Talk:Óðr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rydberg[edit]

Viktor Rydberg's hypotheses should not be presented as factual.

They may be mentioned.

But they are generally deprecated rather than accepted.

jallan 06:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Ódr"[edit]

Any reason this article isn't at Ódr, with this as a redirect? -- Jmabel 07:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

it isn't actually spelled Ódr? dab (𒁳) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
óþr, m. geistige regsamkeit, vernunft: sg acc. óþ Vsp 18, 1.3. (from: Hugo Gering (1907), Glossar zu den Liedern der Edda (Sæmundar Edda), Dritte Auflage, Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, pg. 140) -Aryaman (Enlist!) 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the Old Norse is "Óðr" when referring to the figure, as per stanza 25 here: [1] (Óðs mey gefna. = "Óð's girl.") :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the rest of the entry: - Als männl. eigenname Vsp 25, 4; Hdl 48, 1. (ibid.)
It could certainly be the case that Gering has þ instead of ð. My posting was directed towards the [citation needed] tag at the beginning of the article. If you can use it, great. If not, that's fine, too. ;) Aryaman (Enlist!) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Either 'þ' or 'ð' is fine for either the common noun or the figure. It's just that 'ð' is more standardized. Haukur (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of óðr: Sources[edit]

  • óþr, m. geistige regsamkeit, vernunft: sg acc. óþ Vsp 18, 1.3. Als männl. eigenname Vsp 25, 4; Hdl 48, 1. (from: Hugo Gering (1907), Glossar zu den Liedern der Edda (Sæmundar Edda), Dritte Auflage, Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, pg. 140) Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "önd, óðr: Hier wird eine Unterscheidung gemacht zwischen dem Lebensodem und der Seele. önd bestimmt die Lebensfunktionen, ist Teil des Lebens und ist Mensch wie Tier gemeinsam. óðr ist der 'göttliche Funke' im Menschen, der auf höhere Mächte zurückgeht. In der Frühzeit setzte man so etwas vor allem bei der Dichtkunst, dem Geschenk Odins, voraus. So wird die Dichtkunst denn auch als óðr bezeichnet, und darum wird der Dichtermet in Óðrerir (Óð-hrœrir) aufbewahrt. Diese beiden Wörter entsprechen ganz den lat. Bezeichnungen animus und mens." (from: Sigurd Nordal (1980), Völuspá, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pg. 48) Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is good enough for me. I've removed the etymology aspect in the introduction as it seems to be there to push some sort of notion that the figure is an embodiment ("personification") of the term, which is a theory (and currently uncited here) that we must remain neutral on outside of a mention in the proper areas. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important that the other meaning be given in the lead. It's not necessary that we push a particular link between the two, but both should appear under the same entry (unless someone wants to disambiguate, say, Óðr (person) [or (mythology)] and Óðr proper). Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to keep the two articles apart then, if enough information can be dug up surrounding the term. Otherwise, I don't see why it's not logical to just put in the etymology section as that's where the connection seems to end in surviving information about the figure and anything else is going to be theory. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think bloodofox' first suggestion is the best solution. If it were up to me, I would have the current content moved to Óðr (mythology) and leave this for the information re: óðr = "mental arousal, reason"; "the 'divine spark' which connects man with Divinity."; "connections with Óðrerir (Óð-hrœrir); "comparison to Lat. mens; etc. In such a case, the article Odic force (some really far out stuff, IMO) would need to be edited accordingly. (z.B.: Does Reichenbach actually used the term óðr? Or is that list at the top a nice collection of possible redirects?) If he was using the term óðr to substantiate his claims, then that could be mentioned under Óðr, put presented as the kook-theory it appears to be. Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. However, I think the problem is this: is there enough information to produce an article out of the term that isn't just what we have in the etymology section? Once there is, we ought to make the move. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, greets from germany. the german text say, Odr means the "holy flame (funke) in a man".

The german text say: the concept of "önd" (german. odem = means holy breath) or soul is NOT the same like odr.

Odin is a sungod. He spent his eye for Veda (sansrit: wisdom) - like Re, Allvater (Allfather) means "all-wisdom" inside. He is identic with indic Surya, greek Helios, iranic Ahura Mazd, celtic Lugh, romanic Juno, slawic Radegast. He is a essence of tree gods - Odin, We and Wili (germanic have no V in his futhark, how can a german write a name of god when he had not a letter for V?).

Oh yeah, that is very difficult to believe for all celtic and wicca fans. Her interpretations of world is not right. Sorry for this. But that is the fact.

Linguistic Wat* is not the same like linguistic pape, padre, pater, father or indogermanic vedr/vadr. That is completly different tribe. Please kill this shit. The German Wodan (mhd. Wuotan) is the modern german "wütend" (angry) a adjectiv or "Wut" a noumen, this means his "vandalism" aspect, a bit freaky, terrible, Rumble in the box. Wodan is not the same linguistic like odin, that is a german description of nordic name odin. Your definition of german is completly waste.

The german text say Odrörir (Óðrerir) is the honey-met of Odin.

The 12 Asen/Asir is a personification of Allfather, the 12 Asen = 12 Adityas. Asenheim is Brahmaloka (Brahma = god, loka = locus), Home of gods, Asgard is the Garden of Asir, means the paradis/walhalla = a spiritual room. Vanaheim = nirvana = friendly locus.

The iran avesta & indic veda is the ur-source of nordic, celtic, slawic, greek, romanian and all other indogermanic folks of pontic don region with influence in china´s taoism, zaratustra, elamic mesopotamia (gilgamesh) region and bible!!!!! Her culture is the Harappa-cultur/Indus-cultur. She is over 8400 years old (~ 6400 BC, read the book "hidden horizon" for more facts). The Sumerer speaks from people was brings the cultur (civilisation). These cultur came from indus. They brings the holy order = Sanatana Dharma. She came over the Seiden-Road, her last refugium is the Kaschmir Region. In the last tausends of years, indogermans lives in the tarim-region (west china), elam (Persia) and northern india not far.

The german Edda is more the life of hero, the celts more the spiritual world system. But it is the same religion. The most of celtic and nordic religion is lost. We have forgotten the holy order.

Pokorny was a good man, but he had not understand the real background of the words.

Ottar[edit]

While the comparison with Odin is straightforward already on etymological grounds, the comparison with Ottar seems to be an idiosyncratic idea of Rydberg's, and I have doubts on the notability of the hypothesis. Anyone beside Rydberg that made the comparison? dab (𒁳) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's notable enough that Rydberg mentions it for us to mention that he mentioned it. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it noteworthy what Rydberg wrote on this topic, since it was mainly a product of his literary imagination and has never enjoyed any acceptance among scholars of Norse mythology? Shouldn't this material be on the Rydberg page, instead of here? Rsradford (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Rydberg isn't a good source on Norse mythology. If it's important to Rydberg's theories, it can be mentioned in Rydberg's article, but just Rydberg alone doesn't make for a notable "theory" to be presented here. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, Rydberg's theories are not generally accepted. However, they are of interest because a lot of things spawn from his theories and his works are referred to in contemporary times. I think this is good information to have regarding any figure he's developed an amount of theories towards that may have had some influence over the years - people can see where the notions and theories they've encountered may have come from. A note saying something like "Rydberg's theories are not generally accepted" with some sort of reference would finely clean up the issue. I think it's important that someone gets a hold of these specific works by Rydberg and sees where Rydberg's mentions begin and where someone may have "ran with it" on some of these articles though, it doesn't seem to be particularly clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know of a single instance in which Rydberg's mythological theories were picked up and developed by any scholar in the post-Romantic Nationalist era. It's hard to find any favorable references by modern scholars to Rydberg's supposed "mythology of the ancient Aryan race." This was a favorite theme for dozens of Scandinavian, German, and even American writers pre-WWII, but Rydberg's is the only version that has developed something of a crank following on the Internet. Still, I don't see how he qualifies as a reliable resource for Norse mythology, as opposed to a resource for 19th-century Romantic Nationalism. Rsradford (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, Rydberg is obviously not a reliable source on Norse mythology. Still, that doesn't mean he shouldn't go unmentioned when he has theories - it's notable to the subject at hand. I have, however, removed the section as it is dubiously sourced. I am concerned what there was actually presented by Rydberg and what may have be WP:OR. Still, if someone can properly source some of Rydberg's theories here, I don't object to them being here, properly worded as what they are - Rydberg's theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's useful to include Rydberg's theories in articles like this, as long as they are clearly marked as such. It inoculates the articles from having these theories added without any disclaimers. For whatever reason many of Rydberg's theories are still quite popular, among amateurs if not among scholars. Haukur (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a single instance in which Rydberg's mythological theories were picked up and developed by any scholar in the post-Romantic Nationalist era

That's something of an overstatement. For example Rydberg was the first scholar to point out the similarities between Agni and Heimdallr. Haukur (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Rydberg is included in the bibliography to Simek's Lexicon (and Simek is about as "mainstream" as one can get), so it's not as though he is entirely shunned by the academic community. If there is literature discrediting his theories, then that is to be included by all means. But I think he should be included where relevant and helpful, provided his work is presented in the proper context, i.e. as a somewhat antiquated theory. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Rydberg was a gifted person, and everything he wrote was not speculation. I have personally been impressed with parts of his work where he uses a descriptive method.--Berig (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
well, we'll just have to find out if his ideas found any echo in this particular case. If it's in the RGA, for example, it will be fair enough to to mention it. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OHG wuot: insanity[edit]

Can we get some clarification on this word? Checking Braune (1897:247) and Schützeichel (1995:331), I can find wuoten [wuotjan] ("wüten, rasen, wahnsinnig sein"), but no wuot. Kluge (1995:900) lists wuot under NHG Wut, but I can't track down the sources (Szemerényi, Röhrich, Heidermanns). Is this a back-construction? Or is it actually attested? Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Grimm has: "ahd. wuot (insanitis uuuaten [9. jh.] ahd. gl. 1, 763, 20 St.-S.), auch ferwuot ... s. unter wütig ... an. œði 'besessenheit, heftige erregtheit'; ae. wōd 'rabies' ... ellen-wōd 'eifer' (nur im Pariser psalter 68, 9)". --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

I move the old etymology section here if someone would like to reinsert something:

Óðr is the Old Norse term for a concept of "soul, mind, spirit"[1][2][3] (so used in stanza 18.1 of the Poetic Edda poem Völuspá) besides "poetry, inspiration".[4] The term has connotations of possession[5] and is connected with Odin.[6] The term is from the Proto-Indo-European root *wat- meaning "to blow (on), to fan (flames)", fig. "to inspire"; also found in Latin vātēs "seer, singer", and in Old Indic vátati "to inspire". The Proto-Germanic form is *wōþa-, *wōþō. Cognate are Old English wōþ "cry, voice, song, poetry, eloquence" (and wōd "rabies"), Gothic wōþs "possessed" (δαιμονιζομενον), Old High German wuoten "rage, fury, to be insane". Old Norse derivations include œði "strong excitation, possession".[7]

I have rewritten the section by using a work of reference.--Berig (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, that is much better. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Hellquist's book is such a classic that they continue to print new and updated editions of it. Unfortunately, it is only the 1922 edition that is public domain.--Berig (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I realise the future of this section is uncertain, but I attributed as much as I could find and edited accordingly. I hope that helps someone. Aryaman (Enlist!) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you are welcome to add your references, especially if it differs from what we have now. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Your first stop for the etymology of any Germanic word is Grimm. As often as not, it's the only stop you need to make. Afaics, verything in this section is taken from Grimm. I am sorry, but littering an etymology section with footnotes every other phrase is silly. Just state which works you consulted and write a coherent paragraph. Nothing of this is disputed, so I fail to see the necessity for this footnote-mania. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I have removed them. It seems impossible to predict what an editor will sooner or later find controversial in a text, and so I am generous with references. If someone appears to question any of the information, the references can be found in the page history.--Berig (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As all of the references were removed, I have reinstated the references. Solid references must be in place or the section can be removed at any time. The reason for this "mania" is Wikipedia policy - For this article to reach GA status, everything needs to be referenced with page numbers. I've put some work into this article at this point and I will nominate it for GA status once it's worked out. If they're removed, another should be put in its place covering what that one did. The references are a very good addition to the page, even if they can be pruned. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
this is a parody of "citing references". What is going on here? WP:CITE means you are supposed to paraphrase the gist of a source, and give that source so people can verify what you've done. It doesn't mean you need to slap a footnote on each and every word in the text. Come on. Have you heard of common sense? It would be possible to reference every word in isolation and still produce hilarious nonsense by undue synthesis. It is not possible to write a good article without a basic grasp of the subject, even if a source is cited at every turn. These are very very basic facts about editing, and I don't know why I should need to spell them out here. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The attitude is not necessary. There's no WP:POINT going on here - there's not even a dispute - and there's no reason to even mention WP:UCS. What there can be is a byproduct of numerous sources for the etymology and what seems to have been a polite attempt at using some references that someone went to the trouble of digging up with less than readable results. Unfortunately, the section is a mess and since there's no references now I've deleted it in the wake of a rewrite. What we need is a solid, GA-friendly section that gives a straight-forward explanation as to who exactly the sources are, what they're saying about the etymology (without any abbreviations or gray areas) and without crossing any wires - that is, by keeping them apart. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, you've reverted a lot more edits than just the etymology section, which I've restored and simply deleted the etymology section until it's rewritten with proper, precise references. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

bloodofox, I am not playing "discussion" with you any more. If you have an issue with one of my edits, propose a reasonable rephrasing or alternative of presenting the material. As in, develop articles constructively. I have literally wasted hours over your puerile approach to editing Wikipedia, and I have every right to draw a line at some point and ask you to please grow up.

Detailed discussion of the name's philology is extremely important, as with all gods accounts of whom survive only very fragmentarily. The etymology section is not "finished" but needs to be substantially expanded. This discussion is extremely relevant to the genesis of Odin, and as such to the development of Eddaic Norse paganism in general. This debate is outlined perfectly well in Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch (in the finished 1961 edition), s.v. "Wutesheer". If you cannot consult and absorb the content of the perfectly straightforward reference of "see Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, s.v. 'Wut' and 'Wutesheer'" the problem is with you, not with the article or the reference. Grimm in turn points to further literature, such as De Fries (1957) on the central question of whether *Wōđuz should be considered identical to *Wōđanaz, or a separate theonym, or, much rather, a collective noun referring to the "Wild Hunt" of the dead. This is intimately related to the question whether the u-stem *wōđuz existed independently of the thematic *wōđō and/or *wōđaz. Grimm's Wörterbuch seems to be contradicting itself by rejecting Kluge's u-stem under 'Wut' while embracing it as "sacral" under Wutesheer, and further work with the ultimate academic debate the Wörterbuch entries are based on will be needed before we can present a clean account.

This discussion is of crucial importance to this article, as opposed to untenable nonsense like Rydberg's suggestion that, hey, odhr does not sound entirely unlike otter. This may be illustrative of Rydberg's philological expertise, but it doesn't do anything for illuminating this article's subject.

If the philological discussion the current article revision has so far is less than complete, it is because a couple of hours' work will still be needed to be invested to get it right, hours that so far nobody has bothered to invest. This situation is not improved by insisting on blanking the account we have so far from under my arse. I would prefer spending that time actually expanding and improving the article rather than in yet another completely unfounded revert-war with bloodofox, and spending hours of acrimonious "discussion" over nothing in particular with bloodofox. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you—typically enough—feel the need to pointlessly throw in a little jab ("grow up"), you are required to reference your contributions like anyone else. You make a claim, then you reference it. It's simple enough. The entire first paragraph (upon which your second paragraph depends) lacks referencing. Properly reference it and you're welcome to put it back. In the mean time, please don't add unreferenced material to Wikipedia or anyone can remove it for any reason. By adding unreferenced material, you're lowering our standards. We need more referenced material, not more unreferenced material. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The material is fully referenced. Check the references given for the section and then show me one item I have not taken from either Grimm or Pokorny. --dab (𒁳) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You provide not a single reference in the first paragraph, you provide no page numbers, you provide no publication information outside of a few last names, a few years and an internal link to a 19th century title. As you are well aware, you are required, like anyone else, to cite your sources or be challenged on it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to instruct you on how to consult a dictionary. I will not continue this discussion before you have consulted the references given. I am not interested in your vendetta against my person, I will thank you for getting out of my hair and I ask you to review WP:DICK. If you cannot appreciate that page, try WP:3O or WP:UCS. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability; a core policy of Wikipedia. I'm asking you for publication information to verify your additions to make sure that you're not engaging in any WP:SYNTH so that we can continue to have a quality article here. In the mean time, you can attempt to dodge this all you want, but the simple fact remains that you're required to provide source information, yet you provide not a single reference in the first paragraph, you provide no page numbers, you provide no publication information outside of a few last names, a few years and an internal link to a 19th century title. In what world does that count as anything resembling a reference? As you are well aware, you are required, like anyone else, to cite your sources or be challenged on it. Now, I've solidly sourced every single line in the article. I'm asking you to source your additions. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
raise an actual point and we have a debate. Keep throwing around policy pages in spite of the fact that I repeatedly assured you that the all of the material is directly taken from the two world-class dictionaries on Germanic and Indo-European etymology cited and we do not.
your childish insistence to "source every single line in the article" is a fools errand. Our articles are educated and faithful representations of relevant literature, not a reductionist stack of "referenced" tidbits piled on top of one another. If you can raise informed criticism to the effect that I am misrepresenting my sources, I will give you my full attention. As long as you are just playing the old wikigame of "I can shoot down any content by boneheaded literalist interpretation of policy: there is no room 'encyclopedic articles' between {{synthesis}} and {{quotefarm}}", I have better things to do than humour your fancy. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not here to dance with you about your personal opinion of Wikipedia:Verifiability, a perfectly clear and utterly logical core policy. Like it or not, everything on these articles must be verifiable, and no amount of lawyering will save you from that fact. There is no place for insertion of your personal opinion (and with good reason, considering your attempt to get away with this recent edit: [2]). I'm attempting to build this article into the finest article about the subject on the internet, and, outside of this typical dispute with you on the etymology section, I think we are well on our way.
Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong on this article (I have yet to see any etymology that didn't seem to derive Óðr from the noun óðr), I'm saying it needs to be verifiable for all to see. So, let's find out exactly what the references that you do point to say. I'm digging through what you do mention to see who said what and where. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
have you, or have you not, seen the references I give? what do you mean, "let's find out", and "digging"? It is a matter of you checking out two entries in two dictionaries, both of which are even online. What is it with the royal "we" all the time? Yes, I will thank you for "digging through" the very simple references I give before wasting my time any further. --dab (𒁳) 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly where is the "Pokorny (1959)" you reference online? There's apparently a bunch of work derived from Pokorny available online from links at Indogermanisches_etymologisches_Wörterbuch that you provide a redirect to, but it's no clear what you're referencing there. So, either I'm missing it or you're referring to something based off of Pokorny's 1959 work or what? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We should maybe add some more links to the Pokorny article.[3][4][5] Haukur (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the links! As a note, if we are indeed using website derivatives of Grimm or Pokorny and/or online editions (which seems to be the case with our current references for the section), then that needs to be perfectly clear in the references notes. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vigfusson[edit]

This might help: Cleasby and Vigfusson's Icelandic, pg. 757Aryaman (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Vigfusson doesn't say that the deity name and noun are related. I don't know why that is. Vigfusson doesn't draw a link at his entry for Oðinn either. By the way, this link didn't work for me, but the work is readily available on Google Books (and is very handy; there's some obscure stuff in there, including names of herbs and sponges and so forth bearing deity names). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
um, are you saying you propose the theonym may be different from the noun? Is this what you have been going on about all the time? then why the fuss over references for the etymology section, which ostensibly discusses "the Old Norse noun óðr"? That the theonym is identical to the "frenzy" noun is completely undisputed, and also evident in Orchard's "the frenzied one".
if you have any point at all, I honestly don't see it. You throw around the WP:V policy for completely referenced material. Then you switch to "doesn't say that the deity name and noun are related" which has never even been under discussion. I have seen you mess up at talkpages before, but I must say you are really outdoing yourself here. --dab (𒁳) 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing absolutely nothing of my own here; I don't get my jollies from inserting my opinions all over Wikipedia. Vigfusson proposes no etymology for the theonym at all, including no mention of a connection to the noun, thus the limited usefulness we have for Vigfusson here and thus my response. Anyway, when there's a paragraph without a reference, that is, well, unreferenced, now isn't it? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

enough[edit]

The etymology section reproduces the material on óðr found in the most important German etymological dictionary, and the most important Indo-European etymological dictionary. These two works of reference will be the first stop in any discussion of the etymology of any Germanic word (along with OED, which in this case is not so central, because the word hardly survives in English, but see s.v. "wood, a.: insane, lunatic". If you are interested in adding the material from OED's "wood, a." lemma, be my guest, but you will find it is in complete agreement with Grimm and Pokorny).

This doesn't conclude the discussion. It represents the very basic and established etymological connections as they were known 40 years ago. It is perfectly permissible to reference academic opinions that have been brought forward more recently. These would be an addition to the basic material. That the basic communis opinio on the word's etymology should be stated first and foremost is beyond discussion, and this is exactly what the current etymology section is doing. Now either make an effort to improve it by adding literature that appeared since the 1970s, or else just let good enough alone and leave it as it is. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue I've raised all over this page is verifiability. Now, you've taken the big step of slapping that unreferenced paragraph with a reference tag, but this paragraph (which originally was Frankensteined from numerous sources, and Grimm is giving my German trouble) may well need to be rewritten for clearer attribution, and I'm currently seeing what I can do about that. In its current state, at no point does this article even say that the theonym Óðr is considered to derive from the noun óðr, which will to rightly confused the general reader who comes across the article. The etymology section simply starts with the noun and takes it from there without establishing a connection for the reader.
In the mean time, here's a short English language work (unfortunately not on JSTOR—In fact, very little handling the subject of this article is) that some enterprising individual may want to track down for the benefit of this article;
Hollander, Lee M. (1950). "The Old Norse God Óðr" from Journal of English and Germanic Philology 49, 1950, pages 4—8
Anybody have this? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I should be able to get it for you. There's also a 1954 article by Jan de Vries which I could snag. Haukur (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be excellent, thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers on Grimm and Rydberg[edit]

To confirm these citations and see exactly what is said, we need page numbers on the Rydberg citations and both page numbers and volume numbers on the Grimm citations. Otherwise, if I can't confirm them myself, I will pull them as being uncited. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).