From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mythology (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I see more discussions about Vanic tribe history/prehistory here, saying they did not fight with each other, and implying they were non-Indo European. I'd like to have a few more references for these rather definite statements. I wonder whether there is a consensus view amongst historians about this though. Martijn faassen 22:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't delete it on this page, but I do think it should be described as a theory, and I'd like to see some references to the literature on this. Right now this is a statement as fact, and I do not believe this has such a status amongst the consensus of historians. Please supply evidence for a strong consensus when adding any theories about mostly-prehistorical developments. Martijn faassen 22:43, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. However, if the Vanir/Aesir theory is an amalgation by you only then it does not belong on wikipedia (See Wikipedia:No_original_research). I'm highly doubtful there is enough consensus about this to state it as fact; if so this would be the theory on a prehistorical people I've seen that can be treated this way. If this is a popular theory referenced in many works, then this should be specified and referenced, and contrasted with competing theories. Right now you act as if everybody knows the Germanic tribes are descendant from a hybrid Vanir/Aesir people that lived on the shores of the Vanern in Sweden. If this is not your original research but a popular theory, such a discussion should be confined to one or a few wiki pages, not scattered all over the place as throwaway statements of supposed fact without introduction of terms and background, nor specific references. And if it is your original theory, it does not belong on wikipedia. Martijn faassen 23:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and therefore it is not for publishing original research. If you want to provide your ideas elsewhere go ahead, it's a free internet, but the wikipedia has a clear policy about this which I referenced. If this wikipedia had been produced at the time of Copernicus or Galileo, I'd have asked them to move their assertions elsewhere as well, until a significant portion of the scientific community starts to support them.
This has nothing to do with a positive or negative view of the vikings, and I don't know why you're talking about it in this context. I'm just saying that your Vanir/Aesir theory, if it is a private theory, does not belong on wikipedia. If later on it turns out to have been correct and this is accepted or at least supported by mainstream historians, we'll add it again. Martijn
Someone who has published work, and whose work is known and taken seriously by other mainstream historians. This will likely be the case if the work is backed up by solid evidence and reasoning. The wikipedia is not the venue for publishing original research (see Wikipedia:No_original_research), as it is not intended to be a primary source of new information or theories. I think you are presenting original research as fact. When you back down, you're presenting it as a very well-known theory instead. Both are misleading. This is quite apart from whether your theory is true. Martijn faassen 20:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not." If you must, collate this stuff into an article. Link to this article from the other pages. Don't go and scatter your private theory across wikipedia as if it is fact or a well-known dominant theory. Your private theory on the origins of Germanic speakers may be the truth itself, it is not a well-known theory and needs proper introduction on its own page. When you create such an article, wikipedians can evaluate it and see whether it'll be kept or not. Martijn faassen 21:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've created such a page at Vanir/Aesir theory. Right now it's a mess, but I hope you can improve it. Martijn faassen 22:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Maybe something should be added about Venus here, Venus and Vanir seems to come from the same IE root, also they seem to share similar mythological traits.

This was included in the opening paragraph some time ago. --(Mingus ah um 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Loki leading the Vanir?[edit]

I reverted this:

It is said that Loki will lead the Vanir once again to war against the Aesir during a time called Ragnarok, when the world is destroyed and a perfect paradise is created thereafter.

I've never come across this in the lore. Also, the war between the Vanir and Aesir (which occurs in the mythological past) is not the same as Ragnarok (which occurs in the future). —Ashley Y 05:01, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

As well as Ragnarok being a war between the Æsir and the Jotun, not the Æsir and the Vanir. 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanir or vanir?[edit]

I'm posting the same question here as on Talk:Æsir#Æsir or æsir?: should "Vanir" be written with lower or upper case initial? Salleman 4 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

Although it was a good idea to post the question here as well, perhaps it's better to keep the actual discussion in one place. I've replied at Talk:Æsir#Æsir or æsir? Shinobu (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Necessary edit[edit]

From the first sentence of the Members section: ...and Freyja, goddess of love and sexuality, who lived among the Æsir at Yggdrasil directly below the Æsir. Did she live among or directly below the Æsir? --(Mingus ah um 04:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC))


I'm requesting more info from Ashley Y on this, and Ashley has a standing request that people mention article discussions in the article page.

I'm curious to know about the Heimdall/Vanir link. It would be a good thing to expound upon in the article, but I'm asking for my own understnding.

Liastnir 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a proper ref. It's only a possibility, says Davidson, because we don't really know all that much about Heimdall. —Ashley Y 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


According to this annotaded version of Völuspá:

The cult of the Wanes (Vanir) seems to have originated among the seafaring folk of the Baltic and the southern shores of the North Sea, and to have spread thence into Norway in opposition to the worship of the older gods; hence the "war." Finally the two types of divinities were worshipped in common; hence the treaty which ended the war with the exchange of hostages. Chief among the Wanes were Njorth and his children, Freyr and Freyja, all of whom became conspicuous among the gods. Beyond this we know little of the Wanes, who seem originally to have been water-deities.

This is similar to the Parallels section in the article, although not exactly the same. Shinobu (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It in fact seems to describe about the opposite from the article's Parallels section. This would agree with the text of the Völuspá, in which the Vanir entered and were victorious over the Æsir, but then of course myth is myth and perhaps not to be taken too literally. Shinobu (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Vanir[edit]

Maybe, Sif, wife of Thorr,was Van before marriage? What's about another wives of Æsir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The only three figures directly attested as Vanir are Njörðr, Freyja, and Freyr. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Beyond these three direct attestations there is only guesswork. This article will hopefully, by time, give a full coverage of theorized Vanir as well. –Holt TC 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


The article is written in a way that seems like it's talking about a real thing; should it be changed to a different point of view to avoid confusion? Kausill (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a general rewrite where all attestations are brought out in detail (which will solve the problem). I've long intended to rewrite this article and bring it up to GA-status, but right now I am working on another rewrite. I'll try to get to this one next. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I've since rewritten the article and am working to bring it up to where it needs to be. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be unkind to Bloodofox, and I appreciate all the work she or he has done, but this article is very poorly written. I've fixed up the syntax a little by replacing "describes that" with "relates that" and "tells that", and "references that" with "mentions that" in a couple of places, but the whole thing reads as if it were written by a high school student. Poor writing style casts the authority of the article into doubt.
More substantively, I would like to see some anthropological and historical information about the probable origins of these legends, the history of the religion, and the culture that produced them.
In response to Kausil, I would note that mythology is a real thing, and that unless one is contending for the superiority of one religion over another, there is no special reason to label ancient legends as mythology. Compare Wikipedia's treatment of the Book of Exodus, which nowhere mentions that the legends recorded in that book are mythological, even though they are wholly so. Jdcrutch (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
While the article may well need copy editing, I'm going to have to ask why you comment that the article "reads as if it were written by a high school student". Exactly what do you want changed? If you're complaining about the Poetic Edda section, I strongly advise that you look at the source material yourself and try your hand at producing a superior version. Secondly, yes, the article currently lacks a 'theory' section. I'm working on it when I have the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)