Talk:Odin

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—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?—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)

Further feedback:

• Regarding 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. I believe you are misunderstanding sources here. The skaldic poem, of which Ynglingatal is one, mentioned by Lassen predate Snorri's work. Scholars believe these were his primary sources. These differ from Snorri's Ynglinga saga, and your quotation above is conflating these.

• Lassen writes: The majority of Ynglinga saga is generally assumed to be based on Þjóðólfr’s poem Ynglingatal. We do not, however, know the sources for the saga's introductory chapters (2–9) about the pre-Christian gods (Lassen 2020, p. 150).
• Compare with the Ynglinga saga attributed to Snorri Sturluson: Ynglinga saga ('Saga about the Ynglings'). The first part of the Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson, dealing with the part-mythical prehistory of Scandinavia and Sweden. Snorri's main source was the Yngingatal (Simek 1993, 378); The first part of HEIMSKRINGLA, composed by the thirteenth-century Icelander SNORRI STURLUSON (Orchard 1997, p. 186).

• Regarding 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). From the PCRN: It can also be mentioned here that, perhaps surprisingly, Óðinn is the only figure among the gods who is a horse-rider (Schjød 2020, "Odinn", p. 1146). You say PCRN is the best of the best (indeed—it is). For this reason, I don't think it's appropriate to rebut Schjødt with a start-class article. Can you provide a non-primary source (/non-wikipedia article) to contradict Schjødt's view (preferably a scholar)?

Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, anyone who has read Ynglinga saga knows that it contains Ynglingatal. So not only is it influenced by Ynlingatal, it also contains it. When you write about this matter, you need to be clear about that. Don't just regurgitate what you found on an article.

As for the "Óðinn is the only figure among the gods who is a horse-ride" sentence, you have access to Simek already, so look up "Gná" or "Hófvarpnir". Or turn to Lindow's handbook, or even PCRN I, where Lindow says "Snorri tells us that Gná was Frigg’s handmaiden, has a special horse, and that she exchanged a puzzling verse with the vanir" (Lindow 2020: 113). Or literally read any coverage of the horse procession for Baldr's funeral in the Prose Edda. There are sources for this everywhere because it's a basic fact of Norse myth. These kind of vindictive responses from you rather than just getting more familiar with the material and coverage are not doing anyone any favors. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Two points:

• Firstly, a person possessing a horse—as you quote from Lindlow 2020, p. 113—is not the same as being depicted "as a horse-rider". One is a depiction of owning a horse; the other is a depiction of the character riding a horse. It is a very simple difference, and the point Schjødt is making. Likewise, this is true for Baldr: his horse being dead with him is not a depiction of Baldr riding a horse. Schjødt's point is that Odin is the only person we see riding a horse. Is this not a simple distinction?
• Snorri used it as a basis for his poem, but scholars clearly separate the two. Your insistence that one contains the other is very strange, given how Orchard, Simek and Lassen clearly differentiat them. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Snorri used it as a basis for his poem, you say? Ynglinga saga, which Snorri may have composed, is prose. Ynglingatal is a skaldic poem. Snorri certainly did not author Ynglingatal, the skald Þjóðólfr of Hvinir did.

And once again, you really need to spend more time with this material before attempting to replace what is here because this is a really simple situation: First, to be clear, Snorri also didn't write the eddic fragment about Gná. He didn't write any eddic poetry on record. The Gná fragment is an otherwise unattested poem in the Prose Edda (specifically Glyfaginning). And anyone who covers it — or even reads it and the prose surrounding it, it is very readable — such as Simek or Lindow or Orchard is perfectly aware that the poem fragment and its explanation outright says that Gná, a goddess, has a horse and that she rides it through the air. (As Faulkes renders it: "Fourteenth Gna: she is sent by Frigg into various worlds to carry out her business. She has a horse that gallops across sky and sea, called Hofvarpnir. It happened once as she was riding that some Vanir saw her travelling through the sky.")

That's what Lindow is talking about there, what Lindow talks about in his handbook entry, and also what Simek is talking about in his two entries on the topic. It's what everyone talks about when they talk about Gná because that is the only narrative we have on Gná and the mention of the Vanir here especially has received a lot of commentary over the years.

Please stop wasting time with this defensive nonsense and just crack open Simek's handbook (and Lindow's handbook or even Orchard's handbook) and turn your eyes to the relevant entries discussing these matters like the rest of us do.

Additionally, at Baldr's funeral, as described in the Prose Edda, Baldr is burned with his horse, but a whole list of horse names belonging to the gods who rode them to the funeral occur, and we are also told in the Prose Edda that the gods ride to their assembly at Yggdrasil everyday with a list of their horse names. This is all covered extensively in secondary sources, including in translator notes for the various editions of the relevant texts and in the handbooks, like everything else in the textual body. PCRN 2020, while typically great, is intended as an overview and a survey.

There's no shortage of coverage of any of this from scholars and I can certainly go on but this is a great example of why it is important to take the time to get familiar with these matters before slapping together something on Wikipedia and simply presenting it to the public as fact in Wikivoice. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi bloodofox –

• Regarding the above that Snorri certainly did not author Ynglingatal, the skald Þjóðólfr of Hvinir did. Well, obviously I agree (as I explained this difference in response to you here), but this feels like a change of position from your earlier response to Eddie891: 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 contains Ynglingatal. (Regarding it as prose/poem—it would certainly be more reasonable to assume this was a typo instead of an opportunity for a gotcha. Come on.)
  • As I said before, my primary objection to the tone of your responses is that they make it hard to understand the feedback. You continue: So not only is it influenced by Ynlingatal, it also contains it. When you write about this matter, you need to be clear about that. Lassen, and other scholars, clearly differentiate the two: you provide no source stating that the earlier skaldic work is exactly the same as the later work attributed to Snorri (otherwise, why would scholars differentiate between them, as you are arguing we shouldn't?). Instead of engaging with this obvious nuance, you suggest: Don't just regurgitate what you found on an article. Respectfully, we should engage more with scholars and their scholarship, not less (this is #2 of the 3 reasons that moved me to work on this article).
• As outlined here, there is strong academic consensus for attributing the Prose Edda to Snorri. Concerning your view that First, to be clear, Snorri also didn't write the eddic fragment about Gná. I respectfully requested (that you stop quoting primary sources, which you do above by quoting Faulkes' translation; instead, your response loosely suggests that scholars support your position without quotations or page references. Some quotations from the scholars you mention regarding Snorri and Gna (I am collapsing this because it's so irrelevant to our wider points):

Extended content

According to Simek, she is A goddess who is only named by Snorri (Simek 1993, p. 113). According to Orchard Gna is known from the account of the thirteenth-century Icelander Snorri Sturluson, who describes her as one of the minor goddesses (Orchard 1997, p. 58). According to Lindow, Snorri lists her as fourteenth and last in his catalog in Gylfaginning [...] Snorri then cites a strange verse exchange [...] these horses and any myth connected with them are not known from any other source. (Lindow 2001, p. 146–147) We take the example of the figure Gná (è54), whom Snorri numbers among the ásynjur in Gylfaginning and who also appears as the base word in a few woman kennings. Snorri tells us that Gná was Frigg’s handmaiden, has a special horse, and that she exchanged a puzzling verse with the vanir. (Lindow, PCR 2020, "Language: Religious Vocabulary", p. 113) Gná is found in skaldic poetry as the base word for three woman-kennings. Beyond that, the name is known only from Gylfaginning, where Gná appears fourteenth and last in the numbered catalogue of ásynjur. (Lindow & Schjødt, PCRN 2020, vol. 3, p.1421) This one mentions only Gylfaginning, but earlier in the same chapter from Schjødt and Lindow we get: In Gylfaginning (p. 7) and, as just mentioned, in Ynglinga saga ch. 5 this same story is related, although with many more details, which may or may not be due to Snorri’s own imagination (Lindow and Schjœdt, PCRN 2020 vol. 3, p. 1416) clearly showing consistent authorial attribution to Snorri. There is complex variation within the Norse corpus. This highlight why source traceability is so important. Concealing source attribution, as your edit did here, is not (per edit summary) "more neutral". This was a genuine waste of time because 1) Gna is not mentioned in my sandbox and 2) First, to be clear, Snorri also didn't write the eddic fragment about Gná. He didn't write any eddic poetry on record this responds to something I have never suggested because, again, Gna isn't in the article. All this because you contests Schjødt 2020's based on your reading of primary sources. If Snorri didn't write the eddic fragment about Gná then isn't about the references to the word in skaldic poems... that isn't about goddess Gna because a kenning can't ride a horse (Lindow and Schjodt PCRN 2020, p. 1421). Again, not trying to be the tone police, but I hope it's apparent why this challenging for me. You're telling me not to "waste your time" with my content and I can't work out why through reading or discussion.

• Returning to your earlier objection concerning Snorri as the widely attested author of the Prose Edda: 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. A PCRN source stating that nearly all scholars agree is not the same as a single scholar acknowledging complexity; his authorship of some writings is a minority view, as I explore here regarding Heimskringla. Faulkes is aligned with the consensus here and does not contradict it as you suggest: Snorri Sturluson's Edda contains some of the best known ... and The Prose Edda or Younger Edda [...] was, according to the oldest manuscript that contains it, written by Snorri Sturluson (p. xi); Snorri is listed as co-author, etc.
  • Scholars universally refer to the Prose Edda as Snorri's and describe it a mixture of pagan and Christian sources.
    • Simek lists it in his handbook under "Snorra Edda" (Snorri's Edda): A didactic work about the art of skaldic poetry, written around 1220 by > Snorri Sturluson (Simek 1993, p. 295)
    • Orchard writes it is the remarkable composite work now known as SNORRA EDDA, and consisting of four sections (Prologue, GYLFAGINNING, SKÁLDSKAPARMÁL and HÁTTATAL) for which he is perhaps best known (Orchard 1997, p. 152)
    • 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).
  • My entire point is that it's complex and we should render that complexity as described by scholars—not simplify it.
• Concerning horses and riders. There is no obviously issue with adding "Schjødt says", or adding an explanatory footnote mentioning Snorri's account of Gna... as I said earlier: "the sandbox has 200+ refs and 30+ explanatory footnotes, so it should be clear don't want to "ignore" anything". Regarding Additionally, at Baldr's funeral, as described in the Prose Edda, I will repeat myself: my first and only request of you was please stop referencing primary sources. Interpretation of them is work for the verifiable scholarship of scholars, not us.

It's hard for me to see this as civil collaboration, but (as you know) I won't detail conduct concerns on this Talk. It's hard to know where to go from here; for now, I don't think it is productive for me to continue this. I will spend my limited time refining the sandbox content while reflecting on appropriate dispute resolution. Best wishes — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• EDIT: I have implemented a change to my sandbox regarding Snorri's depiction of Gna riding a horse in this edit, attributing it to Simek, Orchard and Lindow quotations above. Best — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Faulkes's comments on the Prose Edda are not a primary source. Faulkes was a major scholar of the Prose Edda and related texts. I haven't 'changed any positions' and I've all too often used "Snorri" as short hand for the Prose Edda as well, but citing the section of the Prose Edda is far less confusing for the reader in a resource like Wikipedia (Gylfaginning in this case). And there's still a major error regarding this in your draft: The Gylfaginning text is prose with an eddic poetry fragment predating it. Is it your intention to imply Snorri authored the stanza and/or to ignore the eddic fragment, the sole eddic fragment containing a narrative focused on Gná? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi bloodofox,

• Faulkes's comments on the Prose Edda are not a primary source. Faulkes was a major scholar of the Prose Edda and related texts...
  • Yes? But I'm referring to your quotation of his translation of the poem: As Faulkes renders it: "Fourteenth Gna: she is sent by Frigg into various worlds to carry out her business. She has a horse that gallops across sky and sea, called Hofvarpnir. It happened once as she was riding that some Vanir saw her travelling through the sky." This is why I provided a collapsed box of scholarship and repeated my request for you to stop quoting primary sources.

Regarding possible simple errors, no; it isn't my intention to include an inaccuracy; please assume good faith. I've made posts here and shared the sandbox to solicit (actionable) requests for feedback. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:52, 13 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)

(Sticking my nose in) There are the horses in "Grímnismál" v. 30 (particularly Gulltoppr), and Hermóðr's borrowing Sleipnir. And Baldr's foal in the 2nd Merseburg Charm. I would say Odin is the one áss characteristically described and depicted riding a horse. And I think the authorship of the Prologue is a red herring, but the Prologue itself is a red herring by design.

I find it a little surprising that someone would feel the Odin article needs a thorough rewrite. It's never struck me as that bad. The scholarship is indeed voluminous; it's also quite siloed, with scholars in different places and of different schools making quite different assumptions as to his having belonged to the pantheon from the start or joined it quite recently, to name one obvious point. The statement that he was "the major god" in late Old Norse heathenry needs qualifying in terms of social class and naming Iceland as an exception, but is trivial to source; the more interesting argument is over what that means in terms of Old Norse religion. In recent decades, the focus of interest of many scholars has moved to things like the power dynamics underlying the production of texts and monuments, and what archaeology can tell us about popular religion. (Including a strain of argument that many of the stories of the gods that were sources for Snorri are products of syncretism among a Viking Age elite, for which "Odin the chieftain of the Æsir" is a signifier.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging regular contributors here @Blockhaj:, @Ingwina:, @Carlstak:, and @Haukurth: regarding the proposal to replace this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bloodofox get us up to speed. Blockhaj (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, for full disclosure, that related matters are under active discussion elsewhere. —VeryRarelyStable 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'll be brief as too many cooks in the kitchen can make things worse rather than better (and saw this hubbub at ANI), but I'll just say that I believe that ImaginesTigers suggested rewrite is an improvement in many ways, and should be taken seriously. In particular, the focus on what recent secondary sources say is the Wikipedia way. Norse mythology has the issue that there are dozens of scholars with dozens of different theories so you can cook up somebody saying what you "want" to hear, so while it's not untrue that there are scholars who downplay Snorri Sturlson's role in the Prose Edda, I also think they're a minority. Or, at minimum, scholars are willing to attribute large amounts of the Prose Edda to him as a marker of "Sturlson or whoever wrote this", akin to how even scholars of Christianity who don't think "the" Saint Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew might still refer to the author of the work as "Matthew". Additionally, I think ImagineTigers version better handles the proto-Odins of the distant past which we don't know a whole lot about in the prehistory section, while the older version of this article simply treated "our" Odin as existing in Roman and early medieval times. I also think that the old version is too linguistics and archaeological evidence focused with "Attestations" as a major organizing principle. That's not invalid or anything, but I'm not sure it's the best format, and think ImagineTigers' version is better here. And while it's obviously incomplete, I like the under construction sections for Odin's later legacy, if fleshed out. This is an article about Odin-overall, not strictly Odin-as-known-in-the-12th-to13th-century. The sole mention of Wagner in the old article being about how his name in the Ring Cycle is "Wotan" is wildly missing the point and influence of Wagner's version - he's a key character in one of the most staged operas in history, there are more interesting things to talk about than the spelling Wagner picked. SnowFire (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  I also think that the old version is too linguistics and archaeological evidence focused with "Attestations" as a major organizing principle. That's not invalid or anything, but I'm not sure it's the best format

  You're definitely not alone there. Previously when this has been pointed out, the discussion has been shepherded into "You want to get rid of all the information about the source documents?!" No, we just don't think the sources should dictate the highest-level ordering of the article. You could reorder the article so the main headings were about attributes, narrative threads, and tropes attached to Odin, and still keep all the information about the source documents under those reordered subheadings.

  —VeryRarelyStable 10:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I personally like the current approach which centers the textual and archaeological sources, presented in the light of up-to-date scholarship. The proposed rewrite is a valiant attempt but it's hard to attain the necessary command and overview of the sources to pull off something like that and I notice a number of inconsistencies and misunderstandings. I think we are better off trying to improve the text we have already. The section "Origin and Theories" might be a good place to start. Haukur (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The article could use some rewriting, but ImagineTigers, who I'm sure means well, doesn't have Bloodofox's expertise, and in my opinion, doesn't have the editorial chops in this subject to pull it off. Carlstak (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The expertise is not in question. The problem is that the article at present is highly inaccessible to non-experts, and centring sources (about which non-experts know nothing at all) over content (about which most non-experts have heard at least something, filtered through popular culture) is a large part of the cause of that. The answer to this issue, when it has been raised before, has amounted to "well the non-experts can suck it up and push through their bafflement," which is not how communication works. —VeryRarelyStable 04:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Communication does not consist of putting words in other editors' mouths. I actually said, "the article could use some rewriting." Carlstak (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You also said "agreed" to the previous editor's comment, which began with "I personally like the current approach which centres the textual and archaeological sources". I was replying to both. —VeryRarelyStable 13:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)