Talk:Odin: Difference between revisions

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

There is no mention in this article that Odin/Wednesday is a main character in “American Gods”, a book by Neil Gaiman and a tv series Ebond750 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TylerBurden (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

I suggest adding mention of earliest written attestation of Odin as Wōthnaz, which in the genitive form is Woðnas from Vindelev bracteate X13. Monroecodex (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources for your desired edit, the exact prose, and where you would like it. —Sirdog (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"W.O.T.A.N." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect W.O.T.A.N. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § W.O.T.A.N. until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Adam of Bremen Wotan

Odin is referred to as "Wotan" in the Adam of Bremen section of this article. Even the latin text has been changed to reflect this, saying "Wotan id est furor" But in the original work Adam states: "Alter Wodan, id est furor". I think the use of "Wotan" is inappropriate here and should be changed to "Wodan" at least in the latin part and Wodan/Odin in the english one. Ediable (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the article

Condensing the lead

Hello! I've been interested in this article for a long time, and the size of the lead has always caused me a little distress. I have attempted (diff) to condense it. Overall, the article is in pretty good structural shape but is missing more recent scholarship. This means I'm limited in what I can add to the lead regarding his worship without more research. There are several accessible high-quality scholarship overviews that would considerably improve the article further but this isn't possible for me right now.

With these changes, I had several goals:

1. Emphasise Odin's most well-known aspects (popular imagination).
2. Emphasise the attributes most discussed by scholars (god of poetry, the dead and war).
3. Distinguish origin of stories.
4. Add context on historic Odin worship.
5. Reduce the length.

If you think something critical has been removed, please let me know. I tried to preserve everything that was important, but the size was too much and some stuff didn't make the cut, chiefly aspects primarily about other gods (e.g., Freyja receiving the Fólkvangr). I'd be delighted to discuss more. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Overhaul

While writing the lead, I realised I couldn't mention Snorri Sturluson without breaking Wikipedia policy—he is not mentioned anywhere else on the article. As a result, I'm quite motivated to dedicate time to the article. I have a few goals in mind:

1. Make the article accessible and engaging to readers with no understanding of Norse mythology.
2. Substitute primary sourcing with third-party, SME commentary.
3. Standardise the referencing style.

I am confident that the proposed structure, on my sandbox, will support all information currently on the page and much more. This'll definitely be a challenge and a work-in-progress for some time; this structure can (and will) evolve. Until I'm confident we are gaining something, I'm not likely to update mainspace. Before posting this, I wanted to write some content as a proof of concept (see Mythology) so others could understand what I'm trying to achieve. I'm jumping about quite a lot so these sections are nowhere near ready, but hope there may be some supportive watchers and very much welcome feedback, particularly on structure. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Update on proposal

Progress is coming along, but the volume of scholarship is obviously overwhelming. I have made structural changes and added a lot of content to my WIP proposal and still hope for feedback. To make do without, I've contacted some academic folklorists and archaeologists—especially for the section on historical record and archaeology, which is not my area of speciality. Neil Price helpfully provides some names—The Old Norse sources in which Óðinn appears are listed by Halvorsen (1967a), and most comprehensively by Lassen (2005, 2006, 2011) on whose superb work future textual scholarship on this topic will surely rest. The main publications on Óðinn are summarised by Turville-Petre (1964: 323) and Simek (1993: 245), with more recent overviews by Kershaw (2000) and Kaliff & Sundqvist (2004). If anyone knows of any more working (or living) scholars worth contacting, please let me know. Obviously, only a small number of these are viable prospects. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think turning the article into an essay while downplaying the historical record itself is an improvement.

Right now the article goes to pain to approach the record in a neutral manner, focused on what the record says about the deity and attempts to cleanly divides that from its academic reception. This is to keep this article from turning into an editorialized mass of WP:SYNTH: A reminder that scholars have been discussing these matters for hundreds of years now and PCRN 2020 is the contemporary standard overview of the topic.

Please don't bring in off-site individuals into the discourse around this article. There are scholars active on this site, although they'll often prefer anonymity: We do not need to get into claims about personal correspondence with this or that person off site. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how ImaginesTiger's rewrite "downplay[s] the historical record itself" - there is an extensive section on the historical and archeological record, which seems, to me, much better sourced than our current article. Indeed, the rewrite draws pretty extensively on PCRN 2020 (as opposed to the current article, which does not seem to at all. Could you expand on how you think the draft "turn[s] the article into an essay"?

I also think it quite helpful that ImaginesTigers has reached out to scholars for feedback on his work, as it can only help improve the article, though I suppose it doesn't really matter whether he is making that up or not! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You don't see issue with just inserting stuff like "By the end of pagan times, Odin was the pre-eminent pagan god" cited in Wikivoice from Davidson 1990? I guess we're just going to ignore all that discourse around Adam of Bremen discussing Thor as most prominent? And all that discussion about the massive focus on Thor in the late Viking Age? And this is just one example. Such is the problem with editorializing this material and presenting it in Wikivoice as fact.

Additionally, most of the rewrite looks to be just pulled from here and turned into an essay, some of it rather confused.

Are we really going to need to get into this discussion?

I recommend just adding to this one.

And as for 'reaching out to scholars for feedback', let's please don't waste our time with what isn't verifiable. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no doubt there are places in the draft (like the example you cite aboe) that would benefit from further discussion, but on balance I think the proposed rewrite is a much more coherent article. Indeed, to me, it seems that the vast majority of strong claims are attributed to the scholars who make them in this draft. I'm sure you can could out similar problems in the existing article as well, if you wanted to.

I'm just not seeing that there are systematic errors/problems in the rewrite that render it worse than the current article. Admittedly, it's out of my wheelhouse. So perhaps you could assist me. Can you explain your specific concerns about why the re-write is less desirable than the current article? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor's essay is teeming with examples like the above mention of Davidson's opinion just outright presented as fact in Wikivoice. For example, we have the confident sentence "Many mythological narratives regarding the god were written by one Christian—the Icelandic historian and politician Snorri Sturluson" presented in Wikivoice (this time referencing Faulkes). But then, sentences later, it is followed by "While Snorri is generally credited as the author, this is disputed by some scholars" (citing Lassen 2022). Huh?

The extent of Snorri's involvement with the Prose Edda is an open question, a matter that Faulkes himself summarizes elsewhere in his Prose Edda editions (like right here: Prose_Edda#Authorship). The reality is that, as Faulkes knew very well, the manuscripts contain many items from ancient sources (skaldic and eddic) but also demonstrate access to sources unfortunately now lost to us (like Heimdalargaldr).

Different sections of the Prose Edda may have been authored by different individuals and some of the book was unquestionably added to or even had material removed during the manuscript replication process. We don't know who did it or why. And we don't have a manuscript from Snorri's lifetime. And that's just scratching the surface. It is way better to keep this kind of detailed discussion over at the Prose Edda article to otherwise keep it simple on the topic of the Prose Edda everywhere else on Wikipedia.

It also has lines like "Scholars generally assume that the saga was based on the earlier skaldic poem Ynglingatal" but, as anyone who has read Ynglinga saga knows, Ynglinga saga containsYnglingatal. There's the sentence "[Odin] is the only god among the æsir depicted as riding a horse". What is this supposed to mean? We have plenty of textual material on many of the gods riding horses (Horses of the Æsir, Gná and Hófvarpnir, etc). I can go on. Is it really necessary to make a long list of examples like these?

We're not here to mislead the public.

As for using "dated" sources, Simek's handbook is actually from the late 1970s/early 1980s, even though the English language editions were printed in the early 90s. This kind of thing comes with the territory.

Again, the current article has been revised and reviewed many times over, including my editors who are experts in this topic, and it explicitly avoids these kinds of situations. These are reliable bones to build on. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clearer examples. I'm not qualified to comment, but appreciate your expanding on your reasoning. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey bloodofox. I am always happy to collaborate, but—respectfully—some of your responses read as very unkind. This user's essay and downplaying, for example. These are just slightly rude, but the bigger issue is where it prevents us actually talking through issues. For instance: I guess we're just going to ignore all that discourse around Adam of Bremen discussing Thor as most prominent? is very aggressive—the sandbox has 200+ refs and 30+ explanatory footnotes, so it should be clear don't want to "ignore" anything. What is frustrating is that it's fundamentally unactionable: I can't investigate, implement or contest "all that discourse". Does it even qualify as feedback in that case? Disputes are inevitable while editing, but framing them (in a first exchange over content) as "ignorance" seems like an inflammatory escalation (again, hard to collaborate with it). Davidson is a strong and recent source, and well qualified to give her opinion—I agree that attributing her statement makes sense. It'd be helpful to have a source outright contradicting her—her prominence as a critic means there will be one if it exists (I haven't come across it).

• A note on syntax: I'll use purple to indicate a quote from another editor or green to indicate I am quoting from a source.

You've mentioned Snorri's authorship several times so we can start there. In my view, Snorri is widely regarded as author of the Prose Edda. We agree that the PCRN 2020 is the contemporary standard overview of the topic, but I find your statement that the extent of Snorri's involvement with the Prose Edda is an open question at odds with the PCRN, which regards Snorri's authorship of the text as current academic consensus:

• Nearly all scholars accept that Snorri composed Edda (which surely means ‘Poetics’) around or in the decade following 1220 (John Lindow, "Written Sources", PCRN 2020, p. 77). I would consider other positions to be minority viewpoints: it's fine to acknowledge its existence as a view, but not to remove mentions of Snorri because it is more neutral (IMO, the editorial position that this is "more neutral" is not defensible with modern scholarship).

While it is true that we don't have a manuscript from Snorri's lifetime, again quoting the PCRN:

• the oldest manuscript [...] contains a statement explicitly crediting Snorri with putting the work together, and it specifies the constituent parts (John Lindow, "Written Sources", PCRN 2020, p. 77).

While overall authorship is widely attributed to Snorri, some parts of it—such as Heimskringla—are more hotly contested. This does not violate the wider point that Snorri is understood as the author. Your confusion regarding Lassen here—But then, sentences later, it is followed by "While Snorri is generally credited as the author, this is disputed by some scholars" (citing Lassen 2022). Huh?—misrepresents this complexity. There is no contradiction there. Although Lassen writes on the contested authorship of Heimskringla, her chapter and prose continually refer to the for the Poetic Edda as Snorri's: 14 Odin in Snorri's Edda / The Transmission of Snorri's Edda / The Sources of Snorri's Edda (pp. 169–182). I.E., Snorri's authorship of the wider Prose Edda is general consensus; his full authorship of Heimskringla would be a minority viewpoint (and thus I represent, prominently, the disparity). She explores Christian influence on the text in extraordinary detail throughout each chapter.

Can you provide a strong source supporting that Snorri's composition is "an open question", very preferably one that would meet WP:RS/AC? I believe we should broadly treat Snorri as the writer, and acknowledge his influences and sources (i.e., Christian or pagan) where scholars do, and attribute claims to those scholars. The current article's approach acknowledges Snorri's immense work (CTRL+F) zero times—I think this is quite bad for readers. The Prose Edda didn't just arrive ex nihilio; Snorri composed it within a Christian cultural context—his changes and amendments are often Christian and this is frequently discussed by scholars.

In your responses, I'd be grateful if we could refer to scholars and their works rather than referring to Wikipedia articles; I will ensure I do this. This means you will always know the origin of my information and I will know yours. It'd be challenging, and time consuming, for me to respond effectively to this: Different sections of the Prose Edda may have been authored by different individuals and some of the book was unquestionably added to or even had material removed during the manuscript replication process. We don't know who did it or why.

Thank you for reading — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I already provided the quote form Faulkes about the debate around authorship and compilation. If you were familiar with the material, you'd also know there's discussion around Prologue and additions and removals from manuscripts. Honestly, you need to be far more familiar with this material before getting into a dispute about any element of it. Slapping together a bunch of this-or-that coverage of sources and then presenting it like this is simply going to run into resistance from those of us who have taken the time. Then nobody has to respond to lengthy defenses of writing stuff like "[Odin] is the only god among the æsir depicted as riding a horse" in Wikivoice. Please have respect for the time of other editors who volunteer to edit here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience.

Collaboration is at the heart of what makes Wikipedia great! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)