Talk:Norse mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Norse mythology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Big clean up[edit]

this article needs a big clean up. people need to know about the gods, stories, and other infomation that isn't here. I should now, I used this article for school. Master of Hearts (talk)Emblem-favorites.svg 00:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Agree. The list of the nine worlds are incorrect. They are as follows:

above earthplane: Ásgarðr, world of the Æsir. Álfheimr, world of the Álfar (elves). Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.

earthplane: Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir. Miðgarðr, world of humans. Jötunheimr, world of the jötnar.

the underworld: Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice (Hel, underground world of the dead and Niflheim is the same world! Nidavellir, world of the dwarfs (this was not on wiki's list) Svartálfaheim, world of the Svartálfar (black elves). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.163.100.33 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Nine worlds...[edit]

I really wish that people who like to give lists of the nine worlds of Norse myth, would actually READ the parts of the Poetic and Prose Eddas which refer to the different worlds. NOWHERE is a full exhaustive list of the nine worlds given. They are only mentioned separately and in different places, with different names given for probably the same place in the Prose and Poetic texts. Snorri Sturluson who wrote the Prose Edda, is the only source of the words "Svartálfaheim" , "Múspellheim" and "Niflheim". These terms do not appear in the texts of the older Poetic Edda. Niflheim is mentioned once, in the controversial Hrafnagaldr Odins which used to be part of the Poetic Edda, but is no longer included in modern editions and widely thought to be a much later work perhaps from the 16th century.
Snorri Sturluson was the one who used the terms "Svartálfar" (Black elves) and possibly "Dokkalfar" (Dark elves) as synonyms for the Dwarfs, and thus he used Svartálfaheim as a name for the home-world of the Dwarfs. This world is visited by Loki in Skáldskaparmál and by Odin in Gylfagynning. Conversely the world of the Dwarfs in the older Poetic Edda is called "Nidavellir" and nowhere is Svartálfaheim mentioned. It seems obvious that these are different names for the same world.
As for Niflheim being the "same world" as Hel, this is simply NOT the case in either the Poetic or Prose Eddas. In Sturluson's Prose Edda, Hel is the world of the inglorious dead and is located WITHIN Niflheim. The Giantess also called Hel rules over it. "Niflheim" is also a word that only Sturluson uses. The closest word in the older Poetic texts, which is linked to it, is "Niflhel" (Misty Hel) mentioned in Vafþrúðnismál and Baldrs draumar. In Vafþrúðnismál, Niflhel is mentioned as one of the Nine worlds to which Odin had travelled and that "here die men from Hel". In Grímnismál stanza 31, Hel is listed as existing beneath one of three roots of the world tree Yggdrasil. One of the other two leads to the Hrimthursar (Frost giants in Jötunheim) and the third to Mankind (in Midgard). This probably means that Hel and Niflhel were both worlds on their own, although Baldrs draumar hints that Hel is located within Niflhel. It would seem that "here die men from Hel" could mean that dead people who were too evil for Hel, or for some other reason not fit to stay in Hel, were sent out into the surrounding cold, misty world of Niflhel.
This theme is taken up in Sturluson's Prose Edda where he mentions Niflhel - "...but wicked will go to Hel and thence to Niflhel: that is down in the ninth world". Here he is seemingly calling Niflhel a place lower down in Hel (or FROM Hel?), while at the same time the Prose Edda makes out that Hel is located within Niflheimr. To me this seems like a misunderstanding of the mythology or a mix up of words by Sturluson. It has been shown that he mixed up the ideas of the older term Niflhel and his term Niflheim in other places as well:
John Lindow. Handbook of Norse mythology -

"The confusion between Niflheim and Nifhel is summed up by variation in the manuscript of Snorri's [Prose] Edda. In describing the fate of the giant master builder of the wall around Asgard, two of the four main sources say Thor bashed the giant's head and sent him to Niflheim, and the other two say Thor sent him to Niflhel."

So it seems like Niflhel and Niflheim were meant to be names for the same place, The cold misty world which contains the Hall of Hel, which is the world of the dead, and from there the wicked dead will be expelled into the outer surrounding wastes. Another place of punishment for a certain section of wicked dead is mentioned in both the Poetic and Prose Eddas and is called "Náströnd" (Corpse Shore) a place in Hel where Níðhöggr lives and sucks corpses of Oath breakers and murderers.
Similar to the case of Niflheim / Niflhel is the world of the Fire giants, in the Prose Edda, called Múspell and "Múspellheim", which in the Poetic Edda is only referred to as Múspell.


This gives us a list of nine mythological worlds (with their related Poetic and Prose Edda mentionings) :
This list is simply to be deduced from the limited sources given to us. As I said before, a complete list of the Nine worlds is never mentioned entirely in either of the Eddas. Please take time to read the source Eddas and don't just mash together a list from the different worlds that they separately mention. The Poetic Edda is OLDER than the Prose Edda and Sturluson is known to have misinterpreted / embellished terms and invented his own words for things, when he used texts of the Poetic Edda and possible other sources, for the writing of his younger Prose Edda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendent28 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

alternative terms[edit]

The literature listed also has "Northern myths" and "Nordic religions". MSN Encarta has "Scandinavian mythology". "Viking mythology" is seen on the internets and on Fox News[1] but I doubt that this can be considered an encyclopedic term. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Books frequency:

I agree that "Viking mythology" is a pretty marginal synonym. Haukur (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but it does not provide any support Dab's removal of "Scandinavian mythology" and the use of it in encarta shows that it is indeed an encyclopedic term.--Berig (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation[edit]

What I think is the main problem with the current article is that it isn't focused enough on the myths, it overlaps too much with Norse paganism. Haukur (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to object to that as well. First of all, the lead claims that mythology encompasses "belief". In my opinion, this is a misunderstandnig of the term (unrelated to Norse mythology in particular). The mode of religious belief is as it were orthogonal to the mode of religious myth. This was obvious even to Varro, who (in my view rightly, usefully) distinguishes

This article deals only with the latter, while the Norse paganism should deal with all three, as this article's WP:SS super-article. The point I am making here for the purposes of this article is simple: it should deal with myths but not with religious belief or religious ritual. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on this. I'm surprised that in two full year the belief system remains incorporated throughout the article. Should we just delete them? I say we do. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a nice little classification scheme. We have an article on Norse pagan worship, mostly corresponding to "political theology" but I don't think enough is known about the "natural theology" of the Norse for us to write a separate article on that. But let's keep in mind the article statistics:

We have three orders of magnitude there! I think many people will start with the mythology article even if what they're really most interested in is the religion. We need to make it easy for people to find what they're looking for. Haukur (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree! That is what Google and Wikipedia search is for. This article is about mythology and there should be no linking at all with paganism, except perhaps in an extremely brief pop culture reference. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Just want to say that the list of the nine worlds are incorrect. They are as follows:

above earthplane: Ásgarðr, world of the Æsir. Álfheimr, world of the Álfar (elves). Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.

earthplane: Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir. Miðgarðr, world of humans. Jötunheimr, world of the jötnar.

the underworld: Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice (Hel, underground world of the dead and Niflheim is the same world! Nidavellir, world of the dwarfs (this was not on wiki's list) Svartálfaheim, world of the Svartálfar (black elves). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.163.100.33 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say that the list of the nine worlds are incorrect. They are as follows:

above earthplane: Ásgarðr, world of the Æsir. Álfheimr, world of the Álfar (elves). Muspellheim, world of the primordial element of fire.

earthplane: Vanaheimr, world of the Vanir. Miðgarðr, world of humans. Jötunheimr, world of the jötnar.

the underworld: Niflheimr, world of the primordial element of ice (Hel, underground world of the dead and Niflheim is the same world! Nidavellir, world of the dwarfs (this was not on wiki's list) Svartálfaheim, world of the Svartálfar (black elves).

Thanks, got it the first time. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Northvegr link[edit]

The external link to the resources available at Northvegr.org has been the lead link for quite a while, and nobody has had a problem with it until now. One editor has now proclaimed the site "blacklisted, "unreliable, "unnecessary," and "spam," without any elaboration beyond the fact that Google Books exists. Obviously, Google Books is not in the same category as a reference for readers of this article. As to the editor's reference to Northvegr.org as "spam," how is a nonprofit foundation considered to be spamming by making resources available for free? Rsradford (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons are given here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#northvegr.org :bloodofox: (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My reasoning, in summary:
On hundreds of our older and poorly referenced articles northvegr.org is currently used as a reference. This website, which not only claims copyright on a horde of freely available public domain material (see prominently placed "© 2009 New Northvegr Center." below menu bar) and is also commercial (see "sponsors" section; [2]—get your hair styles, online poker, Indian recipes, medical alert systems, mortgage advice, etc, here folks! But not before you get your Cafepress Northvegr coasters [can't link due to Cafepress blacklisting]) seems to be a leftover from those hazy Wikipedia years where referencing was optional but an external link would do, and sites like Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive, and Google Books were just coming along, thus making something like this handy, despite the obvious issues.
Fortunately, those days have long since passed, and, nowadays, the (largely 19th century) material that northvegr.org hosts and draws revenue from can be found complete on the aforementioned websites. As a result, this site serves no purpose on Wikipedia other than to simply funnel traffic (and thus revenue) to it. In other words, northvegr.org is simply spam. Worse yet, it is spam that openly proclaims that Wikipedia allows it as a source (along with some other eyebrow raising "credentials") on the northvegr.com home page!
The result of the discussion was that removing links to the "new" Northvegr website were recommended while, while, where necessary (which, really, is nowhere), using archived links to the old, less blatantly commercial version of the website. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bibliography needs to go.[edit]

I am so sorry that someone has spent an apparently enormous amount of time outling the "bibliography" but it is completely irrelevant. I have tagged this article with a reference improvement because they have "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". That is, only one reference in the entire, exhaustive, lot (as of this writing) points to anything in the article. That is completely unacceptable. I suggest that everything, save the one actual reference, be removed since they obviously do not apply. An alternative would be renaming the Bibliography to something like For Further Reading, or perhaps even better For Further Study and place all that junk in there. Any votes on this subject? :: As a side note, I have Amazon'd two books on Norse Mythology and will be happy to place inline references when time allows. I have another book to finish first which will be quite some time. I generally only have about 20 minutes daily to read, so as you can see, it could be a long time before I get to them. If anyone wants to hop in and make inline citations to connect with the bibliography, more power to you. Please do. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point and agree. This article has actually needed a total rewrite for a long time, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it sure isn't a good article - but the bibliography is probably the best and most useful part of it. Haukur (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

I have tried to Edit this article so that it was more accurate, due to the fact that there are a few misconceptions and the list of the Nine Worlds are wrong. But it seems that the author of this article would rather have an inaccurate article, and keep all her hard work then have a person come in a fix some of the issues present. For those of you who will read this before attempting to edit this, do not waste you time. It will go unappreciated and within a few hours will be changed back to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.6.30 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Family tree of the Norse gods[edit]

... is a new article containing only this information:


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Auðumbla
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ymir
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Búri
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bölthorn
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Borr
 
Bestla
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Óðinn
 
 
Vili

Is it correct? Is it possible to merge the tree in the main article (Norse mythology) and create a redirect? Or is there a possibility to keep a stand alone article? Thanks for any hints. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I constructed the (as unfinished) family tree above from data taken from the Wikipedia website. So if it's not correct, then some articles need revision. Aithír (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Status of Rewrite[edit]

Users watching this page may have noticed that it has recently been rewritten. The previous version of this article lacked appropriate citations and at times presented misinformation. While this version of has been rewritten by way of Wikipedia:Good article criteria standards, it currently lacks a few vital sections. These sections are a "modern influence" section and something along the lines of a "history of scholarship" section. Contributors willing to assist in expanding, proof reading, and/or creating these sections are invited to contribute. Once everything is in order, I look forward to working together with other users to bring this article to featured status. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Could This be the Route of Norse Mythology?[edit]

If some of you have ancestors from Troy (Asgard) you will see that kings of troy one named Wōden who came from Troy the Scandinavia, and said that he was Odin. if you look further you find a king named Thor. and you see things that look Norse some like god or people names. Is this the route of the norse and it's Religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.71.208 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Norse mythology (d:Q128285)[edit]

Hi! Please see d:Wikidata:Project chat#Norse_mythology. Can you please help? Regards gangLeri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 08:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Details[edit]

I have found that the bibliography is full of sources and yet the article is very vague. There are opportunities to include various information such as the trio of gods that made the first man and woman are Vili, Odin, and Ve. Also I think that it should be mentioned the names of Odin's wolves and ravens since they were mentioned, but not named. It is easy enough to find these and if we are going to mention them, then the names should be included or linked to. Additionally the article could use further details on origin and there is little mention of Ragnarok. Many people who look up Norse Mythology will not want to search through various links to find a huge subject of Norse Mythology, Ragnarok deserves its own section. --Chrisray1110 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)