Talk:Loki

WTH?!

Um... what happened to Loki being Odin's son? That is true in the movie Son of the Mask, was in this article (from non-movie sources, of course) when I first read it around two years ago (complete rewrite since then), and is known by the majority of people I talk to who have heard of Loki (most of whom have not seen Son of the Mask) as well as in 2 novels I have read (I forget the names because I do not own the books).

This article, although highly encyclopedic in it's form of prose, is a very poor article. Gods of any tradition (except for modern monotheism) have all kinds of legends, myths, and tales surrounding them. A 3-or-4-page line-by-line recount of Loki's conversation when he incites riot in just one poem, for example, is not only highly unnecessary but also highly annoying. A simple paragraph such as, ~"After a whole bunch of events and tales which are mentioned prior to this paragraph], the poem [name of poem] says that Loki came to a dinner [wasn't invited blah blah] and started insulting every god he could think of in order to purposely cause chaos. As a result of this, according o the poem, he was bound[...]. However, this poem mentions many recounted tales during the argument (such as when Loki says "[caught whoever doing whatever]") where the tale mentioned is not actually recounted by any source we know of."~ It is probably rare to say an encyclopedic entry is too long, but this article is way too long... or perhaps just that so much of what is written is extremely overly specific and should not be written there. For example an article about the movie The Matrix would not recount the entire script!

Well, we're not dealing with films / novels in the article. If you check the kenningar in Skaldskaparmal c.16, you will find a lot of information in the answer to "What is Loki to be called?", including "son of Farbauti and Laufeyja (...) blood-friend and father-brother of the aesir, Odin's fellow in seat and journey" etc. And in Gylfaginning c.33 you'll find the same more or less. I personally can't share your criticism about this article. Trigaranus (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

yes that is right, movies aren't always right, if you look up other websites and researched it more you would find out that Loki and odin had a strange sort of relationship and they are in a blood-brotherhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.24.118 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Utgårda-Loke

I finished the paragraph on Utgårda-Loke (Or Útgarða-Loki, in old norse. Gylfaginning, 2.2.1) from memory. Better than nothing, but still needs expansion and references. 130.239.140.196 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

loki god of fire

does it say that loki is a god of fire? it should —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.128.129 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Source? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no indications of that. Some traditional etymologies tried to link his name with German "Lohe" (=flame), but as far as I know, that's about that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are actually several reasons to conclude that Loki had an association with fire. I'll add a section about it in a 'theories' section later. Right now the attestations are very much incomplete, so we haven't gotten that far yet. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reason besides wagners Mr. Flameyhair god of fire portrayal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.250 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for instance, there's the hearthstone, the wrestling of fire personified (Logi) in Gylfaginning, Loki's threat of death by fire in Lokasenna, association with heat in later Scandinavian folklore, and likely a lot more I can't pull off the top of my head. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of alternate etymology I have also read that a modern Swedish (or such nordic language?) word for a spider is awfully close to Loki/Loke; being that he spawned the eight legged horse of Odin it makes sense that Loki may be a name for a "spider" type personification. 71.34.67.135 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was scholar Anne Holtsmark who proposed this. There's an article somewhere that handles many theories involving Loki (including Holtsmark's theories), and we would be well served to build a "theories" using said article. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, after some search, I found the dialectal or archaic Swedish word "locke". [1] [2] Other modern common Scandinavian words include spindel/spindler (related to "spider" and "spin"), "edderkop"/"edderkopp" (poison/pus/eitr-cup) and Icelandic "kónguló" (weaver?). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Should there be a bit on Loki's pop portrayal? Neil Gaiman, "The Mask" and others. Out of Norse myth he's a popular character. On the other hand, the "In popular Culture" sections are a bit silly sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.132.200 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If "popular culture" was limited to things where the subject played a substantial part, then they'd be fine. The problem is they quickly degenerate to things like "Loki was mentioned in one line of a song by this little-known band from Bakersfield that I happen to like that has managed to sell 10 albums".Ekwos (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would very much like to see a picture of Jim Carey on this page! I wasn't really interested in anything other than an experts comment on the film's mention of Loki. For us mortals it would be a nice thing to have. Beerni (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Love Jim Carey, would hate to see a pic from "The Mask" on this page. I'm a big fan of Cuban Pete ("they call me king of the rumba beat"), but somehow this would seem out of place, especially with a picture. Trigaranus (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the mention of Loki's mention in "The Mask". Just the line would be fine, I bet some people don't like that because of the "seriousness" of this article, but Loki's mention in The Mask is an ocurrence of Loki in popular culture, and it's real (or would be "citation needed"?). Something expected to be found here. --Julius (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is this nifty feature called "what links here". What does a trivia section accomplish that just using that feature doesn't? Ekwos (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mother of Sleipnir

I would like to state the problem of how it says Loki is the mother Of sleipnir, I'm not quite sure what that means! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.137.43 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Prose Edda book Gylfaginning, Loki is described as having given birth to Sleipnir in the form of a mare, a female horse. The father was Svaðilfari, a stallion. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the original myth, it soon becomes clear that Loki is a shapeshifter, often crossing borders between both species and gender, like in thrymskvida, where he dresses up as a woman and constantly uses female gender variants. (The hyper-masculine Thor also dresses up, but doesn't seem to give a damn about his appearance.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Loki as Hermes/Prometheus/Enki to Odin as Jove/Zeus/Enlil?

In Sumerian Mythology, Enlil is given dominion over Eurasia, while Enki is given dominion over Africa. "Enlil" means "Lord over all", whereas "Enki" means "Lord over the Earth". Specifically, Enki is the "creator" and patron God of Mankind, and often acts for the benefit of humans, while Enlil often acts to their detriment. One of Enki's titles, "Nudimmud", translates roughly as "Artificier" - Enki is the God that creates new technologies for Man (i.e. Prometheus giving fire to the Greeks, Loki tricking the Dwarves into creating many items [Mjoellnir, for example], and sundry similar myths starring Hermes as such a Friend of Man). The holes in this theory are the following: Enki and Enlil are on bad terms with each other, as are Loki and Odin, and Prometheus and Zeus - however, Hermes and Jove appear to be friendly towards each other, for the most part. Similarly, Enki is the creator of Modern Man, fulfilling a similar role to that of Heimdalr, yet it is Loki who slays Heimdalr at Ragnarok.

Perhaps the passage of time caused the myths to change slightly between different cultures, but there should still be sections in each of these characters' pages dealing with the (rather obvious) links between them, so that a better understanding of the potential roles of these characters can be ascertained.

Specifically, all that we know of Loki comes predominantly from Christian-era texts. The Christian God is often identified as Enlil from Sumerian Mythology, thus, if the Enlil/Enki conflict were to be translated into European myth, it would make sense for followers of Enlil to paint Enki in a bad light. If Odin corresponds with Enlil/Christian God, then Loki corresponds with Enki/The Adversary (Satan or Lucifer, depending on your preference). We cannot know exactly how Loki was seen by the Norse peoples, as we only have potentially (and probably) biased records against him. However, it would be viable to say that Loki was a similar figure to the Norse as Prometheus was to the early Greeks, and as Enki was to the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and so on.

Perhaps this topic of discussion is rather larger than originally intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.159.23 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

it is notoriously difficult and controversial to suggest that a god from one pantheon has a direct cognate in another pantheon. for example, are the similarities there because of cultural influence, or because any given polytheistic pantheon is a creation of biologically similar human minds? it is even more complicated if we see the gods as real entities who may have changed their forms and names to reflect their environment. it is very difficult to cite the influence of one pantheon on another, because the myths developed over a long period, and we dont really know how the different cultures interacted economically or socially.

in my opinion, the norse pantheon is unique because the king is also the magician (mercury > mercredi ; woden > wednesday), and the giants (jotun, titans) are gracefully accepted as part of the structure, if not the ruling class.

you may find this article fruitful for your studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion Substatique (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While it would be foolish to make unsubstantiated claims about specific cognates, this article seems to ignore any discussion of the importance of Loki as Trickster/Fool motif. That seems to be a problem. JDClaunch (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"The arrival of Thor and the bondage of Loki "

In this section it mentions Nari & Narfi, though the disambiguation pages say they are the same, just alternate spellings, and that the brother who changes into a wolf is Váli not Narfi (as Narfi is Nari). 71.34.67.135 (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Those articles need to be rewritten. While incomplete, this article is concise. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Loki had two sons: Narvi and Vali. The æsir changed Vali into a wolf, and he then attacked his brother and tore him apart. Loki was bound with the entrails of Narvi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.88.54 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Loki Worship

The article fails to address the notion that there is no archeological evidence that Loki was ever actually worshiped.209.2.210.144 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is conjecture. If added, whoever is making said conjecture must be plainly stated. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, playing devil's advocate, the article then fails to mention any archeological evidence of Loki worship. Either way, the lack of discussion of the worship of Loki (as opposed to simply his role in myth) is missing from the article and an attempt should be made to fill this void with sourced information.209.2.229.239 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have a pretty solid 'archaeological record' section that covers Loki. The section doesn't much go into the implications of the find (as in what it may say for religious practices involving Loki), but it does make it pretty clear that there is some pretty convincing archaeological evidence for the figure. Ideally, such theories would be handled in a "theories" section (currently absent), and there anyone who has discussed the issue would be appropriately attributed.

You may be interested to know that we currently do lack a section handling the role of Loki in later Scandinavian folklore (and there's a surprising amount to write about on the subject). I'd go ahead and start working on this stuff myself, but as it is I am pretty strapped for time. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis Huard - The Punishment of Loki.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Louis Huard - The Punishment of Loki.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 26, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-08-26. 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} 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Punishment of Loki by Louis Huard illustrates an event in the Elder Edda. The Norse god Loki, as a typical trickster god, works both with and against the other gods. However, when he engineers the death of the god Baldr, the gods finally decide he has gone too far, and bind him to a rock with a serpent dripping venom above him. His wife Sigyn stayed with him and tried to catch the venom in a bowl, but when she left to empty it, as here, his writhing from the pain of the venom created earthquakes.Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Loki is the devil and Satan

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? He is called "originator of deceits" and "disgrace of all gods and men". He is also the father of Hel_(being) and therefore Hel_(location), as in: the one who brought death into the world, hell itself. He is also the father of the world serpent Jörmungandr who kills Thor, and the wolf Fenrir who kills Odin.

In the Lokasenna (in this article) Loki is literally Satan. He is the accuser, the slanderer, the liar, as in: the father of lies (the "originator of deceits").

Thor refers to him as an "evil creature".

And then there is his alternative name, Loptr. Since most experts agree that the name stems from Old Norse lopt, meaning air, there is yet another indication that Loki is indeed the devil. In the Bible, the devil is alternatively called "prince of the power of the air". Remember that many stories in the Bible are based on older mythologies (i.e. Sumerian).

Also, Loki is a shapeshifter. He did appear as a fly. Beelzebub, the "lord of the flies", is another name for the devil. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Loki is also responsible for the death of the god Baldr, as in: "a murderer from the beginning", as the devil is called in the Bible. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

First off you are making the point as if Satan is a real thing and Loki is a representation of that, whereas WP does not hold that stance. So in the end you are talking about two completely different mythologies. At best this is WP:SYNTH. If you have sources that make this connection then maybe they could be added. But I would be against it in this article. Perhaps a separate article about all mythologies with these kinds of characters. Again, they would all need sources that make the connections of course. Colincbn (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does mention that Sophus Bugge theorized (in the 19th century) that Loki is Lucifer. This theory isn't largely accepted by specialists anymore. The only times I've read any mention of this is in Simek's dictionary, and Régis Boyer's French translation of the Poetic Edda, and they both disagree with the comparison. The other specialized books I've read don't even feel the need to mention that old theory.--Munin75 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Loki also specifically accuses and slanders the Aesir. Satan is most often understood to be a slanderer against humanity, but in the Book of Revelation it is made clear that Satan slanders the angels in heaven - see Revelation 12:10. Just as Loki accuses the Aesir, Satan accuses the angels. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Error in Snaptun Stone description

The section about the Snaptun Stone says "The figure is identified as Loki due to the lips, considered a reference to a tale recorded in Skáldskaparmál where the Sons of Ivaldi stitch up Loki's lips". The Slaldskaparmal acctually says it is Brokkr, and not Ivaldi's sons, who sows Loki's lips. I didn't modify this in the article itself, because it's possible that it is the source (Madsen, 1990) that is mistaken.. so I don't really know how to go about it.--Munin75 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of the source and will go back and check this out. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back with the source, which, regarding Loki's depiction on the stone, states (in both Danish and English) that:

Han indgik et væddemål med smedekyndige dværge, og da han tabte, havde de ret til at sy hans mund sammen, hvad de også gjorde i glad forventning om om at have sat en stopper for hans velkendte og ofte ubehagelige tungefærdighed.

He made a bet with the gnomes of the smithy, and when he lost they had the right to sew his lips together, which they did in the happy expectation that this would put the seal on his well-known and often unpleasant volubility.

Of course, Danish "dværge" is linguistically cognate to and semantically the same as "dwarfs", so the choice of "gnomes" makes one wonder what was going on with the translation, but you can see that the Sons of Ivaldi were in mind here. And while the articles relating to the Sons of Ivaldi are in need of a rewrite, a look at the source material Skáldskaparmál (Faulkes (1995:96-97) indicates that more than one dwarf of that family was involved in the actual stitching, and so one may as well just drop the definite article and call it a day. Nice catch! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Loki ballad from Faroe Islands

I've added this (the IP is me, but I've only just registered so added it when I was unregistered) because I was surprised that the article failed to mention an outstanding piece of the folklore from outside Scandinavia.--Herneshound (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We appreciate such input. I had no knowledge of this poem and was pleasantly surprised to learn that it existed. Perhaps you could elaborate and provide the date and estimations about authorship, or if there is none state that. As it stands is fine, but since we are an ecncyclopedia we wouldn't mind the rest of the information concerning this poem. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition because Northvegr.com—a commercial, ideological website—is not a reliable source. We do need coverage of this ballad, but only by way of a reputable, preferably published source. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand about Northvegr, though I disagree. Yes, the site has a religious function, but its ideological purpose is to provide translations of untranslated works within this religious category. However, that aside, I could have used the Faroe Islands Post Office, which is a site that is a prime source for Faroese folklore, but as the site merely reproduces without explanation I presumed that would be less acceptable than a source devoted to translating the texts. Would Wikipedia Loka_Táttur do as a source? Or would that also count as a commercial site, as it requires money to accomplish its ideological aims? --Herneshound (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounded a little more aggressive than I intended. I would welcome a more expanisive explanation of why Northvegr is considered unreliable in order to assist me with any future contributions. :)--Herneshound (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article you mention above employs reliable sources. Those are the sources you should be looking for. Northvegr is non-reliable because it is a website with an agenda; it openly attempts character assassination on Viktor Rydberg, for example, while at the same time racking up money on ad programs. All of the public domain material it hosts can be found by way of reliable sources (such as Google Books). All other material the site hosts is either dubious and/or is of no use here. Judging by your comments above, I should also point out that the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization. :bloodofox: (talk)

That is a better explanation, thanks. I don't care whether sites indulge3 in Ryborg criticism or obtain support by selling ads - my only concern is wether the material on the site is a reliable translation. Surely that is the issue when a translation is posted, not its ideology? I could say that a non-profit organisation generally has an ideology, so it would then be a question of personal preference of ideology, but that is netierh here nor there - the point is the reliability of the material, not the politics. What makes the material on Northvegr unreliable? --Herneshound (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced something about this into the article with the Wiki reference, under the 'folklore' sub-heading. --Herneshound (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The main issue is that the website is essentially an ideological, money-making device with no academic merit, and due to its ideological slant, anything transcribed on the site is going to be questionable. Wikipedia is not a platform for these websites to advertise, and, since there are far more appropriate sources available on the internet here in 2011, when someone sources something to Northvegr here they are essentially doing exactly that.

Wikipedia is never a primary source; Wikipedia policy dictates that original research is not allowed, and therefore Wikipedia is intended to simply report what other sources have stated. As a result, the circle of referencing Wikipedia articles to other Wikipedia articles is inappropriate. What we want are published (in this case academic) sources. I've rewritten the section with an appropriate source. :bloodofox: (talk)