordendorf I fibula); but later he decided to use Wotan, which looks like a compromise between the previously used Wodan and "standard" Old High German Wuotan. According to Wotan, both Wodan and Wotan were used before Wagner, though. However, in early Old High German, non-diphthongised ō is still frequently attested; the diphthongised variants take over especially late in Old Bavarian (ō appears throughout the 9th century, and only by 900 is it completely ousted by uo), so Wōtan could conceivably appear in Old High German. In Lombardic, ō was never diphthongised and remained as such, and in fact, the German article claims that Wotan is once attested in Lombardic, besides the Romance-influenced spellings Guodan and Godan. It is also possible, however, as pointed out by Stefan Schumacher (pers. comm.), that the variant Wotan was created in the 19th century by misreading uuotan/VVOTAN (no letter case in OHG), as uuu for /wu/ was usually simplified to uu. On the other hand, in light of the above, some of these cases can also be genuinely undiphthongised. Also note that some Old High German dialects frequently show d instead of t, so Wōdan (as given at Wōden) can turn up in OHG, as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)