|WikiProject Mythology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Norse history and culture||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Dramatic scenario
- 2 Irminsul
- 3 Hel?
- 4 Popular culture section
- 5 Fakta
- 6 Bellowing fire?
- 7 Pronunciation
- 8 English
- 9 What is the name of the Eagle at the top of the tree?
- 10 Lingual error
- 11 Runestone image
- 12 First sentence
- 13 Ash or taxus
- 14 Odins Crucifixion
- 15 Categories
- 16 New section thoughts?
- 17 Letters
- 18 Yggdrasil versus Old Norse Yggdrasill
- 19 Improving the lede
- 20 Latest version
- 21 Disruptive edits on Yggdrasil talk page
- 22 Etrian Odyssey
"The excellent level of preservation made it possible to deduce that he had been a prisoner of war sacrificed as a thank-offering after a victory. " No, this dramatic scenario is not warranted. I have substituted "The excellent level of preservation made it possible to deduce that he had been ritually hanged and respectfully consigned to the bog, not more than a hundred yards from where a ritually hanged woman had been found some decades previously." . --Wetman 20:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- A semantic term from cognitive linguistics. When you look at Christ on the crucifix, he is a material anchor for your concept of Christ. Churches and temples are full of such material anchors.--Wiglaf 14:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You mean, Irminsul was an actual, natural oak? That was a `material anchor' for a `World Oak'? Would not that World Oak have been called Irminsul as well, rather than Yggdrasil, i.e. Irminsul is just the Saxon name for Norse Yggdrasil? (Apart from that, 'material anchor' sounds like a dreadfully postmodern way of saying symbol to me, but I won't dwell on that). dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- PS, symbol is a dreadfully polysemous word in semantics, but yes, it could be replaced by symbol and probably should.--Wiglaf 14:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't mean to nitpick. I think I'll just slightly rephrase it. 'symbol' may be polysemous, but I think it would be correct to say that a crucifix symbolizes Christ. Christians will get angry if you desecrate it, but they will not think that you have damaged Christ. Idols are different: They are thought to actually contain a part of the deity's essence. These figures had to be 'recharged' in the main temple in the Ancient Near East. Probably nearer to a eucharist wafer: would you say that such a wafer, in the mind of a Catholic, is a material anchor, a symbol, or an idol? Difficult call. Much more in the case of the Saxons, because we don't know what they actually believed. Maybe we should just say 'represent' here. dab (ᛏ) 15:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Represent sounds perfect!--Wiglaf 15:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've read (maybe in Jung or Campbell) that Yggdrasil may also be a representation of the mind, with the trunk, boughs, etc. representing consciousness, and the roots the subconscious part of the mind.Zarathustra2101 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's possible, but I doubt the Norse knew much about the subconscious, let alone model part of their religion after such a vague and somewhat modern concept as consciousness.
I'm just trying to dab Hel, but where it says Hel in this article, it is refering to a place and not a goddess. Hel is the goddess of the underworlds, Helheim and Niflheim, in Norse mythology, so could the person who wrote the intro be refering to the underworlds ruled by Hel? BlankVerse 15:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In other words a "deamon"? Resembles the Hild character I know from the anime does rule "hell" or "underworld" and the serries are going parallel to the norse mythology I think. -- Cat chi? 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ok I am not going to hide, I am completely lost, there is a dual referance and I am confused. -- Cat chi? 09:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- We are in disambiguation hell here. -- Cat chi? 09:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not an expert but I am a fan of Norse Mythology. I have always been taught that HEL (Loki's daughter) rules HEL, also called HELHEIM. One point that the first paragraph in the article states is that Asgaard is the top and Niflheim is the bottom of the tree. This is, in my understanding, incorrect. Asgaard (home of the Aesir) is the top but Hel is the bottom. Midgaard (loosely Earth) is in the centre of the tree with Muspell and Niflheim at the same level. Muspell and Niflheim (fire and ice, respectively) joined/collided/came together and Ymir the frost giant was revealed. Odin and his brothers (Villi and Ve)kill Ymir (their father) to create Midgaard. The two worlds of the fire and frost giants still remain on the same plane (for lack of a better term) with Midgaard. Loki (a half or full giant depending on what you read) has several children one of which is Hel. Because of Loki's deceit, Hel and her brethren are banished from Asgaard. Hel is sent to the land of shadows (HEL), also translated as land of mists, etc... - Jan 07,2007 --Cjlaundrup (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Popular culture section
Yes, any number of things in any number of computer games and fantasy stories have been called Yggdrasil. I don't feel confident in judging which mentions are notable enough to keep but this is cluttering the article a bit, as often happens with mythology articles. Maybe we should break off the popular culture section into a separate article? - Haukurth 21:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
the "popular culture" section is getting out of hand. It is warranted to export them. We had to take a similar path with References to Odin in popular culture. Nobody is "disrupting" or "deleting" anything. dab (ᛏ) 07:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Okay. I see that he has now moved the content to the disambiguation page, and that does indeed make some sense. The first time I looked at it, the content had just been deleted, and not moved anywhere else. That's why I reverted the change. -- Karl Meier 07:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I realise anime/manga/comic/rpg/whatever freeks did not randomly pick the letters making up "Yggdrasil", I do feel Norse Mytholgy entries are fused with stuff that aren't related to the mythology aspect. The fact that lots of RPGs, and animes (most notably Oh My Goddess!) following the serries side by side makes disambigs difficult. I organised the disambig page to the best of my abilities visiting every individual page and etc. -- Cat chi? 09:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'll be working on more "defusing". I noticed the level of fusing while editing Skuld. -- Cat chi? 09:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I also think Wagner is not Norse Mythology. I am not an expert but he came after the original stories and have had modified them somewhat making himself uneque (or else we wouldnt know about him). -- Cat chi? 09:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- If there is still going to be a Modern Influence section, which there is, then at the very least that section should link to the disambig page, and this discussion page could stand to link to it as well. I'm here reading about Yggdrasil and I'm interested in its uses in pop culture. I shouldn't have to do a separate search to get that information, it should appear or be linked on the page.Brakoholic (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Now I've gone and actually looked at the disambig page, which is linked at the very top, and that list isn't very long at all. I'm reminded of some of the "references in popular culture" sections on other pages...as long as the info is organized and cleanly presented, no reason it should have been moved.Brakoholic (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The extra stuff in this section has to go. Elsewhere. I would have deleted it but it actually appears to make some sense so just deleting it didn't seem like the right thing to do.
kan eg få fakta?
- Sure. Which facts do you want? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- The bellowing fire will not scorch them…
Is this quotation correct, or should it be billowing fire? I don't know that it's wrong, just that it sounds suspiciously like a misquote. I haven't been able to find a reliable confirming source that isn't itself based on this Wikipedia entry. User:dodiad 21:40, 20 Aug 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea where that quotation is supposed to come from. The most important primary source is Gylfaginning, you can read a translation here:  It says:
- "In the place called Hoddmímir's Holt there shall lie hidden during the Fire of Surtr two of mankind, who are called thus: Líf and Lífthrasir, and for food they shall have the morning-dews. From these folk shall come so numerous an offspring that all the world shall be peopled" Haukur 22:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please make the pronounciation easier to understand? I don't know how to interpret dictionary-style pronounciation keys. Something spelled out, such as
Yeah, could someone use English dictionary pronunciation? It doesn't do me any good to know how the Norwegians prounounce it.
I could read that. I mean, for reals, ya'll, that's a weird looking word. TotalTommyTerror 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It lists an IPA pronounciation, buts its wrong. it has a "y" but there is no "y" character in IPA (or at least there isnt on the chart on wikipedia). can someone provide a correct IPA pronounciation? Mloren 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, [y] is the rounded version of [i] (English long E), and is the correct pronunciation of the y in Yggdrasil. Whoever changed it to [i], please refrain from doing so.
- English dictionaries show that the most common pronunciation in English begins with an /i/ as in "it", as now indicated in the article, not with the sound at the beginning of the German word "über", which is the sound used at the beginning of Yggdrasil in Scandinavian languages. Most English speakers cannot produce that sound, and not even those that can necessarily use it for Yggdrasil, which is why some dictionaries don't even mention that pronunciation. It would be incorrect to indicate that pronunciation only or first in the English Wikipedia. --Espoo (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ygg is one of Odins names; "drasil" or drasill could mean, "dragging towards ill" -- the place Odin did some bade things. It should (also) be read as a geographical description. The name is mention in Voluspá and Grimnismál:
- [Vol: 18] Ash I know standing named (Ydddrasil) Oathill a lofty tree, laved with limpid water: Thence come the dews into the dales that fall. Stands always he green above Urd’s well.
-  Alone she sat without when (Ygg) Oath there came, that esir-fellow, and in her eye he gazed: ...
-  Trembles Oathill's ash yet standing, that aged tree, and jotuns leave.
- [Grim: 29] Turtle and Wormt and Pottery's two these he wades Thor each day, when he to council goes at Oathill's ash; for the Asbridge is all on fire, the holy waters boil. Glad and Gild, Joybringer and Seahorse, Silverintop and Sinew, Hostage and Nitemple, Goldtop and Easyfat; on these steeds the esir each day ride, when they to council go, at Oathill's ash. Three roots stand on three ways under Oathill's ash; Hel lives under one, the second frostkin, under the third mankind. Rattray is the squirrel named, run on Oathill's ash; words from above from eagle carry, and beneath to Nidblow bring. Harts four, bite of green twigs, arch-necked, gnaw. Comatose and Dozein, Downbank and Dronebliss. More serpents lie under Oathill's ash, than ignorant ape know; Goodin and Moan, they are Gravewitness sons, Grayback and Digcanalout, Oven and Sofny always i think the branches ever lacerate. Oathill's ash hardship suffers greater than men know; a hart bites it above, and in its side it rots, Nidblow beneath tears it.
Ninum 11:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the name of the Eagle at the top of the tree?
I would like to know. Presumably they had a name for him (or her). --188.8.131.52 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The eagle is seen as a group of people or a clan living in the tree -- the eagle clan; they speak bird language.
- [Hundingsbana II: 8]
- It was the wolfkins' son's [the wolf-clan]
- last achievement,
- - if thou desirest to know -
- west of the ocean,
- that I took bears [the bear-clan]
- in Brightgrove,
- and the eagles' kin [the eagle-clan]
- with our weapons sated.
- See also [Hundingsbana I: 35, 45]
- In the lay [Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar] there was an earl named Frånmar. Frånmar had taken the form of an eagle, and protected them from a hostile army. In [Reginsmál: 26] Sigurd uses the seal of the eagle. In the lay [Fafnismál] Sigurd learn to speak the bird language. So, it's difficult to pin the eagle to a single name. Ninum 21:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yggdrasil spelt as Yggdrasill as 'Old Norse' is wrong. The -ll is a newer form, currently used in modern Icelandic, of the older -lur masculine ending. Yggdrasill is correct spelling as of current Icelandic, but not in old Norse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You have been misinformed. The -ll form is indeed correct Old Norse (and, incidentally, correct Modern Icelandic as well). It developed out of an older (unattested) -lr form. Haukur (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Runestone image shown on this page displaying "Yggdrasil" is errnoneous; the Ockelbo Runestone is one of the Sigurd Runestones. It displays the tree into which the sword Gram was thrust by Odin at the beginning of the Sigurd story described in the Elder Edda and Volsungasaga. This image is misleading and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The nominative of the word is Yggdrasill, the accusative is Yggdrasil; hence the "extra l" can be viewed as a nominative case marker. Haukur (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ash or taxus
The Dutch Wikipedia entry for this page has a section, unfortunately not listing any references, that claims that the tree wasn't an ash but a taxus. Anyone familiar with these views? Although as said not giving any references, it explains this claim in detail, with what looks at a first glance convincing evidence. Jalwikip (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I am freyr-Ottar, you edited my comments on the basis that you assert Odin was hung - he wasnt.
Not one text anywhere says he was 'hung' eg with a rope - all the texts in fact relate to him being hung from Yggdrasil eg impaled with Gungnir.
This is why it says he was wounded to himself with the spear - the spear impaled him.
Odin was impaled on the tree as per so many northen gods eg Esus. The rope hanging story is a misinterpretation of the texts and symbolism by literalists not symbolists.
The word 'hung' relates to the fact that when viewed from Earth Cygnus/Odin on the summer solstice Odin appears upside down eg as the joker depicted on the tarot card.
This is what it says on the odin page of wikkipedia ;
In Rúnatal, a section of the Hávamál, Odin is attributed with discovering the runes. He was hung from the world tree, Yggdrasil, while pierced by his own spear for nine days and nights, in order to learn the wisdom that would give him power in the nine worlds. Nine is a significant number in Norse magical practice (there were, for example, nine realms of existence), thereby learning nine (later eighteen) magical songs and eighteen magical runes.
One of Odin's names is Ygg, and the Norse name for the World Ash —Yggdrasil—therefore could mean "Ygg's (Odin's) horse". Another of Odin's names is Hangatýr, the god of the hanged. Sacrifices, human or otherwise, in prehistoric times were commonly hung in or from trees, often transfixed by spears. (See also: Peijainen)
The fact he is called god of the hanged does not mean he was hung with a rope like mere mortals - he underwent a spiritual experience as a god through an impaling with his divine weapon ;
Rúnatal Rúnatal or Óðins Rune Song (Rúnatáls-tháttr-Óðins) is a section of the Hávamál where Odin reveals the origins of the runes, or of secret knowledge. It runs from Stanzas' 138 through to 165. In section 138, Odin describes his self-sacrifice (to himself):
Veit ec at ec hecc vindga meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr oc gefinn Oðni, sialfr sialfom mer, a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn.
I know that I hung on a windy tree nine long nights, wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin, myself to myself, on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run.
no reference to rope - but a direct reference to his spear wounding him - eg IMPALING him to the tree so he could absorb its essence by becoming part of the tree.
The wounding is an impaling.
Mortals and followers of Odin are hung with ropes - gods are impaled with a divine weapon upon a divine tree.
Odin was not hung with a rope - that is a misintepretaton.
Even if you insist he was hung with a rope that still means the star facts I have discovered are still correct as the symbolism relates directly to the astronomy.
- Hello Freyr-Ottar, here is stanza 138 of the Poetic Edda poem Hávamál:
- I know that I hung on a windy tree
- nine long nights,
- wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,
- myself to myself,
- on that tree of which no man knows
- from where its roots run. (Larrington)
- Odin quite clearly states that he hung himself. View this as you like, but we have a policy against inserting personal interpretations into articles: Wikipedia:No original research. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It quite clearly states the opposite.
It says ' I hung' - which is no evidence at all of 'hanging' eg with a rope.
It means he hung eg was impaled and hung from the tree he was impaled upon.
Read this ;
Pictures can be hung, but people are always hanged.
It's an odd quirk of the English language. Here is a usage note on the word "hang" from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Hanged, as a past tense and a past participle of hang, is used in the sense of "to put to death by hanging," as in Frontier courts hanged many a prisoner after a summary trial. A majority of the Usage Panel objects to hung used in this sense. In all other senses of the word, hung is the preferred form as past tense and past participle, as in I hung my child's picture above my desk
In other words people are hanged with a rope and people are hung when a rope is not used.
'To be hanged' is a person suspended with rope and the wording would have to be ' I hanged for nine nights' if he had been suspended with a rope.
- If you have some issues with the translator's usage of past-tense verbs, I'd say take it up with the translators. I again direct you to Wikipedia:No original research. The notion of Odin hanging himself to himself is accepted across the board. If you're cooking up some sort of theory here, I'd say do it elsewhere, but first you may want to take into account that Odin is overwhelmingly associated with death by hanging through numerous sources, examples including his very names (See: List of names of Odin - direct references to gallows and hanging abound) to human sacrifices by hanging for Odin attested as far back as the 1st century (Germania chapter 9). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The so called 'established' ideas are wrong ;
1) In direct relation to the language used in translation as I have stated above and in relation to linguistic logic and the derivation of the word 'hung' itself
2) In relation to the interpretation of the actual events eg the fact that impalement is mentioned specifically - 'wounded with my spear' - whilst nothing with hanging as per a rope is mentioned at all.
3) The references to hanging and odin in other sources all relates to victims sacrificed to him - not 0one of those references relates as per his experience as per the runic initiation. He is the god of the hanged BUT NOT a hanged god - he is a hung god - as the interpretation of the runes on this site states in black and white.
4) The names of Odin as hanged god relate to the victims, again, of sacrifice
5) finally if wikkipedia is not a site for 'original research' - then does that mean that this in fact a site for no new developments in the field - or for anything for that matter.
No original research - can you please explain what that means - would that mean if a whole new discovery on some facet of odinic research was made then wikkipedia would not mention it ?
That is an absurd position for a site such as this to state. That is in fact a declaration that progress in this field is finished !
- Please familiarize yourself with these core Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No original research, WP:PROVEIT, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Yes, that basically means Wikipedia does not allow users to add their own theories. Wikipedia simply reports, it does not engage in original research. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have to agree that you are right.
I have done some research and we are both right, and both wrong.
Odin is a hanged god, but he his not hung from the neck.
He is not impaled as no evidence confirms that as per a kenning for his name, though hints can be established but no direct reference to impalement.
It appears the wounding by the spear may be a symbolic wounding, such as the cuts that a shaman would inflict on themselves in order to release endorphins to achieve a higher state of consciousness.
Odin is not hung by the neck - The position he is in when he is hung is that he is hung by the foot / feet upside down.
I assumed the reference to the hanged god, was a reference to being hung around the neck - and this had to be wrong as it conflicts with the astronomical symbolism as Cygnus is upside down - and therefore Odin had to be upside down.
This meant he could not be hung BY THE NECK, and he had to have been hung up by his feet or foot in order for him to hang upside down.
The fact Odin was hung upside down is confirmed here ;
Where it states that Odin was hung upside down by the foot - so he was a hanged god, but not a god hung by the neck.
This fits in precisely with the required symbolism of the astronomy.
Take your planesphere and set it for midnight on the summer solstice , JUNE 21ST.
Odin as Cygnus is due South
He is depicted with his arms outstretched HANGING UPSIDE DOWN in the sky. The Milky Way is Yggdrasill from which he hangs.
Therefore we now know the following ;
1) He was not hanged by the neck but by the foot - this fits in with the linguistic requirements that he 'hung' ( had not been though the experience of being hanged by the neck as per that of an execution )
2) That he was a 'hanged god' as he is a person (only people can be hanged, objects are hung) but that the hanging was not that of a physical description of a stereotypical execution hanging - the hanging upside down allows both linguistic terms to be satisfied - he was hanged as he was a person and at the same time he hung from the rope, which describes the physical position of the rope as not being around the neck.
He was both hung and hanged.
3) That Cygnus correctly depicts Odin in the right position - him being hung upside down with his arms splayed out and head down.
4) That he was wounded with his spear, but that more evidence is required for impalement (my theory).
5) That this proves Cygnus is a representation of Odin
Thanks for getting me to look deeper into this issue as by so doing you have confirmed that the theory of mine - Yggdrasill is the Milky Way - is correct as the Cygnus symbolism can now be said to be in accord with both the requirement for Odin to be hanged, but that he had to be hung upside down in order to fit the astronomical requirements.
Your scepticism has proved to be most useful.
More proof - human sacrifices were made to Odin up until the 10th century A.D. (by hanging them upside-down from gallows in a fashion similar to Odin's own self-sacrifice ).
There is also an interesting Esus / Odin link where Strabo reports seeing victims of Esus tied to a tree and arrows shot at them - therefore a symbolic representation of Ullr - Orion - firing arrows at Odin - Cygnus- on the Winter Solstice.
As an interesting little aside Carl Jung said that ideas are manifested in the wider consciousness of humanity - that ideas manifest as realities and that such coincidences are aspects of synchronicity.
I made the Odin - Cygnus connection about three or four days ago, and this weekend the following picture was in all the newspapers - that of the upside down hanged fool, a literal symbol of the idea -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2602238/Burglar-left-hanging-upside-down-after-trapping-shoelace.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- This article as a whole is just more propagation of inaccuracies in the fashion of the "Twilight of the Gods" rather than "Doom of the Gods" or rather, "Lords Doom". Eiríkr Magnússon's paper, Odin's Horse Yggdrasil makes the assertion that Odin was not the one being hanged. Furthermore, if you read it, it's difficult to maintain the belief that Yggdrasil was a tree, but rather the wind. Magnússon argues that the eight cardinal directions the compass were the legs of Sleipnir, from the top down is somewhat like a tree. Yggdrasil, the horse of Odin, is another name for Sleipnir, not a name of another entity. As for the tree, this is where most artists make the mistake; they draw their trees from a profile. And by that point they have missed the symbolism entirely and come up with their own original ideas or applied something else unrelated to Odin, such as a crucifixion. Marvel comics got it wrong, Wagner got it wrong, but Eiríkr Magnússon was a scholar who knew what he was talking about. --Trakon (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article represents generally accepted scholarship. Contrary views of scholars may be represented; write up a summary and add it to the theories section, but do so in a neutral manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the process. But I believe this business about a crucifixion is false. So I gave a source. If you don't feel like either debunking the source or participating in the process then don't suggest that I go out of my way when you won't either. --Trakon (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article represents generally accepted scholarship. Contrary views of scholars may be represented; write up a summary and add it to the theories section, but do so in a neutral manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello guys, recently I removed the category category:Fictional trees from the article. This seems to be a category for trees in fiction. What we're dealing with here is a tree from mythology. A while back, I made a special category for the many trees in Germanic mythology and those otherwise attested as venerated by the Germanic peoples at category:Trees in Germanic paganism. This is basically a specialized subcategory of a few other categories, including category:Trees in mythology and category:Sacred trees, which I think are far more appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- While i find the attempt to uphold a division between fiction and myth to be a fairly futile exercise I have instead included the supercategory of the category "fictional trees" namely "individual trees" - it doesn't bother me a lot since my goal was to make yggdrasil appear in the category of individual trees because it bothered me that Yggdrasil (digimon) was in that category while the original yggdrasil was not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
New section thoughts?
What do you think of a section on the main page for "sightings"?
Recently, while playing LittleBigPlanet, there was a section called Yggdrasil... I had always pronounced it incorrectly until my wife said it (Pronouncing it like "ick-dra-sill"), which triggered where I had heard that word before, but my brain just hadn't made the connection.
Not only referenced in LittleBigPlanet, but I also remembered it mentioned in "Ah! My Goddess" The Movie.
- We usually handle such references in a "modern influence" section at the end of the article. Examples include Valkyrie#Modern_influence, Valhalla#Modern_influence, Sleipnir#Modern_influence, Iðunn#Modern_influence, and Fenrir#Modern_influence. Of course, with that said, works of art entirely themed around a specific subject are one thing whereas small pop culture references are another. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The Old Norse DID NOT contain the letter ö. The ö was the result of a merge of short ǫ and short ø (also written œ) and belongs only to the Icelandic branch. One should therefore maintain the difference between ǫ and ø, and not write ö when writing Old Norse. I therefore suggest to write Níðhǫggr and vǫlva instead of Níðhöggr and völva 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The editors on Wikipedia are well aware of this distinction. However, since the ogonek o (ǫ) does not display correctly for many people on the internet, it is common to replace ǫ with ö, and we have made this a rule for Norse names on Wikipedia. –Holt (T•C) 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yggdrasil versus Old Norse Yggdrasill
The current article uses the spelling Yggdrasil as opposed to the original Old Norse Yggdrasill. Google books reveals significantly more hits for Yggdrasil, therefore, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), this article uses Yggdrasil. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- As explained in the edit summary, i had to revert the reintroduction of incorrect pronunciation info, claims without sources (so far, we only have a source saying that Mimameidr, not Yggdrasill is Old Norse), + removal of important + sourced info. And it's OK to have one L in the lemma, but it's not OK to remove the second spelling, especially since it's used in Britannica. --Espoo (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to a move to Yggdrasill but it's not important either way. If we are to present both the Old Norse pronunciation and an anglicized pronunciation we should do it as laid out in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(pronunciation)#Foreign_names. Haukur (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to move the article to Yggdrasill since this is a less common spelling in English. This is the English Wikipedia, and there is absolutely no justification for your repeated removal of English pronunciation, especially since it was sourced. You have also repeatedly removed other sourced and valuable info. Please stop doing that! --Espoo (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- As to the additions, the lede should summarize the article - not introduce other material using a different source; "holding together earth, heaven, and hell by its roots" isn't in the article and isn't very suitable for it. Hell? What hell? As a rule of thumb, we should try to avoid using Britannica as a source - plenty of better sources are available here, even if we restrict ourselves to recent publications in English. Haukur (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is becoming ridiculous. You are trying to own this article and apparently think you can decide which sources accepted by WP policy you don't like and want to remove. If you again remove well-sourced material from reliable sources, i will have to contact an admin. --Espoo (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're not even responding to my objections. Please be reasonable. What you give as an IPA pronunciation is incorrect, not in the source you cite for it and not identical to the pronunciation you give in the other system. Your presentation of pronunciation information is not in accordance with the style guide, despite my repeated promptings you continue to ignore this point. You have ignored my point that the lede should summarize the article or that Britannica is not an ideal source. We can't have a conversation if you won't respond to the point I make and instead resort to childish threats. Haukur (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to your objections, several times. Please tell me what you think is incorrect in the IPA. Better yet, correct it, but don't delete it. That's not being reasonable or constructive. My presentation of pronunciation is not unreasonable for a lemma which exists in English and additionally refers to its pronunciation in a dead language. If you feel compelled to move the Old Norse pronunciation to the beginning, go ahead and do that, but don't delete it. That's not being reasonable. The lede should not only summarise the article; it should also present the article in a way that is easily understood by the general reader. If you don't stop deleting valuable information that is even well-sourced from reliable sources, you leave me no choice but to get help from an admin. That's not a threat, and definitely not childish; it's simply the only way that seems to be left to make you stop being disruptive and destructive. --Espoo (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with admins, all that's happened is that your changes to the article lede have been reverted a few times, with some fairly detailed reasoning. It's a content dispute - what would you want an admin to do? Haukur (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Haukur is correct. Leads summarize articles content (Wikipedia:Lead section). In addition, you have introduced a bunch of inaccuracies into the lead, which I've reverted. For example, the three roots of the tree do, indeed, reach to the three wells in the source material. Now, even though most translations use "hart" (and for a reason), I'm willing to consider changing "hart" to "stag" (instead of your proposed "deer"), but changing "wyrm" to "monster" does not help at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- If the lead has well-sourced info not in the article, that info can also be added to the rest of the article by experts on the article like you and Haukurth apparently are. There is no need to remove that info, and such removal violates the main idea of Wikipedia of welcoming collaboration. Edit what others add, but do not simply remove it if it's sourced! In addition, if you feel that the sourced material i added is inaccurate, the burden is on you to find other sources that support your claims (see User:Bloodofox: "I rigidly support Wikipedia's policies on ...mandatory sourcing..."). You both have not provided any support for your claims that my sources are "wrong". In addition, there is absolutely no justification at all for removing everything, especially the info on English pronunciation and alternative spellings. Let's advance in stages and see if you can agree with at least the first change i'll do now. --Espoo (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Again, the article lead is a summary of the content of the article's body. Refrain from adding new material to it that isn't in the body, and please also do us a favor and stop cutting out where the tree is attested from the introduction. The article's body is completely sourced (I should know: I wrote the entire article) and the article currently meets GA standards. The only reason I haven't put it up for review yet is because I know it's incomplete. Before making any further changes, I suggest gaining some knowledge on the subject; read the article's body. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're once again throwing the baby out with the bath water. You can't seriously be against providing spelling alternatives and the pronunciation in the first sentence?! That's common practice on almost all WP articles.
- Again, if you object to having that info only in the first sentence, you should encourage collaboration by others by moving or at least copying that info to where you think it belongs in the article. Simply deleting such valuable information, especially when it's sourced, is a clear case of trying to own an article, which is a clear violation of core WP policy, see WP:OWN.
- And if you're seriously saying that Britannica is wrong in claiming Y is Mimameidr in Old Norse, you're going to have to provide a source for that claim. In addition, such a difference in opinion may be a controversy instead of an error in Britannica, in which case it definitely belongs in the lede, as explained at WP:LEAD.
- And i never "cut out where the tree is attested from the introduction". I simply moved it down a few lines because readers should first be told what Y is before they're told where it's attested. You object to the simplified explanations provided in major dictionaries but yourself only provide "world tree", which says nothing to most readers. --Espoo (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Read the article and you'll find details of the tree don't necessarily match up or only appear in one source. This is why it's crucial to say "in both sources"; they agree on these elements.
- Mímameiðr is already mentioned in the lead and handled in the body: Mímameiðr is solely mentioned in a poem that does not explicitly identify Mímameiðr as Yggdrasil. Scholars theorize that it is either the same tree or that Mímameiðr is somehow connected to Yggdrasil (which is why scholar John Lindow says that Mímameiðr "could be a name for Yggdrasil." Emphasis on could—there is a possibility that it may not be the same tree as Yggdrasil but it could instead be an altogether different tree). Note that Britannica happens to leave the conjecture out and just state it outright as plain fact. Nice. Fortunately, we don't make same error.
- "Yggdrasil is a modern anglicization of Old Norse Yggdrassill. That's why we don't say they're just variants: one comes from the other." You're confusing etymology with current English spellings in use in reputable printed sources as attested by the entries in major dictionaries (which base their choices on extensive databases of citations, not what "they think is best", as many WP editors erroneously believe). Yggdrasill and Ygdrasil are very definitely English spelling variants so they should normally be mentioned in the first line. I hope you agree that they at least belong in the terminology section. --Espoo (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- First off: your copy edits are most welcome and I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into this subject, so please don't get the wrong impression. I'm interested in collaborating and I always welcome when someone is interested in helping content.
- Regarding the encyclopedia entries, don't you think I've made it obvious how "reputable" these tiny entries are for this material? As evidenced by the handling of Mímameiðr (Britannica) and explanations of Yggdrasil connecting "heaven", "earth" and "hell" (American Heritage Dictionary—yikes), they are poor sources for this subject. However, I am willing to accept the IPAs from these sources but that's solely because we currently have no better source providing IPAs.
- Simek lists the Old Norse form as Yggdrasill, and that is what our etymology section is currently based on. I strongly encourage you to get a hand on a copy of Simek's dictionary if for no other reason than that you appear interested in Norse mythology. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Improving the lede
Thanks for your kind words above, but edit summaries like This is still wrong - fix. You would save everyone a lot of trouble by familiarizing yourself with these subjects first show that you don't yet really welcome people to "your" article, though i appreciate that you're at least trying to learn to do that by at least saying it.
Your edit summary demonstrates an attitude that is the exact opposite of the probably most important idea of Wikipedia. That idea is to encourage contributions by everyone, even those who don't know a lot about the topic, even those who make mistakes by quoting something incorrectly. In this case, i didn't even really make a mistake because i simply copied the description of völva from its lede, which eventually made you realise that völva's lede was incorrect and so i eventually indirectly improved Wikipedia more than if i hadn't copied that lede's mistake. Unfortunately it first required lots of unnecessarily spent time and effort on my part and repeated reverts (mentioning vöva's lede!) of your unhelpful deletions of of the explanation of völva here in Y before you corrected völva's lede (and the same thing here in Y). In addition, that incorrect lede was your responsibility and therefore essentially your mistake because you had edited völva previously without correcting the "priestess" mistake there.
The dictionaries used as pronunciation sources are probably the best available sources on (US) English pronunciation; their expertise on pronunciation is not tarnished in any way by their necessarily simplified definitions of Y. In addition, though their definitions of Y (and similarly complicated things) are simplifications and therefore slightly "incorrect", they are perfectly suited to the needs of users looking for a quick explanation and in terms of style in fact much better than what we have so far.
Right now we have a cryptic "is the world tree" in the first paragraph, which says nothing to most readers, and an overly verbose and confusing description in the second paragraph. To make things worse, that description is "hidden" behind the comments about Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, and Snorri Sturluson, which unnecessarily adds to the confusion of the general leader and makes for a very badly written lede. The lede is supposed to give the general and casual reader a quick and succinct explanation within the first one or two sentences. I don't dare touch the lede again for fear of again arousing your ire, but perhaps you're willing to listen to and yourself use the above and following observations by a professional copyeditor.
When major dictionaries write a definition for Y, they start out by using the expertise of people who know much more about this topic than you probably do. They combine this expertise with that of experts on writing definitions and other experts on the needs and knowledge of general readers to make sure that the result is as close to correct without being useless or too verbose for general readers. So what looks like a sloppy and much too short description ("definition") to you is in fact a highly professional summary of lots of expertise and lots of time and effort. The same is true of the most prestigious encyclopedia, Britannica, which you seem to take great pleasure in putting down. You can be very sure that the people who wrote the first version of the Britannica entry know at least as much about Y as the dictionaries' experts. It's of course possible - but highly improbable - that some factual errors crept into the final version, but there may well be other sources that support that content, and in any case the general layout and style of the description is much, much better than ours.
When 2 of the perhaps 4 most prestigious English dictionaries in the world and Britannica use the following definitions, we'd be well advised to use a combination of improved versions of them as models in the first sentence (for example replacing "hell" with "underworld" or whatever would be more precise) instead of the kind of non-definition of our first paragraph and the "hidden" verbose rambling of our second paragraph:
- The great ash tree that holds together earth, heaven, and hell by its roots and branches in Norse mythology.
- a huge ash tree in Norse mythology that overspreads the world and binds earth, hell, and heaven together
- in Norse mythology, the world tree, a giant ash supporting the universe.
- OK, immediately: it's crossing the line to blame me for your actions. For you to claim that the mistake was my own for not fixing the völva intro ahead of time for you is comedic. While the völva article needs work, it's not as high on my list as other articles. I can't be everywhere all the time.
- Second, I've made it quite clear how poor and—outside of their IPA guide (until we get a better source)—outright useless these encyclopedia entries are for this article. I am hardly interested in what praise you may have for the process that goes into making them given that they've clearly failed on this subject. In fact, they are a fine example of why Wikipedia can be such a beautiful thing. Anyone with a basic understanding of this subject could tell you how inappropriate it is to describe Yggdrasil as a tree that connects "Heaven", "Hell", and "Earth". It's indefensible. In fact, Yggdrasil is also none of the three things you've mentioned—the article as it currently stands should make this quite clear. If you want to reword it, that's no problem, but when you want to bring in nonsense about "Heaven", "Hell", and "Earth" then we're talking outright misinformation.
- I never said this was "my" article, nor would I. I've been on Wikipedia for quite a while now and I'm well aware of how the system works. In fact, I frequently wish that there were more editors out there attempting to bring these articles up to GA standards. Unfortunately, many editors are far more interested in squabbling on talk pages and issuing hyperbolic criticism than in attempting to build articles. In your case, I again offer you some plain advice: if you really want to contribute to this article outside of copy editing—or any article, for that matter—you will first have to familiarize yourself with the subject in question. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the current start:
- Yggdrasil (pronounced /ˈɪg.drə.sɪl/; from Old Norse Yggdrasill, pronounced IPA: [ˈyɡːˌdrasilː]) is...
I can live with this. Note that Askr Yggdrasils is correct - the second word is in the genitive, please don't remove the final s. I agree that "priestess" is not a good gloss for völva, "seeress" would be marginally better if we feel that we absolutely need a one word gloss. Haukur (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive edits on Yggdrasil talk page
When back-tracing disrupting edits on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster talk page, I found out about similar ones on the Yggdrasil article and talk page.
Just so you know, from the IP log and from the garbled English, you're likely dealing with the same banned user (now sockpuppeter), Kay Uwe Böhm. See here (and quite a few other places) for some history we got with him.
- Thank you for that information. He has also been active on the Odin article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- So the page is again unprotected and the IP is back again. Can we get a permanent protection here please?
I wanted to point out that under the "Modern Influence", that the Etrian Odyssey Games are not mentioned, but the Dragon Quest games are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)