Talk:Thor

Structure

I don't see why the runic inscriptions Canterbury Charm and the Kvinneby amulet are kept under "Viking Age", while the runestones were kept under "archaeology". Runestones are Viking Age documents carved in stone, and they fall under the discipline of Nordic linguistics.--Berig (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got a point here—we should probably move all written references to Thor, including rune stone inscriptions, into the appropriate section of the body. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes (yet again)

I've removed another round of inaccurate, misleading, and generally cluttering infoboxes on this and related articles. Prior discussion Talk:Thor/Archive_2#Infobox,_redux can be found here and elsewhere in this talk page's archives. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging regulars on this topic like @Berig:, @Yngvadottir:, and @Haukurth:. Looks like we've got an edit-warrior intent inserting infoboxes and accompanying misinformation into the lead. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You have a wikipedia admin stepping in against vandalism. I suggest you stop. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, someone adding an infobox and me removing it after several years of no infoboxes and several discussions with a clear consensus not to include them doesn't count as vandalism. Did you just lock the page to your preferred version—with an infobox that was added today? That's an excellent way to lose mod tools. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You have made no attempt to discuss this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Did this section just write itself? And those other discussions over the last decades? Hmm. Sounds like you simply haven't bothered to read before smashing that revert button. However, it's crystal clear that you can't be trusted with mod tools and need to lose them. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I read the entire history of this talk page before I reverted you. You obviously have a very strong opinion about the infoboxes... would you like to discuss them? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here after happening to look at Wikipedia and seeing the array of pings. Bloodofox has summarized the flaws in this infobox quite well at AN/I. I second those concerns while being grateful that this infobox at least forbore to label Thor "god of thunder" or "god of strength". In addition, I second Bloodofox's broader point that this article is about all the versions of *Þunraz recorded or traceable in the entire Germanic culture area, and over a considerable span of time, and not only about the Thor of the Prose Edda, and that even concerning the Viking Age Scandinavian Thor as reflected in that work and its cited sources, there is considerable scholarly debate; hence, the degree of complexity makes an infobox damagingly misleading. This article has a good introduction that outlines the basic issues in a clear and nuanced manner; having an infobox will misinform readers by suggesting they read that instead. I will also comment below, since discussion has since moved on. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC) ...I spoke too soon, hadn't looked at the top of the infobox: "God of lightning, thunder, storms, sacred groves and trees, strength, the protection of mankind, hallowing and fertility". Yngvadottir (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Abuse of mod tools and injection of misinformation

Since this is now necessary with the appearance of an edit-warring mod keen on abusing mod tools, here's the timeline of consensus against infoboxes—with or without misinformation currently found on the page:

• 2008: "Infobox": Clear consensus against
• 2011: "Infobox": Clear consensus against
• 2017: "Infobox redux": Clear consensus against
• On May 28, 2021, against established consensus, a user added another infobox containing a lot of misinformation, focused entirely on the late North Germanic branch and showing that the user had not read the article, presenting theory as fact and presenting a North Germanic geneaology as concrete rather than specific to a particular body of texts
• The same day, I removed it, noting that it contained a lot of misinformation and was not helpful, per well-established previous consensus:
• After repeatedly reverting me (for example) and refusing to use the talk page (even though I opened a thread for discussion before he started revert-warring), @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: locked the page and subsequently falsely claimed he was restoring "status quo", ignoring the consensus of over a decade

Catfish Jim can't be trusted with mod tools and this page needs to be reverted to the actual status quo, where there has been clear consensus against pointless userboxes containing misinformation here for over a decade.

(As an aside, similar discussions have occured over at Talk:Odin with clear consensus against the infoboxes because of the problems they present in oversimplifying complex questions to the reader: For example, "Infobox" in 2014 and "Infobox (Redux)" in 2020.) :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on your part and I'm going to clarify Wikipedia policy regarding edit warring. WP:3RR defines what we mean here. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."

The page protection was invoked as per your request, but your pattern of reversion without discussion is why it has been left on the version it is on. :Nothing to do with preference on my part.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Let's discuss the infoboxes and why you think they should not be there. "Consensus" gained in 2008 is pretty much irrelevant as WP is a different animal to what it was back then. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, consensus is clear and has been repeatedly reaffirmed since 2008, and you're well aware of that. Right before you made your third revert (count 'em: 1, 2, 3), you chose to lock the page to your preferred, non-consensus, just-added-today version—misinformation and all. Now, you could have discussed it on the talk page like anyone else, but you chose to lock the page to your preferred version after edit-warring to your third revert, and now you'd like to backtrack after realizing you cross the line. Go ahead and revert yourself before turning in your admin status—you knew better and you've demonstrated that you certainly shouldn't have access to admin tools. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no preferred version but I would like to engage with your concerns. We're here to create an encyclopedia. The infobox looks reasonable to me. What do you think is wrong with it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin tools aren't a free pass to go against over a decade of consensus and lock the page because "the infobox looks reasonable to me". I'll go ahead and elevate this, as the issue is now one of mod tool abuse over what would otherwise be a typical discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if that's what you'd prefer. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Catfish why are you edit-warring against consensus here? I'm a bit confused as to what your goal is in doing this. You can't just call it the staus quo version...where is this supposed status quo coming from? There's been no infobox in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I've unprotected the page. Further discussion on this talk page should focus only on content matters. Please don't get sidetracked here. Any behavioral complaints are better discussed elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Catfish, there's a consensus on the page to not include infoboxes, there's no status quo that includes one. - Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Aoidh (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, your comment that you have now struck out wasn't what I was talking about. That certainly seems content-related (or content-adjacent), discussing whether there is already consensus or not and in which direction. I was more referring to questions of admin tool use, edit warring, etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. - Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Especially with crazy admins throwing around blocks left and right, eh? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see the ANI thing until after I reverted it so yeah, I'm not looking to get swept into anything like that. :) - Aoidh (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above for my endorsement of Bloodofox's and Aoidh's reversions of the article to the non-infobox version, and my reasoning. Infoboxes are almost always added in good faith, but some topics are too complex for them to be an improvement, and that is the case for this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2024

In before someone inevitably deletes the infobox that's just been put in: I think the previous consensus for not having infoboxes is based on a misunderstanding of what infoboxes mean and imply. There seems to have been some idea that infoboxes are for science subjects because everything in the sciences is nice and neat and cut-and-dried, whereas mythology is from the humanities and can't possibly be pinned down like that. I can assure you it is not the case that everything in the sciences is nice and neat and cut-and-dried, and infoboxes are not intended to imply it is. There are infoboxes on articles about animal species where it's still a matter of debate whether they are a single species, for example. Infoboxes are there to provide a quick summary of such facts as are known on a topic, not to imply that all facts on that topic are known. But I'm not going to fight it when someone comes along and deletes it again. I just want this point to be on record when that happens.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE seems to be the relevant guideline here, I don't know about the previous discussions but I don't think this being a mythology article by itself is a valid reason to exclude the infobox. The problem is that people seem miss the point that it's meant to be a quick summary of important content that already appears in the article. TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

When i added the Infobox I did In fact add info that already appeared in the article check "Origin, theories, and interpretations" subsection to verify. Ukko was the only one not to appear in the article (at least not yet), but since he is mentioned in the reference material I added him to the equivalent list. And I am aware some of my edits are kinda sloppy. Dots321 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And there you have perfectly demonstrated the issue, people are far too eager to use the infobox and ignore that the content should be firmly established in the article body. Since a lot of Wikipedia articles are poorly maintained eventually you end up with parameters like | Favorite color = red.

I have kept the portions of the infobox which appear established, please make sure any further content is also. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And I think maybe you should try reading the article before any edits as Perun, Perkwunos, Perkūnas, and Horagalles were already established in the article, just like you said infoboxes should be used for. And on the Sif page Ravdna is mentioned and firmly established. But that didn't stop you from reversing my edits and claiming I didn't have reliable sources. Just to make this clear I don't have anything against you its just the reasons listed above made me a little agitated. Dots321 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The infoboxes you're attempting to insert into article after article help no one: they're misleading the reader into cut and dry claims about this or that. It's clear from the infoboxes you've inserted, where Sif is "god of wheat" and beyond that you need to become more familiar with this material. As it stands, these infoboxes contribute nothing to the article. The first few sentences of the article accurately discuss the matter. There is no need for these infoboxes: these aren't car models or Marvel comics characters, they're complex figures form mythology that have been studied for hundreds of years. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It is clear you have everything against inserting infoboxes into Norse deites when countless other pages from different mythologies refer to Zeus, Baal,and countless other pages have them. I was just standardizing these Norse pages when this template "diety infobox" exists in the first place. If you have a problem with Infoboxes you should have a problem with Infoboxes in these other articles. It is refereed multiple times on Sifs article that she is related to wheat. No matter how you look at it infoboxes have every right to be included. As TylerBurden has said before WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of info boxes is to summarizes an article. Imagine if someone want to finds out if Thor has kids, they can try finding that info in the article with that info buried or the much easier infobox on the side with all the info nicely categorized. There is also the possibility of the reader discovering something new as although the info is already on the article its further down thus less likely to be discovered by the average lay man like the equivalency of HoraGalles. Dots321 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Invoking the poor state of other articles isn't doing you any favors here, especially since you seem to have a poor handle on the material you're attempting to discuss. Stop inserting garbled misinformation into the articles and enough with the pointless infoboxes that contribute absolutely nothing to the articles. You're wasting your time. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation? I just was using information on the page. Dots321 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

First, review WP:3RR. That's why edit-warring doesn't work. Second, "god of wheat", "god of light", etc, that is misinformation. Learn about the topic first, attempt to discuss it second. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sif IS at least related to wheat even if disputed refer to [[4]] where Sifs hair is likened to wheat. And Baldr IS at least related to light refer to [[5]]and [[6]]where Baldr is linked with light. Also just doing a light search on the web comes up with countless results like [[7]] and [[8]] not to mention other countless examples you can look up. Dots321 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

First, stick to reliable source and use those to become familiar with these topics: publications from specialists, then you won't bungle your way through articles like this one. You'll quickly learn that, as these articles correctly show, that these topics are complex, and slapping a label like "god of light" or "god of wheat" on these figures isn't going to work: this isn't directly attested in the historic record. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I knew you were going to to bring up that "they aren't reliable sources" first off World History Encyclopedia seems pretty reputable. second If Sif is truly not Goddess of wheat the wikipedia article give off the wrong idea big time, if i may ask wheres the source that says Sif isn't a goddess of wheat and where is the section talking about that on her page. I will also say that you do not own these Norse deity pages you do not have definitive final say of what goes into an article especially when they contradict the majority of other mythology pages like with the Infoboxes and the fact "Template deity Infobox" exists which your dislike is purely opinion based. Dots321 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If you knew they weren't reliable sources, then it would have been wise not to use them. There are no shortage of reliable sources on these topics. Sif is thought to represent grains of wheat by some scholars (and I agree with them) but that does not mean that a.) those scholars are correct or b.) we can extend this to being "goddess of wheat". Finally, if you're already resorting to 'you don't own these pages', rest assured that your time is better spent becoming more familiar with these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Its not that I didn't know they were reliable sources its that I knew you were going to call it unreliable. I brought up about how you don't own these pages as looking at past incidents since 2008 you've been overly protective of these pages and when confronted like with Catfish Jim you cry fowl. I will also bring up your toxic behavior as on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard you attack my character calling me unknowledgeable in a passive aggressive way on a topic unrelated to the inclusions of infoboxes, even though on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard it is not allowed to comment on the contributor but only the contributions. Its clear to me that you are not willing to have ANY discussion about this topic. Dots321 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it now this wasn't the correct approach to calling out this toxic behavior, like with bringing up bloodofoxes past conflict with Catfish Jim. To that I admit my fault. Dots321 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Would you mind clarifying, is it Dots321's infobox in particular that you object to, or the prospect of putting any infobox on this article? If the latter, would you mind please responding to the point I made at the beginning of this thread?

—VeryRarelyStable 04:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to. These aren't cars or comic book characters, and the introductions do everything an infobox would do far better. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Then would you mind please responding to the point I made at the beginning of this thread?

—VeryRarelyStable 00:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable, your idea that this is somehow a "mythology vs. science" thing is incorrect. Since Dots321 has now taken this article (and Sif, Odin, Baldr, and Horagalles) to dispute resolution, I reviewed the past discussions on this talk page, and out of the many editors arguing against having an infobox here (and at Odin as a specific comparable article) I mentioned for example ship articles, and Bloodofox has referred to the complexities of religion, but you're oversimplifying the points that have been made. You and Dots 321—and others in the past, most recently in 2020—simply assert that articles of this type—where Infobox deity can in theory be used—must conform by having an infobox. This is simply not so. There is no general requirement for articles of a particular type to have an infobox. What's done in articles on Classical deities, Hindu deities, or for that matter Christian saints, is irrelevant. There is no obligation to justify the decision to revert an infobox against this purported standard, because it is not a standard, but a preference among some editors. Consensus can change, but the consensus not to have an infobox in this article in particular (and on other articles on Norse/Germanic deities) has been repeatedly re-examined (in civil discussions with many editors making cogent points) and repeatedly reaffirmed. (The only argument for adding an infobox other than consistency that I saw in those discussions was Leornendeealdenglisc's, that not having an infobox is somehow disrespectful toward the deities, as suggesting they are purely historical. This is clearly not so either on the basis of what other articles have infoboxes or on the basis of the respect shown in this and other Norse mythology articles.)

As Bloodofox notes, Dots321's infobox (their version of the article before my removal) shares the features of oversimplifying what is stated with more nuance in the article text, and Dots321 is adducing very low-quality sources. It's actually poorer in many respects than the infobox introduced by Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel in February (their version of the article before TylerBurden reverted the addition as against consensus). My edit summary mention of a deliberately misleading edit summary was in reference to Mikey'Da'Man adding an infobox with an edit summary simply reading "ce"; looking back in the edit history, I missed that someone else had since replaced that infobox with a different one. (Mikey'Da'Man is now indeffed for edit warring and incivility, but that was presumably for worse than that edit summary.) Far from being dead set against infoboxes out of pure WP:OWN or out of some misplaced sense that only science articles should have infoboxes, responding editors have treated each infobox addition on the merits, as illustrated by TylerBurden's questioning whether Dots321's infobox reflected material sourced in the article (the purported correspondences). And both Mikey'Da'Man's and Dots321's infoboxes demonstrate how infoboxes throw certain details into unmerited prominence—"god of" function statements, family relations, purported correspondences—while comparing them demonstrates how tendentious the resulting selection is: they have quite different lists of correspondences, and Mikey'Da'Man's has a whole laundry list of "god of"s (I tried to search the history for the typo "scared groves" to see whether that was a reinstatement of an earlier infobox, but even selecting "Force searching for wikitext", the tech let me down). Having decided the article "needed" an infobox, Dots321 appears to have looked at their own preferred sources (low-quality websites) to find correspondences to include, missing Indra (the perennial first comparison in scholarship) and also leaving out Zeus/Jupiter (kind of a "duh" from the non-Old Norse texts), and only after TylerBurden's challenge to have actually read the article to see what it said about correspondences. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize salient facts from the article, in parallel to the introduction/lead section, not pre-empt the article based on personal research; that's the wrong way round. Both 2024 infoboxes are misleading compared to the article's introduction—and its detailed discussion of the issue of purported correspondences. And they demonstrate that doing justice to (the various historically attested versions of) Thor in an infobox is infeasible. In my educated opinion, that goes for all the Norse/Germanic deities, because they are not really "god/dess of X" or even of a broad area like "fertility", and don't correspond well to deities in other pantheons (even Thor to Horagalles, for whom there's a very good case that he is a transform of Thor; their roles overlap only a bit, and even Thor to Indra, despite Dumézil). Both 2024 infoboxes have been simply bolted on, with no other change to the articles; they add nothing but rather are misleading, I'm sure unintentionally. But no valid reason has been given for revising the consensus, and the particular infoboxes continue to not persuade, either. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This is all personal opinion the idea that just because I opened a Dispute somehow invalidates the "mythology vs. science" is just an opinion. TylerBurden was simply wrong not having looked at the article and having come to the conclusion that I inserted deities that hadn't appeared in the article (true in Ukkos case). On to your case about me using "unreliable sources" for my edits are simply false Gabriel Turville-Petre is as far as i can tell a reliable source and is sourced on the articles themselves and any other info I added was already on any of the pages like Sif and Wheat or the connection with Baldr and light even if we can squabble on about if they are deities of those. Your point about me not including other deities is purely a nitpick, I deliberately chose to include the deities from mythologies near by because i was unsure about including others from further mythologies and if anyone wanted to insert other from different mythologies they were free to do so. But all of this is pointless, the discussion of the quality of the info box is meaningless. As the discussion is about the inclusion of infoboxes not that they shouldn't be included because they aren't up to your standard. Dots321 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I thought I took care to clarify that my point was about infoboxes generally and not Dots321's recent addition of an infobox, and thus I'm afraid the time and effort you spent on your entire second paragraph was wasted. This discussion will go much more productively if we all take the time to read each other's contributions for comprehension.

Speaking of reading comprehension, I'm going to ask you to quote back to me the line in my post where I "simply assert that articles of this type must conform by having an infobox". I myself recall saying "I'm not going to fight it when someone comes along and deletes it again."

Reading comprehension is also why I'm asking Bloodofox (talk · contribs) to address the point I made at the beginning of the thread. When I point out that infoboxes do not imply that the subject of a page is simple or cut-and-dried, and someone replies "Well, this page shouldn't have an infobox because it will imply that the subject is simple and cut-and-dried," I think I am being disregarded, not answered.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable, I wasn't responding solely to you. I apologize if I failed to follow your argument, but it seemed to me that you'd set up a bit of a straw man with the contrast between science articles and mythology articles. However, I thought your post merited a response despite your noting you weren't going to revert. As you say, Infoboxes are there to provide a quick summary of such facts as are known on a topic, but that doesn't mean such a summary is required in addition to the one the introductory section is supposed to provide; nor does it mean a summary that will fit into the format of a box is feasible. The purpose of this discussion is not to decide whether infoboxes are always a good idea, in mythology articles or elsewhere, much less to assume they are, it's to discuss this article. (And I believe that's still basically policy, outside of species, for which infoboxes were first developed, and possibly some other classes of article: the addition of an infobox to an article or group of articles, if disputed, should be discussed on a case by case basis.) Bloodofox can answer for himself, but speaking for myself, we clearly differ on whether the mistaken impression/oversimplification is an insurmountable problem, or indeed a serious one. IMO festooning the infobox claims with footnote numbers as Mikey'Da'Man did, or putting disclaimers such as "disputed" on them all, wouldn't fix the issue, the problem is inherent with adding a tabular and inevitably selective summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this being a mythology article by itself is a valid reason to exclude the infobox. I can see a use for {{Infobox deity}} in articles like Krishna or Serapis, which are about specific cults with pretty clear-cut characteristics and authoritative sources. In broader articles about gods, like this one, or ones with little and vague source material, infoboxes are always a bad a idea. The subjects are stories and cults of which several different versions have survived in memory and more can be assumed to have existed. The infobox will be a patchwork of attributes and relations that may have never existed in that combination before. There's also no clear distinction between certain attestations and scholarly theories of varying stability. With regard to religiosity, you could argue that it is an attempt to transform a dynamic, mythical god into a static, revealed god; on some level, it is a forced application of a different type of religion's way of thinking about gods. Ffranc (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Interjecting here after reading about the dispute at WP:DRN, and I have to say I'm very much on the side of VeryRarelyStable here. An infobox does not imply that a topic is simple or easily summarizable (there's an infobox on Israeli–Palestinian conflict FFS), and a summary is not misinformation. Loki (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument is not so much that an infobox gives the impression that the subject can be easily summarised. It's that the subject in fact cannot be easily summarised, and the infobox therefore will be misleading. For example, by listing family relations from the Prose Edda that maybe never existed before, and combining them with claims from poems that were very obscure before the 19th century, where we don't know which parts are based on older material - and how widespread they ever were - and which parts were created as results of Viking-age local politics or made up by later parodists. That kind of patchwork is fine if you're creating your own pop-culture version of Thor, like in the Valhalla comics or on an Amon Amarth album cover, but it doesn't belong here.

With that said, I also think the current lead section has serious problems. It doesn't summarise the major myths that we have multiple independent attestations of, but lists various relations of little prominence from the Icelandic sources. That's also an example of the kind of skewed emphasis an infobox creates. I suspect that the lead, as it looks now, is an attempt to compensate for the absence of an infobox, and while it's not as bad (it notes broadly what material the claims are limited to), it would benefit from being stripped of the many details that don't play major roles in the stories. The article's section about the Poetic Edda starts by listing the poems where Thor makes major appearances; that's a lot more relevant information than only listing characters and objects that are mentioned in passing in those poems. Ffranc (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hercules Magusanus

At present, the material in the article states that the name "Hercules Magusanus" appears on a number of artefacts in Germany. That's all the concrete information we are given. This is followed by the very vague statement that Hercules Magusanus "with varying levels of likelihood" is considered to be a reference to Thor.

Now I see further information has been added while I was writing this: apparently someone called Rudolf Simek has suggested that "Magusanus" was an epithet of Thor on the grounds that it is attached to Hercules, and Hercules is identified with Thor in interpretatio romana. However, on those grounds alone any epithet attached to Hercules could be attributed to Thor. What's special about "Magusanus", according to Simek, that justifies singling it out for an entire paragraph and an illustration?

I also wouldn't mind an explanation of why the editor in question previously removed links relating to the connection between Thor and Jupiter, and – in particular – why they stated in an edit summary that "Odin was the equivalent of Zeus". But since those edits have not been un-reverted, that's a lesser matter.

—VeryRarelyStable 21:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valdemarpeterson: Still asking. —VeryRarelyStable 22:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No need to get passive aggressive. I utilized the source materials from the Hercules Magusanus page and I provided the citations you asked for from a scholar, the very same source being cited in the exact same regard on the Hercules Magusanus page.

You are mistaken if you believe the Romans did not connect Hercules and Thor, the earliest Roman interpretation of this comes from Germania by Tacitus, much earlier than any interpretation of Thor with Jupiter. Also, I do not know why you are still asking about me removing content to do with Jupiter or Indra, as I left that up this time as I felt you made a valid point. However, I removed content to do with an obscure Armenian deity that is not connected to Thor.

It would be silly to remove the links to do with Hercules Magusanus when this material is already well established on other wiki pages and thus SHOULD be on the Thor page as well. Simek was already cited on this very wiki page as well, prior to any of my edits. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me clarify my last sentence, Rudolf Simek was cited on the Thor wiki page prior to any of my edits. I find it strange that you are willing to allow him as a source for other points on the page, but not in regard to his connection of the Germanic deity known as Magusanus to the deity of Thor. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valdemarpeterson: I am aware the Romans connected Hercules and Thor. That was not in question. I can see the information came from Simek; that was not in question either. The question is: what does Simek say about Hercules Magusanus, as opposed to any other epithet of Hercules, that connects the epithet "Magusanus" in particular (not "Hercules" in general) so strongly with Thor as to warrant a whole paragraph in an article about Thor? To the extent, indeed, that the discussion of "Hercules Magusanus" now constitutes nearly half the discussion of "Hercules"? Why don't we have a paragraph connecting Thor with "Heracles Alexicacos", and one connecting him with "Heracles Buphagus", and one connecting him with "Heracles Patroos", and so on? What's special about "Magusanus"? —VeryRarelyStable 23:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite simply because Hercules Magusanus was the GERMANIC variant, meaning the one the Germanic people venerated, which is what connects this figure to Thor, as Magusanus is thought to have originally been an epithet of Thor that was then applied to Hercules after the region of Germania Inferior became a Roman province. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable read my above comment. Additionally why would other epithets of Hercules be used besides the one that was originally a epithet of Thor? Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the illustrator of Hercules Magusanus, one of the earliest known depictions of what we believe to be Thor, is much more appropriate for an article about Thor in the Roman period than a random picture of the Teutoburg forest. Why would it make more sense to have that as the picture in the article? Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the article to have less information about Magusanus, while still keeping a relevant mention of him. Rather than a full paragraph it is one sentence. I still believe it is better to have the picture of Magusanus than a random picture of a forest though. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite simply because Hercules Magusanus was the GERMANIC variant, meaning the one the Germanic people venerated, which is what connects this figure to Thor...

That, and Simek's argument for it, was what was missing from the article. I think we're good now. —VeryRarelyStable 00:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

apparently someone called Rudolf Simek lol. Sorry to be so direct, but it would like coming to an article on philosophy and saying "apparently someone called René Descartes". Alcaios (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

More like "apparently someone called Arthur Schopenhauer", I think. Most people outside of the philosophy field have heard of René Descartes, whereas people outside of the Germanic mythology field have not heard of Rudolf Simek, I promise you.

I'm afraid Wikipedia's mythology articles in general and the Germanic mythology articles in particular suffer from an over-erudition problem. Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to anyone. The general guideline is that articles on a topic should be aimed at readers one education level below where one would normally learn about the topic in formal education, which would mean the Thor and Odin articles should be aimed at the comprehension level of a high school student at most.

After all, scholars are not supposed to get their information from Wikipedia; knowledge is supposed to flow in the opposite direction. If an article is readable only by specialists in its topic, someone has fundamentally missed the point.

Many editors in this area would do well to study this XKCD cartoon: "Even when they're trying to compensate for it, experts in anything wildly overestimate the average person's familiarity with their field."

—VeryRarelyStable 23:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a great place to become more familiar with the topic—in fact, the only place where most readers will have that opportunity. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And we need to make sure that works for them. The trouble is, it only works if the reader is not baffled by a wall of unfamiliar language and concepts upon entry.

I would imagine that your average intelligent high school student knows the MCU depiction of Thor; knows that this character is derived from something called "Norse mythology"; recognises "Norse" as a loose synonym for "Viking", and connects both with the colder parts of Europe at some point after the Roman Empire and before Shakespeare; understands Thor to be a hammer-wielding god of thunder; knows, thanks to the MCU, that Thor is the son of Odin; understands Odin primarily as "the king of the gods"; possibly recognises that Odin appears in the mythology as an old man with one eye, though since Thor in the MCU also ends up losing an eye I wouldn't bet too hard on that one.

Now I'm going to try to put myself in the head of that high school student, bearing in mind that as I'm rather more familiar with the mythology than them I'm likely to overestimate their knowledge myself. Here are the questions that come to me while reading just the lede of this article:

"Wait, Thor is from German mythology? I thought he was Norse. What's that P-looking letter, is that a rune? What's an Old Frisian? They can't mean a cow. Saxons are like Vikings, right? What's a 'theonym'? Oh, there's an asterisk, that must be a footnote. I can't find the footnote.

"There's that word 'Germanic' again, is that not the same as 'German'? What and when was the Migration Period? Oh, now we have a Germanic 'corpus' as well, what's that? Wait, they just said that Thor is recorded all over Germanic history, now suddenly he's 'only in Old Norse'? What is the 'nature of the Germanic corpus' and how does it cause him to be only 'attested' in Old Norse?

"OK, now we're getting onto who Thor actually is. First thing about him is he's the... husband of some goddess called Sif. I remember Sif from the MCU, I guess they changed her hair. Is she more important than him being the God of Thunder, to be mentioned first? What's a 'jötunn'? He's got four kids, is that what he's most famous for? He has brothers 'by way of Odin', I guess that means Odin is his father like in the movies. He has a hammer, yes, and also a whole bunch of other stuff with unpronounceable names, is that important? What does he actually do in the stories, is that not as important as his kids and his stuff?

"Here it is at last, he does some 'exploits'. The one that seems to be important enough to mention is his 'relentless slaughter of his foes'. I guess he's not the jovial hero we get in the movies then. Is there anything more about who he is in the stories? No, now they move into the 'modern period'. 'Modern' means 'industrial', right? Like, not the Olden Days?"

And that's just in the lede. Now granted, a few of these questions can be answered by following the Wikilinks – provided the articles behind those Wikilinks are a sight less abstruse than this one. Yes, I deliberately misunderstood the bit about "narratives featuring Thor", because I think your average high school student would genuinely misunderstand it. The point is, to function as an introduction to the topic, the lede in particular has to work like a series of steps up from the ground. At the moment, it's a wall.

The situation does not improve when we get into the article body, partly because of the dense academic language (seriously, what gain is there in understanding from using the word "theonym" instead of plain old "name"?) but still more because of the organization of the article. Don't get me wrong; I can see how, to someone intimately familiar with the historical periods and the archaeology and the documents, it's the most intuitive way to structure it. The problem is that to someone unfamiliar with all that, it's mystifying and impenetrable. I'm not suggesting removing the discussion of provenance, but it should not form the structure of the article. Rather, it should be the fine detail added after the substance.

For a more reader-friendly way of structuring an article on a mythological figure, I would point to Māui (Māori mythology). Granted, there is little discussion of provenance within the text of that article, because of course the indigenous sources are entirely oral. The point is that the narratives are organized and presented as narratives, and variance or uncertainty of source material is discussed within the context of each narrative. This article would of course also need a section on the worship of Thor (whereas Māui was not worshipped particularly); again, I would suggest stating first what is known about how Thor was worshipped, and following up with how it's known, rather than vice versa.

—VeryRarelyStable 01:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This was a fun read, and I agree with you VeryRarelyStable. Wikipedia, espescially the lead section, should be accessible to all. I am a young (early 20's) Scandinavian somewhat familiar with the subject through local education and things such as the Vikings TV show and other media, and while I am familiar with much in the lead some of it is downright confusing. And using overcomplicated words and terms when the simple version works just as well (better in fact, since more people will understand) has been a pet peeve of mine for pretty much as long as I have read Wikipedia. At the same time it has been fun getting deeper into the subject through this article, I put it on the watch list to protect it from vandalism and it's clear that it has several highly knowledgeable people contributing to it. Hopefully a middle ground can be found between accessibility and depth. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Usually I don't bother to read walls of text like this, but VeryRarelyStable's comment is worth reading. With all due respect to the esteemed editor bloodofox, who wrote most of the lede, I agree with VeryRarelyStable that the lede is abstruse to laypersons. I personally find the text illuminating, but the average reader will be confused by the jargon and find it too erudite. For comparison's sake, the Britannica article is more approachable. And while I'm here, I suggest that we ditch that god-awful romantic nationalist painting by Winge; it's far too Chris Hemsworthy. An image of a rather slovenly red-haired giant with a beer belly would be better.;-) Carlstak (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the Britannica piece is that it contains inaccuracies and completely avoids nuance, while the source material we summarize and discuss on this article in fact contains quite a lot to unpack. This may be simply because the Britannica article had a very specific word limit. But of course, if we can make the current lead more approachable while retaining its accuracy, I am certainly for it—we are here to build articles for Wikipedia readers, after all—but it really is a tough needle to thread, especially given how complex these topics can be and how little awareness the general public has of some foundational matters that we need to build from to keep it accurate (like, for example, the very existance of a the field of historical linguistics, highly obscure to the general public, and yet we must go into some detail about it).

That said, I caution against using articles like Māui (Māori mythology) as models: We're doing our readers a disserviced by not contextualizing or providing information about sources, and the Māui (Māori mythology) article totally ignores the what, where, and when, and presents material to readers from what appears to be a mid-19th century book of retellings by George Grey without any context at all. There's no discussion about, as examples, informants or oral and textualized tradition, similarities and differences between sources, or anything similar. A well-developed article would spend a lot of time charting out attestations—earliest mentions, notable mentions, modern tradition, change over time or lack thereof, whatever else that might be relevant—and then go into analysis of those attestations by specialists. It's a tricky thing. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable:, it was not a personal attack, just a sarcastic answer. I'm glad you took it that way. The problem with articles on Germanic or Celtic mythology is that they generally suffer from the opposite flaw: they are often unreliable because they are based on poor-quality sources (or no source at all). We're currently trying, with a few other editors, to find a way between general accessibility and scholarly analysis. Alcaios (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ink drawings (1760) by Jakob Sigurðsson

The painting by Winge used in the lede seems a bit schmaltzy. Surely these ink drawings (1760) by Jakob Sigurðsson, for example, tell us more about how ancient Germanic peoples, in this case Norse from Iceland, conceived of their gods, rather than the heroic depictions of them in romantic nationalist paintings:

• 
  Þórr and the giant Hymir fishing for Miðgarðsormr, from Gylfaginning in Snorri's Edda.
• 
  Þórr with his hammer, Mjöllnir; his gloves, Járngreipr; and his belt, Megingjarðar, as described in Gylfaginning in Snorri's Edda.

Carlstak (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

While these pieces have merit for inclusion in, say, a section devoted to the reception of Old Norse material long after the period in which the language was spoken (and collections such as the Prose Edda and Poetic Edda were produced), these illustrations are similar to what we currently use to illustrate the article—the illustrations are reflective of the time period in which they were produced (the early 18th century) and not representative of, say, ideas of what Thor may have looked like during the period in which Old Norse was spoken. Of course, we do have depictions of Thor from that era, but really any image is appropriate as long as we agree on it—the article isn't just about ancient Germanic language sources, rather it provides a holistic assessment of the deity from our earliest records and to the modern era. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this, the article isn't called ″old perceptions of Thor″ it's simply called ″Thor″. I think the current image is fine. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Carlstak, I have to disagree with "schmaltzy"; in fact criticisms have been raised that the picture shows xenophobic hostility in the representation of the giants. See the article on the painting. It's become very famous as a representation of Thor, and represents the iconography decently (no gauntlets, and Mjǫllnir gathering/generating lightning is dubious). In my opinion the only better one is the Max Koch, which instead of routing the giants, has him flying above a farmer plowing his field (but also has lightning from the hammer). Thor's in breeches in that one, Lederhosen by the looks of it, and he has his beard:

• 

I'm happy with either of those as top pic, and I think we should include the Koch, but as to the top image I think both the public and academics would rather see him routing giants, especially given the familiarity of the Winge. It may be in part the red tunic as well as the blondness, one of Winge's choices criticized as xenophobic, and perhaps the clean-cut facial appearance, that made you think schmaltz, but I can see merit to reminding viewers that the Norse gods are as likely to wear fine fabrics as the Greek gods, and to not depicting Thor in trousers, and the hair is as likely to be reddish blond as fiery red. I personally prefer the Koch, but I think Winge has the edge as the top image for a general encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your most interesting reply, Yngvadottir. I offered my opinion hoping to stimulate some discussion about Inge's image, and it's gratifying to see comments from accomplished editors like yourself and Bloodofox. I have been known to create some art, but I don't pretend to be an art critic; I do think many of them are full of shit, and accomplished bullshit artists in their own right.

For what it's worth, I think Inge's painting is beautifully done as a technical matter, it's just his emotional approach to the subject that I consider overdone, especially for an encyclopedia article. Frankly, it reminds me of the Romanticist art one sees used as illustrations in some Bible editions, the sort that have a pale-skinned Jesus with blonde highlights in his light brown hair and sometimes even blue eyes. I much prefer Koch's rougher style—it's not so affected, and far superior, in my opinion, although it disturbs me that his Thor looks like my biker housemate. The other housemate is an actual giant. I look kind of like a craggy movie Thor myself, with whitish hair hanging down my back and a blonde mustache.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Footnote 16 removal

So, part of footnote 16 references the 1910 (11th ed.) of Encyclopædia Brittanica, pp 608, "regarding usage of Thunor as an Old English gloss for Jupiter." This is nonsense, and pp 608 talks chiefly about the Swiss canton of Grisons. https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediabrit12chisrich/page/608/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater The link is here so that anyone can see it. I am removing that part of the footnote; I really can't stand this kind of lack of academic integrity where someone just haphazardly throws some page numbers on some book they've (probably) never even read to try to make a point. Oh, and also, what is North 1998?! (the other part of that same footnote) It's not even in the list of references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vindafarna (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Vindafarna (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Jörð and Fjörgyn

Further information: Jörð § Alternative names, and Fjörgyn and Fjörgynn § Alternative names

Depending on the source Thor's mother is either Jörð or Fjörgyn. Although, Jörð and Fjörgyn may have been the same being as scholars have found evidence that Fjörgyn could have been used as an alternative name for Jörð, instead of Fjörgyn being a separate entity. Treetoes023 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Original research?

"Thor bears at least fifteen names, is the husband of the golden-haired goddess Sif, is the lover of the jötunn Járnsaxa, and is generally described as fierce-eyed, with red hair and red beard."[1]

I am not seeing where in citation 1 (which is actually more of a note) that it says that Thor was red haired. It does read "The Prologue to the Prose Edda says ambiguously that "His hair is more beautiful than gold." If this is intended to support the statement that Thor was red haired, then it is simply original research and a faulty interpretation of the Prose Edda, which actually says that Thor's hair was "fairer than gold".[9][10] The Prose Edda doesn't offer any more evidence that Thor was red haired than it does that he was grey haired or purple haired; indeed it tends to suggest he was blond haired.[11] Although the notion of Thor's red beard is widely acknowledged by major scholars, Seigfried also notes that this is easily disproven.[12]

The article elsewhere reads "...and particularly the Hindu Indra, whose red hair and thunderbolt weapon the vajra are obvious parallels noted already by Max Müller. Yet the notion of red hair doesn't seem to be in the citation given. It says on page 746 (point 11) that Indra wears a "golden beard", with the adjoining point for Thor being that he angrily shakes his beard. I'm not seeing aything on pages 744-749 to suggest that either of these figures were red haired. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p and @Bloodofox since this was recently removed from the lead, would it be appropriate to add it to one of the body sections? TylerBurden (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A dedicated section on scholarship around the topic of the color red and Thor under reception would be appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to Interpretatio_germanica

In the section "Name", there is a link to WP article "Interpretatio_graeca#Interpretatio_germanica". However, that section of the article has appearently been moved to its own article, "Interpretatio_germanica". Please update the link. 109.108.203.236 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. TylerBurden (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Modern influence

Additional info / links for the modern influence / cultural references which may be appropriate or useful:

Douglas Adams 1988 novel The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul prominently features the character of Thor, along with other characters from the norse pantheon.

Chris Columbus 1987 film Adventures in Babysitting features a character mistaken for the (Marvel comic) iteration of Thor, who later grows into the role. 82.5.187.217 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)