Talk:Thor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Thor has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
November 17, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mythology (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated GA-class, Top-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Religion (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Paganism????[edit]

why the hell is this religion referred as paganism in the article? you referend it via it's relation to judaism? does the world revolve around judaism. i call bias. christian bias. it's not neutral when referred to via it's relation to judeo christian religions.

Pagan: "Paganism...is a blanket term used to refer to various polytheistic, non Abrahamic religious traditions." Simple; just about every religion appart from Judaism, Christianity & Islam is included - it's barely bias, everything is relative. Nothing's purely "neutral"... Would you like Wikipedia to name all of Odin's names in the Odin article every time he's referred to? If that's the case; what order do they go in without being bias?..... Anyway - I have made the Abrahamic articles more in line with pagan ones and labelled them as such, seeing as though pagan articles are always labelled Pagan --Kurtle (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thor is written (and portrayed) as a goat-herder from Israel. Odin (his father) is believed to be from Iraq (Babylon). Snorri claims that it is thees people who founded Troy in Turkey. The birthplace of Thor is the land of Jord (his mother) which is called Jorsaland (Israel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.240.131 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Snorri is not the canon version of Thor just because he put the most stuff on paper. He was also under the yoke of christianity, and writing centuries after most areas had stopped hailing the Aesir and Aesynjur. Not to mention writing from the perspective of exiles on the far-flung western edge of the world. Also, Snorri's prose-edda storytellers later say they made the whole thing up, and then change their names to match the characters they created. 75.170.66.1 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Main portrait of Thor[edit]

Perhaps an explanation/link as to the swastika on Thors belt on the main picture (Thor's battle against the giants (1872) by Mårten Eskil Winge.) could be included for the curious. 14:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.192.123 (talk)

IIRC, the swastika is a symbol of good fortune before the Nazis perverted its meaning by taking it as their emblem. But don't take my word for it, that should be easy to look up, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika. --76.223.3.195 (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
People are ignorant whether they're told something or not - a Swastika reference would merely distract from the article; it would also give the Nazi's a mention AGAIN: Exactly why Hitler chose such an innocent symbol.--Kurtle (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nordic believe[edit]

I have never heard of artifacts, runes etc. from what is now germany. Some of the stories hase some similarities with other ancient religions. But thats the same with the christian believe. meny stories from the old testament hase similarities with other believes from that time and area. Therefore, Tor is part of the Aser believe, wich is clearly a Nordic believe, for the poeple known as the Wikings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Jensen.41.220.232.121 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What?--Kurtle (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
What indeed, there are definitely archaeological finds located in modern Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.26.208 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This guy must learn to spell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.197.217 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thor here is a God, which swings his hammer but these are just romantic interpretations of Thor. Thor indeed is a protector and does not imply any overt aggression. The 'real' Thor in the German text for Thor seems more fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.0.125 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Thor's Day?[edit]

I don't have a good source, but I have read that July 28 is the day Thor is honored. Can someone confirm? If so, how was it celebrated? This is of interest to those of us born on July 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.224.65 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no basis for such a day. Thursday literally means "Thor's day," however. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is the very important Nordic Christian celebration Olsok (28th to 29th of July) which is merely a continuation of an older, heathen custom. I don't know whether it was strictly associated with Thor, but he might have played an important role, at least. The material about this is rather scarce. I will try to dig up some more information. –Holt (TC) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like St. Olaf replaced Thor in many aspects. –Holt (TC) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
A traditional Olsok celebration is celebrated with bonfires, porridge and general festivities, by the way. –Holt (TC) 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
As :bloodofox: stated, there is a Thor's day every week - that is how awesome he is!!!--Kurtle (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In a more modern context, we of the Cult of St. Olaf have degreed Thanksgiving Day, the only important holiday slated to be held exclusively on Thursday (Thorsday) to be a special day dedicated to the memory of Thor, the protector and provider. Seeing that this day is traditionally celebrated through prodigious feats of eating and drinking, it is only fitting that we have appropriated this holiday for Thor by right of Viking Conquest. - Mycool Dad, Lord High Defender of the Sons of Thunder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.72.25 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course every Thursday is "Thor's day" if you like, but ultimately that's just the translation of dies Iovi, not an actual religious dedication within Norse paganism. A real Thor's day in that sense would be Þorrablót, in late January. Yes I know the current festival is a Romanticist revival, but as far as we can tell the thing being revived is a historical midwinter sacrifice dedicated to Thor. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Um no, it's historically just Þorra, for some guy named Þorri. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
yes, but who do you think this guy Thorri was? --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I got interested in this, see Talk:Þorri. There is a lot of material in there on how Thor relates to the supposed prehistoric "Othinic invasion" of Scandinavia. This article seems to miss out on this huge topic altogether. Like most of our polytheism articles, it just follows mainstream tradition naively without reporting on the scholarship examining the marginal traditions. In general, Wikipedia is plagued by the widespread failure to recognize (prevalent even among Neopagans) that historical polytheism is in essence regional, and the major mythologies after-the-fact scholarly attempts to make sense of mutually contradicting traditions. --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot less certainty than one might think from reading our articles. The reliable sources policy tends to mitigate against including alternate points of view, particularly since there is a strong bias towards recent sources. (I strongly disagree that either Germanic religion or Medieval studies should have the scientific axiom applied that the latest work is always the best.) I have too much COI to feel I should edit this article much, and I find the Good Article and Featured Article criteria bewildering in practice, so I'm staying out of working here as far as possible because I recognise the importance other editors place on getting the article up to GA standard. It was on my list to improve, and is now much better; I would have done it very differently and cited different academics, and I agree there are things still not covered, but to be frank I doubt other editors would like my version even if I were able to keep it NPOV (which on these topics is hard anyway - the official policy against Fringe viewpoints clashes badly in practice with the official policy of representing minority views, combating recentism and majority religious/social assumptions). I'm trying to be both principled and collaborative here, sorry if it sounds negative or wishy-washy. (I also avoid editing in the specific area of my dissertation.) It doesn't help that no dissertation or book has been written on Thor, unlike scads on Odin and at least one each on Heimdall and Freyr. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Guys, if there's something missing here (this article, Thor) or something you have a problem with, there is nothing stopping you from specifically spelling it out for discussion.
Yngvadottir, the big deal with GA certification is that it meets a very logical checklist mostly consisting of basic check ups and blatantly spelled out sources. Logical enough, but all too uncommonly seen in Wikiland. That said, while this article was rewritten to GA criteria (Wikipedia:Good article criteria), keep in mind that this article is by no means in a state developed enough to get to GA status. After I launched the rewrite, I posted a list of material that I intend to cover when continuing with this article (below). There is much to be added here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

well, sure, as you may note we already are discussing it. this also wasn't a criticism of this article in particular, it was a criticism of very nearly most of our articles about gods. They are generally rather mediocre. I do work on them occasionally, but there are hundreds of gods and this isn't my main focus on Wikipedia, so I do not propose to fix this single-handedly within the next couple of decades.

I don't care about GA certification, it means nothing. Poor articles are granted it on formal grounds, and excellent articles are withheld it, also on formal ground. GA is essentially a check of WP:MOS, it has little or nothing to do with article content. --dab (𒁳) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to any of the Germanic deity articles that I have brought to GA status, you are welcome to state your specific criticisms. However, I feel that the articles I have brought to GA standard are easily the finest resources on said deities that one can find anywhere, internet or not. That said, the articles on deities outside of the Germanic sphere do tend to be pretty awful, but that's just a matter of someone knowledgeable, patient, and passionate enough coming along to set things right, of course.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the GA process. I think it's a fine standard, and the review process ideally roots out neutrality issues, prose problems, and, well, influences everything else about the article. I've dealt with some dud reviews in the past, and some extremely extensive ones, but they generally tend to be fine, and my editing here has certainly been influenced for the better by way of that process. Consider giving it a second chance. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

THOR Comics[edit]

In 1966, Marvel Comics gave the God of Thunder his own title. Written by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby and Vince Colletta, the stories were set in Norse mythology and rendered elegantly. Many feel that these books represented the pinnacle of comic book art.<a href="http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2648474540104247722pmloOv"><img src="http://inlinethumb32.webshots.com/4703/2648474540104247722S200x200Q85.jpg" alt="thor 126"></a> Franklin222 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Franklin222

Thorium?[edit]

Didn't Thorium come from Thor? 23191Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah the element Thorium (atomic number 90) is named after Thor Thor cherubim (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Toponyms[edit]

It seems like some of the places listed might be named after people rather than the god. If such-n-such place is actually named after a particular man named Thor, then I don't think it should be listed. What do you think?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis Huard - Giant Skrymir and Thor.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Louis Huard - Giant Skrymir and Thor.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 15, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Thor and Útgarða-Loki

A 1900 illustration of the Norse god Thor with the giant Útgarða-Loki. Giving his name as "Skrymir", the giant tricked Thor and his companions in several ways, such as challenging Thor's servant Þjálfi to a race against Thought, challenging Loki in an eating contest with Wildfire, and challenging Thor to a drinking contest where the drinking horn was connected to the ocean. In the end, Útgarða-Loki revealed his trickery and said that he had been truly afraid at their performance and would never again risk coming near the thunder god. Thor's dealings with giants make up most of the myths surrounding him.

Artist: Louis Huard; Restoration: Adam Cuerden
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


Placenames in England[edit]

It seems generally agreed that all the Thur- placenames in England, such as Thurstable, go back to A-S Þunor not ON Þórr. There are also some Scandinavian placenames that appear to be from the personal name Þorri. I have found only one English placename that the experts say may be from ON Þórr: Tarbock, a stream in the Liverpool area. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Simek isn't particularly clear here and he does not give an example, so I went ahead and pulled it. We could conceivably come up with a list of placenames named after Thor, if anyone wanted to put the time in. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where we stand[edit]

The article has now been completely rewritten to good article specifications, but it is far from done. Here are some things that we are currently missing:

  1. An 'archaeological record' section handling Thor's association with thunderstones
  2. A summary of Thor's appearances in the Prose Edda, Heimskringla, Gesta Danorum and sagas
  3. 19th century folk beliefs expanded to include, for example, traditional Scandinavian songs referring to Thor's loss of his hammer
  4. A 'theories and interpretations' section handling the Fjörgyn and Fjörgynn issue, and, related, Thor's correspondence to Indra and other Indo-European cognates
  5. Surely there were/are more animals or objects named after Thor than just the fox recorded in Iceland?

On a related note, we still have this waiting in the graphic lab line, so if anyone out there wants to take some time out to try their hand out at vectorizing this widely used image, it would be a big help. My thanks to those of you who are helping out with the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Toc suggestion[edit]

The current article structure is somewhat clumsy, especially the "Attestations" section. I suggest we split it in a "History" section, dealing with the general timeline of what is kown about Thor's cult, and a separate h2 "Edda" section, addressing the substantial information based on the Edda (which is now stashed away under "Post-Viking Age").

Conceivably it would make even more sense to separate a "Cult" from a "Mythology" section, as we usually do with well-attested classical gods. It is definitely my opinion that an account of any deity should be based on discussing "Cult" and "Mythology" as two dimensions of their character. "History" and "Geography" add two more dimensions, so it isn't always easy to decide which arrangement the material should be given and there is certainly room for debate here. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see the current state of the article: the current article is basically only part of a skeleton, but it is logically arranged in two major parts: attestations and archaeological record; our two major sources on the god, his myths, and his cult. The material is then further arranged by chronology. The Old Norse material, particularly in the Poetic Edda' and Prose Edda, is pretty extensive and a treatment of the latter has yet to be added. Otherwise there's a pretty fair amount of material in various sagas and other bits here and there. The material from Heimskringla and Gesta Danorum would potentially constitute a section each. This post-Viking Age material may be developed to the point where it may need to be spun off to a separate article, but I would first want to wait and see. I also intend to continue to rewrite a lot of articles surrounding Thor to GA standard.
Scholarly discussion about Thor's cult is definitely needed in the article, and we are currently missing a section where one would ideally find summarized theories about Thor's cult and so on (see other articles I've rewritten on related subject matter for what I mean). Normally this can all be fairly quickly done if one is familiar with the source material, but Thor is unique situation where there is just so much of it, and, as Yngvadottir pointed out above, Thor seems to lack a general study to draw from that would quicken the process.
I have intended to sit down and further develop this to the outline above for a few months now - it's my Wikipedia priority - but I am currently lacking in time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I see your idea, and it's not terrible, but it prevents the article from evolving beyond a stale list of primary references, into a coherent presentation of secondary references.
I do not want to become too involved in this and I'll certainly not push anything against your opposition, but I would recommend to give at least the Eddaic stuff its own h2 section to separate it from the discussion of Thor in the "Post-Viking Age", i.e. the Christian Middle Ages. Of course the Edda was recorded in the Christian period, but it is our main source for the pagan period, and the content of the Edda, the compilation of which was an antiquarian enterprise on the part of Snorri, should be treated separately from the discussion of how Thor was seen in the 13th to 16th centuries (euhemerizing legends).
As the article stands, it is very far from being a balanced encyclopedia article. It gives excessive summaries of the primary (Eddaic) stuff and fails to represent the secondary (scholarly) angle. The ideal encyclopedia discusses secondary literature exclusively and does without excursions into primary sources as far as possible. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
My intention is to put the secondary stuff in its own section, as there are very different interpretations of the source material abound. That's the problem with most of these articles; if the theories and interpretations aren't isolated, it's unclear where the primary sources begin and the opinions on them end. The three major encyclopedias in the English language on Germanic paganism and myth (Simek, Lindow, Orchard) generally trot out the evidence first and then propose their interpretations for this reason. This makes each mythical twist and turn turn into a complex affair when dealing with several competing opinions and theories, so I think it's far wiser to just spit out the attestations on their own terms and then go into the major theories surrounding them in a separate section with maybe a few "see ____ sections" here and there.
With this article, the problem has so far been finding a proper study on Thor. I finally got a copy of Davidson's impressive Scandinavian Mythology, and it has an extensive treatment of Thor in a pan-Germanic context. Davidson has written a lot on Thor in the past, and I think this would be a fine place to start with a 'theories and interpretations' section. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Amon Amarth[edit]

I don't know if this has already been discussed but would the "modern culture" section benefit from the mention of many music bands (specifically heavy metal bands) that make use of Thor in song lyrics and even titles? (I wrote Amon Amarth because they use Norse mythology very heavily in song lyrics/titles) Would this even be pertenent to the article? Prussian725 (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably... cause we are... guardians... guardians of Asgard... (we work for Asgard as guards) 75.170.66.1 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How old is the root word?[edit]

I found out the Latin verb for thunder is "tonare" which is too close to "Donnar" to be coincidence... but the Romans didn't have a Tonar god of thunder. There should be a section tracing the root of "thunder" and also the history of the hammer-god including Uralic sources and equivalents like Perkons, Ukko or Ilmarinen 75.170.66.1 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thor the Red-Bearded[edit]

Regarding a recently placed reference request tag on the lead section of this article ([1]); while a quick ctrl + f of the article brings up examples of the apparently wide-spread belief that Thor was red bearded/red-haired (try "Thor of the Holt", "red-haired thunder"), the article is currently lacking Old Norse material handling this. It's not in the article yet (saga material isn't yet handled), and I'm not exactly sure where this is off of the top of my head, but I believe it's in at least one saga. In relation, Dumézil has commented a fair amount about Thor's general association with the color red as well (as a part of his trifunctional hypothesis—this article does not yet cover this either). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See the edit I just made adding citations via HRED (and de Vries, who unfortunately just cited it to volume and page in Fornaldur sögur, entailing a bit of a search). I'm afraid you'll have to wrassle it into the bibliographic format used in the article. If you want me to write up the association of the red beard with the lightning, will do and put it here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. As for Sturleson's Icelandic saga, it's usually translated to say Thor's (and Sif's) hair was "fairer than gold" as opposed to "more beautiful than gold", isn't it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Yngvadottir. Fine work as always! Sure, I am interested in having a look at their response to this "red lightning" business, which I have encountered in 19th century works fairly frequently but haven't pushed any further (particularly since I've never seen red lightning...). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, as Yngvadottir makes clear, I should have taken another look at the Prose Edda prologue attestation as it doesn't make the odd claim that Thor is a blonde. And, Til, just so we're all on the same page, the prologue isn't a saga, but is rather one of four books/sections/parts that make up the Prose Edda.
As for the line in question, here are some translations:
Brodeur
"his hair was fairer than gold" (1916:6)
Faulkes
"His hair is more beautiful than gold" (1995:3)
Byock
"His hair was more beautiful than gold" (2005:6)
So, as you can see, Yngvadottir is correct. But, indeed, Sif's hair is widely attested as gold, and this, combined with some of her other attestations ("Sif" appearing as a heiti for "earth", for example), has resulted in the popular theory that it is connected to golden grain. In relation to this, see the Davidson quote in the "origin, theories, and interpretations" section of this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again to both of you for the research to answer my questions. It makes me wonder now what the original Icelandic phrase would be for "more beautiful / fairer than gold"...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. The Old Norse line discussed above is hár hans er fegra en gull (and so to me Brodeur's looks best). :) :bloodofox: (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's Brodeur in parallel with the Old Norse - section 3. I looked first at Faulkes and then at my xerox of Finnur Jónsson's diplomatic edition '-) I grew up with Jean Young's version; she has "his hair was lovelier than gold." Notice that most translators are eliding Snorri's tense change: Thor's hair is more beautiful than gold, but of Sif he says: Hár hennar var sem gull - "Her hair was like gold." Weaker praise and past tense. Anyway, this is from the Prologue, which is a masterwork of political spin.

So, anyway . . . Ellis Davidson in Gods and Myths of Northern Europe cites Thor appearing in a dream to a Christian convert in Flóamanna saga, "big and red-bearded", and Thorhall in the Saga of Erik the Red boasting about the whale that Thor has provided in answer to his prayers, "Redbeard has got the better of your Christ!" Both of these on p. 85. On pp. 85-86 she adds that his terrible piercing eyes and "fearsome voice" are also mentioned many times.

Jan de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte volume 2, Grundriß der germanischen Philologie begründet von Hermann Paul 12/II, 2nd ed. 1957, 3rd unchanged ed. Berlin: de Gruyter 1970, p. 122, states that his large red beard was formerly often interpreted as a symbol of lightning - I presume he means by the Nature Mythologists - and also mentions the terrifying power of his voice as characteristic. But he prefers to see the red beard as typifying Nordic manhood; on p. 149 and he points out with references to Livy and Tacitus (note 3: "Cf. Livius XXXVIII, 17, 3 and Tacitus, Hist IV, 61.") that Germanic (and Gaulish) warriors would dye their hair red before battle. He lists this redness of Thor's beard as a similarity with Óðinn, one of whose many names is rauðgrani - "Red Grani" (also p. 149). De Vries' supporting reference on p. 122 is to the Flateyjarbók version of the Saga of Olaf Tryggvason. But Ellis Davidson cites this to show Thor creating a storm by blowing out his beard:

Raud said: 'Blow out the bristles of your beard against him, and we will resist them stoutly.' Thor said not much would come of that, but nevertheless they went out, and Thor blew hard into his beard and puffed out the bristles. Immediately a gale came up against the king.

(Also p. 85, and her citation is Flateyjarbók I, 248) Ellis Davidson sees emphasis on the connection between Thor's red beard and the raising of the wind, and suggests that the "old explanation" that it "denoted the lightning" was more true than the "popular suggestion" that the beard made Thor "the typical unshaven Viking." She suggests the red color is based on "the red sky which foretells a storm."

Do with this what you will to fit it into the article neatly - I have quoted rather than paraphrase over-closely. But I suggest something along the lines of "In one saga, Thor blows out his beard to produce lightning, and his red beard, several times mentioned in sagas, has been seen as a representation of lightning, its color perhaps from the red sky that warns of a storm. But Roman historians told of Germanic (and Gaulish) warriors dying their hair red before battle, so the beard and its color have both been seen as making Thor a typical Germanic or viking warrior." Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, Yngvadottir! This article has a ways to go yet, but we're getting there. One thing that has been bothering me a lot lately is that the Mjöllnir article, which is getting a lot of attention, could use a rewrite to WP:GA standards. I'd like to take care of that before expanding on this one (I find that taking care of supporting articles first tends to make it far easier to handle their larger articles), especially since it has such a bearing on modern Germanic neopaganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is here any mention of Jordr as his mother? Can we view Jord and Fyorgy as the same deity (if they are deities)?--Mychele (talk)

Yes, there are textual sources calling him the child of Jǫrðr and of Fjǫrgyn. Some scholars therefore argue that they are the same goddess (I see that that version is in the article but the cite Jarðar Burr is not). Others have identified Fjǫrgyn with Frigg, since one textual passage refers to Óðinn as Fjǫrgynn, the male counterpart of the name. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Have seen modern adaptations of Thors warhammer worn by so called "Pagans" Was this done in ancient times too?[edit]

Have seen small replicas of Thors War Hammer Worn by modern "Pagans" as a symbol of being a Pagan. as this done in ancient times as well?WEREWOLFID (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at least after contact with Christians wearing crosses: see Mjölnir. It was also put on graves and memorials to ward them against desecration. But the majority of modern pagans who wear a Thor's hammer are adherents of Germanic neo-paganism; other modern pagans usually don't. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thor in The Almighty Johnsons[edit]

This has been deleted twice now from the section "Modern influence":

The 2011 New Zealand TV series The Almighty Johnsons features reincarnated Norse gods in modern times, including Thor who is a goat farmer.[1]

First time the excuse was "Removed seemingly very minor pop culture reference with no citation provided", even though the linked article did indeed include all the cites you could want. So I added a direct cite in the text, redundant though it was. Then it was deleted with the remark "minor pop culture mention. We don't mention every time Thor is reference in modern popular culture here". Oh really, "we" don't? The section is "Modern influence" (not "Modern influence in high culture"). How a current TV show about Norse gods is not appropriate under that heading, but the logo of a bicycle is, I don't know. Barsoomian (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thor is a major deity; there have been scads of books, animated series, etc. concerning the Norse gods, particularly the trope of them appearing in a modern context (Neil Gaiman's American Gods comes to mind in particular) but also in the context of the Vikings (Harry Harrison's The Hammer and the Cross comes to mind in particular). All of these, and the TV series you mention, feature all the Norse gods, or at any rate several, so naturally they feature Thor—but only because he's a prominent member of the Æsir. In my opinion that's the best reason not to add them to the articles on all the individual deities they mention; and note that there are no such mentions in the Thor article, only modern references to Thor in particular. In other words I agree with you that Thor should be linked in the article on The Almighty Johnsons, but I don't think it's useful to link to The Almighty Johnsons from the Thor article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall Thor being in American Gods at all. (Maybe he was, I read it a couple of years ago.) The main characters in that were Baldur (though he wasn't named) and Odin. However, Thor is prominent in at least one episode of Almighty Johnsons, the one that I cited. It is a "modern reference to Thor in particular" as you said was your criterion. You have not given any reason for this to be omitted. You include a bicycle logo, surely trivial, you include obscure 19th C poems. A TV show (that got good reviews) is omitted, because it's "pop culture". It's to the detriment of the article to ignore how the legends have been adapted in modern times. For you to on the one hand say "there have been scads of books..." and then decide "we" are not going to mention any of them seems to be based on a fear of the article being seen as not as "serious" as you would like it to be. I'll also note that there have been several recent movies, not just the Marvel one this year, about Thor, also completely ignored. Since most of these appear to be just trying to cash in on the Marvel movie, I don't care to advocate them, though if someone did the legwork and cited them I would never have deleted them myself. (Thunderstorm: The Return of Thor (2011), Hammer of the Gods (2009) , Thor: Tales of Asgard (2011), etc.) Anyway, seeing as you and Bloodofox are united on this, it doesn't matter what I say, you will just revert me. So good luck with keeping your article free from pollution from that awful pop culture. Barsoomian (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually I liked the Marvel Thor until Walt Simonson came along . . . but that has its own article. Have a look there to see whether all the movies are covered. You seem to have missed my point (and also that the bicycle logo is only in a picture caption). The poems may be obscure to you, but isn't that just as judgmental as the dislike of modern popular culture you're putting into my mouth? I've given you a better reason than "trivial." Yngvadottir (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I have missed your point. What was it? As for the movies, most of them aren't based on the comic. So they're not listed on Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media, and you won't mention them here, despite them featuring Thor as the main character. As for the poems, I'm not trying to delete them, I'm asking why they (and a bicycle logo -- a photo is a much more prominent reference than text) are more worthy of inclusion than a TV show or a movie. You're the one making that "judgement". And yes, Marvel's Thor has its own article, which is linked. But you refuse to consider a one sentence mention and link to The Almighty Johnsons. The "pop culture" reference is from Bloodofox's disparaging edit comments, since you are backing him up I assumed you shared his reasoning, apologies if not. Barsoomian (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, Bloodofox and I are not joined at the hip. My reasoning appears above: the TV series is one example among many that are about the Norse gods in general, and only incidentally Thor. (By the way, there may be more instances of that than you think; I know of 2 webcomix alone, and then there are all the gaming uses. If there isn't a Norse gods in popular culture article, maybe there should be, although it might have to be referenced mostly with articles about the animé and manga uses.) I disagree about the picture constituting undue prominence, but will now remove the Wagner reference, which is incidental, now that I come to look at it. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"only incidentally " What does that mean? I've actually watched the show in question, and Thor (aka Derrick), is not incidental:

Thus it is that there is the first face-to-face summit meeting of Gods and Goddesses, outside the church where Selma’s funeral is being held. May the best deity win, is the general consensus, as the two sides set about following any signs of the Frigg being here. Instead who they find is Thor, God of War, in the form of Derrick, a goat farmer.
This is a problem for both sides, because Thor is clearly barking mad – and also very scary, with his hammer in his hand. But Thor is thrilled to find Odin/Axl is in his house and announces that their search is over because his daughter, Delphine, is, in fact, Frigg. This, in turn, is a problem for Axl because Delphine is definitely not the woman he had in mind as his soul-mate forever.
Thor ousts the rest of the Gods/Goddesses so that he may spend time with Odin – and so that Axl can get it on with Delphine. This leaves Anders free to kindle a relationship with Michele; and for Olaf and Ingrid, the Goddess Oracle, to bond over vodka and a spa pool.This leaves Axl alone, on the farm, to incur the wrath of Thor, after Axl realises Delphine is not Frigg. Thor does not take the news well and it takes Anders on a rescue mission, plus Axl growing some Odin-like balls, for them to get out of there alive.

Now, that this show clearly has fun with the juxtaposition of Norse Gods in rural New Zealand (though it isn't as farcical as the recap may make it sound), doesn't change the fact that they are directly based on, and reference, the original legends and the characteristics of the gods. Thor included, not incidentally, as above. And this are entirely appropriate for inclusion here, despite not being "high culture". Barsoomian (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Yngvadottir on this one. A show using a Thor based character is not notable just for that reason. The character appeared in one episode, that's it. Being a minor character that appeared only once on a show isn't notable, and an episode recap isn't a reliable third-party source that shows the notability of the information it is supporting. - SudoGhost 17:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, really? Not notable? Let's look at one of the cites you're happy with then. "He also features in two works by Rudyard Kipling: Letters of Travel: 1892-1913" Text here. One paragraph mentioning Thor. In its entirety:

I had some talk with a youngish man whose business it was to train avalanches to jump clear of his section of the track. Thor went to Jotunheim only once or twice, and he had his useful hammer Miolnr with him. This Thor lived in Jotunheim among the green-ice-crowned peaks of the Selkirks--where if you disturb the giants at certain seasons of the year, by making noises, they will sit upon you and all your fine emotions. So Thor watches them glaring under the May sun, or dull and doubly dangerous beneath the spring rains. He wards off their strokes with enormous brattices of wood, wing-walls of logs bolted together, and such other contraptions as experience teaches. He bears the giants no malice; they do their work, he his. What bothers him a little is that the wind of their blows sometimes rips pines out of the opposite hill-sides--explodes, as it were, a whole valley. He thinks, however, he can fix things so as to split large avalanches into little ones.

This is "notable"? the other Kipling ref is a fairy tale that mentions Thor a few times, but he certainly isn't a major character. Barsoomian (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I further agree with Yngvadottir. Further, the old (Frølich-based) bicycle badge is a perfectly good (and perfectly copyright-free) example of Thor's employment in modern popular culture. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then. TV isn't allowed to be mentioned here. And not a word about any of the several Thor movies to be found. So obviously I misunderstood "Modern influence", perhaps you should clarify that by this you mean "Reverential pre-1920 influences", and avoid all that low-brow "pop culture" (except bicycles). Looking at your "Modern influences" the only actual "modern" work mentioned is the Marvel comic, which even you could not exclude, though I'm sure it pains you to give it even the one sentence it has. Very comprehensive indeed. You could almost call it encyclopedic. Barsoomian (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You've given no reason as to why a brief, minor character in a small television show is notable enough to be included in that section. Grouping several different modern "Thors" together and attempting to make an "all or nothing" case for them doesn't change that. It is not for us to decide whether a particular instance is notable enough, but rather to judge each mention by the sources that back it up. In this instance, even if the television show was a major cultural influence (which it is not), the minor Thor character that appeared once isn't notable enough to be mentioned here. - SudoGhost 07:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You have rejected any mention of TV or films on this page. Trivial mention in any "classic" literature are featured. Your criteria are inconsistently applied to exclude works that you don't want to see here. As for the TV show, it's true that Thor does not appear in every episode of the series. HOWEVER in the 50 minute episode mentioned, he is a major character, and THAT episode is the work cited. And you have no justification at all for excluding any of the several Thor films, though a big deal is made about a one paragraph mention in a Kipling story. It's hard to see any rule other than "reverential literature only". Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think your own bias is showing in your reading of "Cold Iron." If the TV show becomes a big hit and the "Thor" character becomes major, it will be another matter. If someone finds an animé/manga/webcomic/TV show that's successful (the standard for the cartoon ones is higher) and is substantially about Thor (those I know of aren't, they're about the Norse gods in general or in one case, primarily about Loki), it'll be a different matter. The movies, so far as I'm aware, are all based on (or spoofs of) the Marvel comic. As I suggested above, it may be time (read: enough articles to be found in reputable places) for an article on Norse gods in popular culture. I believe it's the absence of such an article that is really causing the problem you perceive. With the exception of Marvel, there really hasn't been a particular focus on Thor in pop culture since WW2. And it's particular focus on Thor that's required here.--Yngvadottir (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Now it has to be a "big hit"? Where did that criterion come from? Not one of the "Modern influences" listed is a "big hit", except perhaps the Thor comic. The movies ARE NOT all based on the Marvel comic. You haven't even looked them up, obviously. And how does that rule them out anyway? As for Kipling, the "one paragraph" is Letters of Travel: 1892-1913, not "Cold Iron". But the Thor mention in "Cold Iron" is pretty minor as well. What "bias" do I reveal by reading the texts and pointing it out?
The modern interpretations of Thor in various media could be listed and described in a couple of paragraphs. It would not detract from the classical section. See for example Odysseus#Modern for a respectable article about a mythical hero that isn't above mentioning modern adaptations. Barsoomian (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"Cold Iron" gives Thor a major role—a sad one, but the story features Thor prominently. I imagine the uses of Odysseus are all similarly about Odysseus, not Greco-Roman heroes in general—particularly since his story is almost all about his trip home, rather than his participation in the Trojan War. That's my point. As for a major hit—to justify mentioning it outside its own article. You've said it's only in its first season. I'm sorry it's still not clear that it's not about whether something is pre-war or "high culture," but I do not think this TV show is yet significant enough as a modern depiction of Thor to be listed as such in this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"Major hit" is a bogus criterion. None of the other media mentioned are "major hits". You just keep making up new reasons to exclude things you don't like (despite disdaining to find out anything about them). It DOES NOT MATTER about the series as a whole, (though it has been renewed for next year). I am citing the specific episode where Thor is a MAJOR character. Could I delete " Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger's 1807 epic poem" because all his other poems were not about Thor? That's the argument you are making. And I'm pretty sure more people have seen that episode than have read that poem, but you only use that rule to exclude "pop culture", of course. Barsoomian (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Umm, no, that's an obviously false analogy (even more so than your analogy between Odysseus and Thor). t's already apparent that you have a bias against anything older than, say, World War II— you dismiss the Kipling story as a "fairytale" and you don't like Oehlenschläger's epic poem because few people today have read it. Notability doesn't expire—fortunately, because until Lee and Kirby, Thor had been unfortunately neglected since the war. I really encourage you to put together that broadbased article on the Norse gods in modern culture; there are a large number of them that don't have individual articles, and I'm sure there are enough reliable sources discussing the phenomenon by now. And that's the context of the TV show, unless and until its treatment of Thor rises to significance for Thor in modern culture. However, it's becoming apparent that you consider it simply a matter of taste. I have repeated several times now the grounds on which I believe the show is inappropriate to mention in the Thor article at this stage. I have not done so by calling the show trivial or insulting your taste, and I would thank you to stop doing so for my position. Let me point out that I removed the mention of Wagner's Ring cycle from the article on precisely those grounds—much though I personally cherish it, it doesn't meet that standard even though Simek mentions it.--Yngvadottir (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You've made a whole list of incorrect and unfounded statements about me and "my beliefs".
  • "It's already apparent that you have a bias against anything older than, say, World War II": No, I am pointing out though that you have systematically excluded almost everything after that date.
  • "you dismiss the Kipling story as a "fairytale" " -- Where do I "dismiss" it? It certainly is a fairy tale, the collection it's in is is titled Rewards and Fairies. How is it relevant to anything whether it is or isn't? I do "dismiss" the relevance of Kipling's Letters of Travel, as the only mention of Thor is one paragraph, which I quoted above.
  • "and you don't like Oehlenschläger's epic poem because few people today have read it." Bullshit, and offensive. One of the many criteria demanded here to include a TV show was that it be "a major hit". I was pointing out that few if any of the other media listed could claim that, the poems in particular. But I haven't read it and have no opinion, like or dislike, about it. And I haven't advocated it be deleted on any grounds. Just again pointing out the inconsistency of this position.
  • "I really encourage you to put together that broadbased article on the Norse gods in modern culture", or in other words: "go away, don't touch my article". I have not the time, inclination or ability to create such a broadbased article. The sensible thing to do would be to enlarge the section here, and if it eventually grew to a respectable size it could be split off. As has happened with for example Robin Hood in popular culture. The Odysseus article I mentoned earlier is probably ripe for having its correspondng section hived off.
  • "I have not done so by calling the show trivial or insulting your taste," Perhaps not you personally, but others here have. See the dismissive edit comments when my text was deleted. But if you really don't think it's trivial, then you have no reason to exclude it. But you do. So I'm left wondering just what the real reason is. As for Wagner, well done. Now look at the Kipling travelogue and see if you can justify keeping that for three mentions of "Thor" in one paragraph while rejecting a whole 50 minute TV show. Barsoomian (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have made my position clear enough: it rests on relevance to this article. Your personal feeling that a 50-minute TV show is more notable than an epic poem just because you prefer TV shows is not relevant to notability. Nor is your assumption that Odysseus is analagous to Thor because he is a "mythological hero" (despite the crucial point I have repeated again and again, that in the TV show, and the vast majority of other modern mentions, Thor appears simply as part of the ensemble of Norse deities, for which there is no analogue in the Odysseus story—and for that matter Thor is a major god, not a "hero" who cannot be arsed to get home to his wife) or that a literary work is unimpressive because it has "Fairies" in the title. No, I haven't called the show trivial. (I have also gently pointed out that I am not a sock or a meatpuppet of Bloodofox, and once should be enough for that statement). I have patiently explained the applicable criteria as I see them. By searching for the webomics I know of, I found that the general article does in fact exist: Norse mythology in popular culture. The Almighty Johnsons is already listed there. Who knows, maybe it will become a big hit—big enough to be as significant as Kipling or Oehlenschläger in this context—and the "Thor" character in it will turn out in the meantime to be a major character in the ensemble. Should both of those happen, I, for one, will revisit the issue. But right now, in my considered judgment, it's no more relevant to the Thor article than is the fact that The Hammer and the Cross has scenes in which Thor appears—that's a notable trilogy but its mentions of Thor are only incidental, despite the fact that a major character is a priest of Thor. To name one other example in modern culture for which we have an article. Or maybe some academic will write about either of them as an example of modern attitudes toward Thor. But in teh current situation I am sorry to say that I am beginning to think you are taking my politeness and willingness to explain my position for weakness. If my reasoning is still so unclear that you think it amounts to bias against modern stuff, please re-read. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"just because you prefer TV shows " Again, you misrepresent me. Where do you get that from? And the rest: I was not attacking the things currently in the article but trying to compare the significance of these and deduce the criteria that allows them and not other things. The response to that is to simply defend the worth of the items I mention, not to compare them, and declare that I have "a bias against anything older than, say, World War II", that I "prefer TV shows". No. I simply was trying to make the article comprehensive, filling in missing facts, not imposing my own prejudices on it. The high barriers you put against the inclusion of anything I suggest are not applied to the items you want to include. Your "considered judgment" is that even one paragraph by Kipling is significant, but a TV show cannot be. Unlike you, I won't go ahead to make assertions about why you might think that.Barsoomian (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Barsoomian, your proposed addition has been rejected by three different editors, all expressing the same reasoning. Perhaps it's time to ask yourself if your time spent on this issue is being spent productively. Further, I should note that Yngvadottir is being remarkably patient and tolerant here here, and you would do well to show her a little more respect. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't lecture me about "respect" after your dismissive remarks. I don't ask for "tolerance". I am not a supplicant. But I know when I'm outnumbered. Pat yourself on the back to have seen off another Philistine. Barsoomian (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Bloodofox claims that an Infobox is unhelpful and misleading. Yet doesn't take it to the talk section and makes no case except his opinion. The infobox is directly from the article as I point out. Bloodofox retorts: "This is a gross simplification and adds nothing. If you have a case for this, please take it to the talk page. There is no need for this infobox." Infoboxes are standard for encyclopedia, this is the Wiki(encyclo)pedia. All info in the infobox is in the article. While it might be a gross simplification, some readers are look for this simiple info with out wading through the whole article. Instead you wish to force them to read the whole article, instead they will stop reading and not get any info out of the article. You have not made your case. Are you are or you not working on an encyclopedia, Bloodofox? --Spshu (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: I referred you to the talk page to state your reasoning. Anyway, there's nothing that an info box can do that the opening paragraphs don't do here better. The info boxes do nothing more than mislead the reader and clutter the article. :bloodofox: (talk)
Wikipedia articles are structured such that there is an initial summary at the top - this enables people to get the most important information without reading through the whole article. Infoboxes can sometimes be a useful addition to this but I'm not sure that is the case here. If there were to be an infobox for Thor I don't think his family relationship would necessarily be the most pertinent thing for them. Haukur (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, but less strenuously - when the infobox appeared, I looked at Odin to see whether it had one and noted that it did but that it was similarly simplistic. The infoboxes seem to be based on a rather simplistic view of deities: that they have only one name, one to three things they are "gods of," and one world they - live in? Thor's the Protector of Mankind or of Midgard, the Patron of Travelers, Redbeard, Ása-Þórr - in fact in the Germanic pantheon, the number of sobriquets and alternate names is a good clue to importance. (As a result, we have whole articles on the names of some of them.) And Óðin's function, even more than Thor's, has defied pigeonholing, which is why I chose his article to compare. As for "world: Asgard," what's that supposed to mean? Thor spends a great amount of time harrowing Jotunheim. He's the warder of Midgard. He's probably in Asgard less than some of the Vanir. Perhaps these infoboxes should be modified to state which of the races of gods the deity belongs to: the fact that Thor is of the Æsir is germane. But all in all, I think it's less useful than misleading. It implies the gods can be reduced to a list like one might find in an early D & D manual. These are deities of actual religions. For the infobox to be appropriate and a useful summary, it would have to be far more complex. I realize there's a long-standing difference of opinion on Wikipedia as to whether infoboxes are useful; I tend to think it depends on the kind of article. I put one in when I write an article on a steamship, and I put one in on my first article, on an inventor, because the article I used as my format model had one. But I don't think it's actually true that an encyclopedia must have an infobox; even an online encyclopedia. Where the topic is either short enough to be largely covered in one screen, or very complex, as in this case, I don't think it's always useful. So on balance, although I left it alone, I agree with not using it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The thing about infoboxes is that the information they show is standard to the class of subjects. Creating the infobox before planning it with others is setting yourself up for a disagreement. The "god of" part is reductionist, and in that way misleading. Not all beliefs incorporate totemism or patronage. Those qualifiers are used to relate to the figures of other beliefs, just as god is used so people can relate to the vættir, but the value of that information is limited in my opinion. Especially for the Norse religion, because the figures have a heavy storytelling role, and thus become more human than elemental in nature. The nature of this information is good infobox material, but it suggests a certain point of view on the figure's meaning, which is subject to wide discourse. The "norse name" is subjective even as a transliteration - do we use Latin or Runic letters, which alphabet, and why not include the Western and Eastern names in their native scripts? That's not a problem if this is supposed to be an infobox for Norse figures, but Thor and Odin would need a separate infobox to begin with, because the articles are about all analogous Germanic figures. The remaining information is filler, and the replacement information I can think of is again not a simple matter, such as the wealth of kennings. If there were concise and widely useful information to put in it, the infobox would be useful, but I don't think we have that so far. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the disagreement here is that the Infobox Norse deity does not give enough info fields or seen to be incorrect fields. I think that we could work with the current one. Also, the opening paragraph does not mention that there are any other names then Donar for Thor. So adding "Donar (Southern Germanic)" (if I remembered correct) plus a wikilink in some form to the article on Thor's other names might help.Spshu (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The Old English cognate and a Proto-Germanic are also included in the intro. For the infobox to be appropriate, it would essentially mirror the opening paragraphs, which is pointless. I fully agree with the comments above—we don't need an info box on these articles, and it's worth assessing whether or not they're appropriate on other religion/mythology articles for the same reasons. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent rewrite[edit]

Dbachmann's changes need to be discussed. On the basis of a brief look while they were happening, I see several different issues:

  1. Reordering of sections/subsections - I can see some merit in this, but it's frankly hard for me to get an overall grasp on-screen. Let's talk about the reasoning behind the reordering and Bloodofox's ordering of elements.
  2. Lede. I cannot agree that Thor is predominantly mentioned in association with the thunder. Other than the sagas, I think it's notable how not true that is. I'd say predominantly associated with protection (of Asgard and by extension mankind, and of graves) and with his bad temper, but it partly depends how one weighs the very different contexts. (The use of the hammer on runestones, for example, is disputed in some quarters, as mentioned in the article.) That makes me suspicious that the rewrite has a handle on the voluminous material. The lede probably needs to be fitted to the article, not written in advance.
  3. Indo-European heritage/cognates and weight to give to them. There's a tremendous split in the field over this that it's possible to be unaware of - scholars have been talking past each other, with linguistic barriers not helping. In some quarters, the whole Indo-European hypothesis is now in question; in others, it's applied rather differently to Thor. Hence the differing views on the "sky-god" thing. I think Dbachmann was right to present this as a speculation; there are others (including Dumézil's, which is still widely accepted and has Thor as one of the types of the second function.)
  4. The names material. This section has needed expanding for ages; I have the impression the rewrite did expand it? In that case, good, let's see if we can simply use that part of the rewrite, because we just haven't been covering that adequately. On the other hand - the statement about the days of the week I believe was just moved, not changed? And that is IMO inaccurate. There is zero evidence that I know of of the day-names using interpretatio romana dating back to the Roman Empire. As opposed to being introduced in Anglo-Saxon England as part of the experiment in kinder, gentler conversion and then spread by A-S missionaries to the Continent. I think Simek is wrong on that and now that I've mentioned it, will put chasing down a more detailed source on my list of things to do.

There are very likely more. Have at. Let's discuss. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While this article saw a rewrite by myself some time ago to WP:GA standards, the intention of this WP:GA-focused rewrite was to provide a base to build upon—pulling it out of the abyss of horrendous articles like our current article for Odin (and its cognate orbits, yikes) to grow with a solid foundation.
However, the recent deletion of random, well-sourced material without so much as an edit summary providing reasoning is not at all helpful. On the other hand, the introduction of unsourced material that came with it was just as unhelpful. Adding unsourced material simply degrades the article and it will flatly be removed (see WP:PROVEIT; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source"). Again, for certain, there's much to be added here, but additions need to not only respect the reference system in place, but actually contain, well, references.
As for the oak issue, discussion is welcome here and we need more in the article space. For example, as Yngvadottir points out, we could certainly use a more in-depth etymology section, and our "theories" section needs much expansion. Again, however, that is only if we're on the same page about noting where every scrap of information comes from.
As for the restructuring, I really don't see the point of it and it threatens to produce a synthesis-based "origins" section at the beginning of the article. Currently the article is structured with neutrality and clarity primarily in mind: summary of body ("lead/lede") --> etymology/name --> chronological literary record/attestations --> archaeological record --> eponymy and toponymy --> theories and interpretations (which would include theories on origin; commentary about which we need certainly more).
Indeed, as some of us know, this stuff takes a long time to put together, and no small part of this is due to insisting on abiding by referencing and neutrality requirements. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


Norse Gods[edit]

Shouldn't this go in the category "Norse Gods"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thor/Tor[edit]

Tor [tor] in south slavic languages is fertilizer,soil, seeded land. In Thor's list of miracle capabilities is "god of fertility". Could this be connected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talkcontribs) 05:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Slavic linguist, but I doubt it. "God of fertility" is really a misnomer that illustrates the problem with labeling deities as "god of X" and "goddess of Y" as if they were saints. They do things from which we infer these connections - or from which medieval Christians inferred them. Thor is connected with the thunder (obviously), and it has been generally observed in Northern Europe that the grain ripens after there has been summer thunder - this is because of the nitrogen fixing that happens in a thunderstorm. Hence the statements that his lightning and thunder are needed for this aspect of "fertility". Also in "Þrymskviða" his hammer is recovered after it is laid in his lap when he is at the giant wedding disguised as the bride. This suggests a Norse wedding custom of having Thor bless a bride. But there are much more obvious candidates for the (modern) job of "god of fertility" in the Norse pantheon: Freyr and his father Njörð. In fact the use of the hammer in weddings in association with all the evidence that Thor was called on to hallow things (including his hallowing the pyre at Baldr's funeral) casts doubt on the usefulness of the "fertility god" concept here, suggesting that the bride was thought of as being made holy at a wedding. The categories we are used to working with are not necessarily the most appropriate.--Yngvadottir (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shii (talk · contribs) 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Commendable lede. Text is readable, skilled, and encyclopedic throughout.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The section from the Edda is slightly long and quotes extensively from a single source, even though the Edda can reasonably be said to be the best source for understanding Thor's traditional role. I am concerned that the reader could lose the focus of the text here.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Excellent use of free images from Commons, although ideally, the images should be more clearly centered on Thor's person (it's okay to crop them), and there should be more color. Good use of galleries.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Please fix the one problem I mentioned and I think this can pass. Shii (tock) 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the kind words about the article. I should note that I am the primary author of this article as it stands and yet I don't think the article is GA material; the Poetic Edda material needs to be expanded upon, as does a fair amount of the Prose Edda material, which means a significant amount of work. It also needs a comparative section in the theories section. Before these sections are in a reasonable state I cannot support this article reaching GA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I do think the article is quite good, and while a comparative section would be nice I don't think it's necessary for GA (which only means the article is decent, not totally complete). What you should be focusing on is getting both the Prose and Poetic Edda sections into something that is both succinct and hits all the important points. Shii (tock) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • GA criteria requires inline citations for quotations. While an end of paragraph citation is perfectly acceptable, it doesn't hurt to have a closer citation as that is immediately reassuring for a reader. While not at all required for GA (or indeed anywhere at all on Wikipedia), if a source has been scanned and appears online in a legitimate format, such as Google Books, it is immensely helpful to link to that online source. At a quick scan, this looks like a very decent article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Since that's the only issue and, iven the why it's structured the ref can be easily figured out, the review can now be closed. Wizardman 03:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Colorized images[edit]

I just added disclaimers regarding some of the images on this article. There appears to be a common, very bad habit, among users of images of stone carvings, to de-emphasize the fact that they are photoshopped to make the lines red. Looking through a plethora of stone carving files, you'll see that most but not all of the photoshopping is listed in the respective metadata sections. So do we really want a generation of people growing up to think that all these carvings are bright red? Obviously, some diligent revisionist must believe so. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The red coloring has not been Photoshopped into these images. This is in fact how some currently look. Runestones were frequently "filled in" with bright red ochre and modern displays restore this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I can verify this. In the days of black and white photography, runestones were prepared with white paint for their official documentation, and the Scandinavian petroglyphs are traditionally kept picked out in red, in addition to the full-bore polychrome used on some of the stones with particularly fine interlaced art. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"god of"[edit]

I reverted a change from "a god associated with" to "god of" in the lede because "god of" is a slightly inaccurate anachronism; Thor is not called "god of thunder", etc. in the old sources. This is a relatively modern shorthand. It was used in 19th-century scholarship but not so much in newer scholars. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Kentish Thunor[edit]

You are right in shortening the "reeve Thunor story" until we can base it on secondary references. For the moment, the details of the story can well reside at Domne_Eafe#The_legend. I just want to note that there is probably more to be added here, hopefully I will come across more references.

  • at the very least, there was another Thursley in Kent, now not known by this name. If it is at all known where it was, it should be listed under "toponymy".
  • the story itself is highly suggestive,
    • some versions of the text have Thunor kill the boys at the command of the king, while in other versions the reeve keeps asking the king to have them killed, but the king keeps refusing. Clearly, Thunor is tempting the king to kill the boys, he is not doing it behind the king's back
    • the bodies are buried under the king's seat, in the hall
    • when the king "discovers" the crime, he feels bad about having angered God more than he had need (not Thunor, the baptized king has committed a crime against God)
    • when the king atones for his deed, the earth swallows up Thunor in a mound, and he is never heard of again

Very clearly, this is a story about human sacrifice to Thunor. I am not of course implying that it must be a historical sacrifice that happened exactly as told, but this is not just an idle placename etiology, it is a memory of pagan sacrifice surviving into post-conversion times. I am not going to push this interpretation here, needless to say it would be "WP:OR" if I did not present secondary references, but the case is so obvious that it is surely only a matter of some research to come up with such references. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Image Applicability[edit]

Why is there a random image of a lightning bolt in this article? It doesn't add anything whatsoever to the understanding of the article and seems like gratuitous image publication to me. I move that it be deleted. Jvanhoy (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, two weeks later and no objections. It's gone. Jvanhoy (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The image was there to illustrate the etymology section. Lightning causes thunder. I'm restoring the image. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The only problem is the etymology section of Thor doesn't need to be illustrated with a picture of lightning to tell our readership that lightning causes thunder -- even if they did not know that much, it tells us NOTHING about the etymology of Thor, and it tells us nothing about Thor period. They need to go to another page to learn about lightning, and here it is off topic, or just looks like Fan art creeping in where it doesn't belong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another pic. question[edit]

That's a nice, evocative photo from the Teutoburg Forest, but since the fabled forest isn't mentioned in the text it's not entirely clear why the pic. is there. I'm not aware of any specific Teutoburg connection with Thor, and he's not mentioned in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article, where this pic. also appears. Sca (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The image is a convenient one to illustrate Thor's continental presence by providing an image of a location mentioned in the article. Next to the image is the statement "In his Annals, Tacitus again refers to the veneration of "Hercules" by the Germanic peoples; he records a wood beyond the river Weser (in what is now northwestern Germany) as dedicated to him.[7]" :bloodofox: (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)