This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The contents of the Wotan (Odin) page were merged into Odin. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (9 February 2004) |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Wagner did not 'invent' this spelling - it is attested in the Latin of Paulus Diaconus' History of the Langobards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raschau ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit (the citation does not work, but I expect that will be fixed soon so I will let that rest). I am a bit befuddled by the edit comment "Superfluous as it is common knowledge". Is it common knowledge that a bier or coffin is carried by four persons? My guess would have been that the number of men needed to carry such an object would vary depending on size. But my main problem is what this statement is that you fail to provide any explanation why this information is relevant, or who it is that have proposed an interpretation that Sleipnir symbolises four men carrying a bier. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Final Fantasy is a high-profile series of computer games, and so I think it's a reasonable thing to link to here under the modern culture heading. But what does it mean that Odin is a "recurring summon" in the game? The noun is actually "a summons", but even so it doesn't make much sense. Could someone clarify with a few words what role Odin plays in the games? Can the player summon him? What for? Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The role of Odin in the Final Fantasy series is to work as a mystical force, mainly called a summon. You can summon him in a fight to deal additional damage or even kill your enemies instantly. It depends on the number of the series what you can do. For example in FFVIII you can't summon Odin on command, it happens randomly but when it does, he kills instantly. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.244.33.47 (
talk) 17:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES. NO WAIT DON'T. THIS ISN'T THE PLACE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.38.196 ( talk) 10:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"In the compound Wednesday, the first member is cognate to the genitive Odin's."
Could someone rewrite the first paragraph so that it makes some sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.225.163 ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I second this. This is vague at best and highly esoteric at worst. -- DanielRenfro ( talk) 04:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Another rewrite needed for clarity: 'His name is related to ōðr, meaning "fury, excitation", besides "mind", or "poetry".'
By "besides" I'm guessing someone meant "in addition to", but it parses oddly. --
hexalm
The statements associating Odin and Mercury are confusing, and in particular the statement that Tacitus was likely referring to Odin when writing of Mercury is especially confusing. Is this claiming that Odin is based on/evolved out of the Roman god Mercury? And, it seems a bit odd to claim Tacitus was writing about Odin when he uses "Mercury." Does this mean to say that in discussing Germanic gods, Tacitus imposes the name "Mercury" on Odin because he interprets the similarities of the gods as being the result of the Germanic tribes worshiping Mercury under a different name? Otherwise, why would we suppose he is referring to Odin, when Mercury is a well-established Roman god in large part based on a Greek antecedent (Hermes)? I'm not (necessarily) doubting that good, scholarly sources have established (or at least argue) that there is a connection between Mercury and Odin, but this connection could be much more clearly established in the article. As is, it is so confusing and vague as to be unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 ( talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The lengthy section under the heading Prose Edda before the heading "Prologue" appears to be misplaced. It's a broad description of Odin's attributes with little reference to the Prose Edda and some reference to other literary and archaeological sources. It either needs to be trimmed or moved. -- Simon Peter Hughes ( talk) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that slavery was practised in 9th century Sweden (and presumably elsewhere in Northern Europe at that time), and that male slaves were sacrificed on trees (compare this practice to the sacrifice of males and male slaves on trees in Benin http://www.edo-nation.net/expedition7.htm - although this Victorian photo describes the victim as a criminal, the method was also described by the Portuguese who made first contact in the 11th century. They observed males and slaves being sacrificed in the same manner.) However, my query relates to the phrase "Male slaves and males of each species were sacrificed and hung from the branches of the trees."
Could the author please clarify what is meant by 'males of each species'? Is this referring to men of the local tribe and the male slaves taken from other local tribes, or to males from aboriginals taken from the taiga (or elsewhere) as well?
In the Benin case, the sacrifices related to the use of blood and the offering of flesh to the air spirits of the Otherworld as a means for the priest-king (the Oba) to gain the power to communicate with the Otherworld and to then draw down power from it for the benefit of himself and his people. It seems likely that the practice initially obliged the sacrifice of tribal members, but later shifted to slaves and transgressors - much as was the case with South American tribes of the same period. I conjecture that in all these cases, the situation paralleled that of king Aun's sons. Once the priests had sacrificed a critical mass of tribesmen - who doubtless went willingly in a noble cause - they were stopped by the tribespeople and an alternative source of victims was sought. Slaves taken from neighbouring tribes was the solution - no need to expend members of the god's chosen/created people when non-chosen/created and therefore non-human people were on hand, and clearly put there in readiness for such a purpose. In the case of the blot, which I assume means blood, I was wondering if one of the neighbouring Swedish tribes also happened to be aboriginals. Furthering thought ( talk) 07:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't Odin also have a giant pig? Does anybody know the name of the pig? AT Kunene ( talk) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed there was a pig called "Sæhrimner", though it did not belong to Odin in particular. Sæhrimner stood in a giantic cauldron full of boiling water, and when meat called "flæsk" was needed, it was simply cut off from it. >Luckily sæhrimner had the ability to regrow itself in a matter of mere seconds. Another particular pig is "Gyldenbørste". It's hair was made of the finest gold, and it shone like a second sun.
94.191.184.115 ( talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)DukeJuke
Regarding this semi-fringe myth, a book by one Phyllis Siefker which poses the claim that Odin is the origin of the modern Santa Claus myth is being paraphrased in the following way: "According to Phyllis Siefker, children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw, or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Odin would then reward those children for their kindness by replacing Sleipnir's food with gifts or candy."
I don't have access to the book in question, but is this an accurate wording? Besides the obvious questionable claims about apparently rather detailed knowledge of the activities of children during the Viking Age, I am rather sure that Norse houses at that time did not have chimneys, and the carrot wasn't introduced in Scandinavia until the 1500s, and there weren't sugar either. So the question remains whether this is an accurate paraphrasing, and if it is, does a book containing such claims really qualify as a reliable source? -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, Wednesday isn't named after Odin, but rather after Woden, an Anglo-Saxon god. Both descend from the Germanic god Wodanaz, so the names are cognate, but they are distinct. Saying Wednesday is named after Woden is like saying the planet Jupiter is named after Zeus. Again, the names are cognate, but they have a distinct history.
To say the days of the week are named after Norse gods is wrong, as this states the names were taken from the names the Norsemen used for their gods, rather than from the names the Anglo-Saxons used for their gods.
98.246.211.17 ( talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thursday, however, is named after Thor, a norse god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.239.253.217 ( talk) 13:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
H. A. Guerber, in his book Myths of the Norsemen; from the Eddas and Sagas, makes the suggestion that Saturday could be derived from Saturaæ, or Loki-Saturæ, the thief in ambush, one of Loki's many aspects and a patron of poor peasants. (Robin Hood?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÆsatruBard ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In recent weeks, I've made minor changes or additions to other Wiki articles, and some of them have been undone because those that are monitoring the pages felt they weren't needed or didn't fit the bill, even though they did. So before I take it upon myself to just add an addition to this particular section referenced above, I thought I'd check here first so as to not step on any toes. It should probably be noted that Odin was also featured in at least two episodes of Disney's Gargoyles, both of the episodes occurring during season two. The first being Season 2, Episode 36 Eye of the Storm, and the episode description actually links back to this article on Odin. The second one is Season 2, Episode 44 The Gathering (Part 1). Odin makes a brief appearance in episode 44 at the beginning, but is primarily featured in episode 36 when he comes upon the main character Goliath, to reclaim his eye which Goliath has. Goliath dons the "Eye of Odin" talisman to prevent the stranger from obtaining it, and struggles with its immense power. Aidensdaddy2k9 ( talk) 04:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Because he has been featured in other media. Aidensdaddy2k9 ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have re-reverted the addition of an infobox to this article. Infoboxes are misleading in articles about Norse deities, because they oversimplify, and that is especially true of Óðinn, whose huge number of names indicates his complexity. His "function" has been debated by scholars for generations and cannot be summed up as if he were a Christian saint of three or four things. Even his family relationships are debatable and complex. Yngvadottir ( talk) 05:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I reopened this topic, when I created new infobox for the article, because of course in other articles about deities are placed infoboxes, but there is a mysterious person named Bloodofox, which evidently thinks, that he is boss here and he decided, that infobox is unhelpful and he completely removed it. Evidently he obviously believes that a much better solution for the beginning of the article is only a one simple picture of a romantic 19th century painter, it is really ridiculous, surely many articles like Krishna and Vishnu have placed helpful infoboxes with mythological data, very helpful. I thinks, that he is only troll vandalising the work of others and often sabotages the development of articles, because it is far easier for him to delete than to something create. I think I'm not the only one. Dragovit ( talk) 17:15, 17 september 2017 (UTC)
Один (Russian) = Eдин (Bulgarian) = Единствен бог = 1 = The Only God? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 ( talk) 21:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I cannot understand why it would be irrelevant to add his Swedish name Oden to the top of the article. Wouldn't it be to withhold information from our readers to exclude a name used for many streets and squares and other public places in Sweden, the land of this character's probable origin? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Third Opinion- *UPDATE*: It was brought to my attention that my views about "Oden" Specifically was unclear to at least one party. "(or any other names for that matter)" was meant to clarify my position on that. I'll make my position on that specific issue clear right here. I don't believe "Oden" should be included in the lead. While it has a place in the body of the article, per MOS:FORLANG it is a foreign spelling and I wouldn't say that it is closely related/associated enough or would help an English reader identify the entity in this article/topic. I would encourage info to be added about "Oden" to the body of the article. This is especially needed if the consensus ends up going the other way and it is included in the lead. @ SergeWoodzing and Yngvadottir: Notification — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 06:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( "Oden" irrelevant?. Disagreement about if widely used name should be included in lead. 21:22, 30 January 2015 UTC): |
I have taken a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on
Odin and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The
third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. I'm going to take a position purely based on Wikipedia guidelines. While it may trend closer to one of your opinions, I wouldn't say it particularly takes either side. This is how I'd suggest editing the first paragraph- This is a good sentence and contains some info only currently in the lead, and I think parts (especially the parts not already in the body) of it should be dispersed to more appropriate sections for it in the body of the article (perhaps Etymology or Eponymy).- Overall I don't think any of the information I suggested to remove/move from the lead (or any other names for that matter) benefits the average reader in that position, is notable enough, or qualifies to be there per
MOS:LEADALT#Separate section usage because there are too many to be included in the lead. They would be better suited in other sections of the article not the lead. |
References
I would like to point out that this article has been flagged for a rewrite for a long time (since 2012) and it certainly still needs one. The ongoing rewrite handles matters of etymology and eponymy much more extensively.
On the new article, there's certainly room for us to discuss sound change through the medieval period in regions where this occurred with the theonym, like Sweden. There are some interesting things that can be said about Oden being used as a synonym for 'the devil' during the medieval period, for example. However, I don't think every form of the name should be in the lead. I think it makes more sense to keep the names in the lead restricted to their earliest attested forms in the respected regions where the attestations appear, including Old Norse. :bloodofox: ( talk) 04:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Óðin is a name from Óðreri, that is the first drink that he drank from Gunnlöð. The name Óður is not related to the word furry, but it is related to words on worship by resiting praise and such. see: http://asatru.is/troll-jotnar-hrimthursar-dvergar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.121.185 ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I have now launched the ongoing rewrite of the Odin article(s) into the live space. This talk page was getting a lot of traffic over issues that the new article either solves or can solve, and I therefore figured it was time to finally make where we're on the rewrite live. Like the rewrites that I produced for Thor, Freyja, valkyrie and many of the other Germanic mythology articles on Wikipedia, this new article is based on Good Article criteria and thus every claim is referenced to an academic source and presented in a neutral manner. This is a crucial article for understanding Germanic mythology and should continue to expand exponentially. The previous article was full of poorly referenced original research with unfortunate referencing practices (where references existed at all).
Strangely, there also existed two other articles covering the god that were nearly duplicates of one another, one consisting almost entirely of an extensively discussion regarding the etymology of the theonym. However, this situation is now resolved as those topics can be found here as well. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this article trying to set a WP record for the greatest amount of name varieties in bold type in it's lede? Look ridiculous to me. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: As it cost me nothing to provide an opinion, I will respond. I see the bold in the lede as being used consistently, and thus it looks acceptable; however, to improve it a section of alternate names for Odin could be used. The only real issue I see in the lede is that it is far too large to be concise. Consider taking some of the detail out of the lede, and the bolding could be reduced without negative impact. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be no mention of which eye Odin sacrifices to drink the Water of Wisdom. I was taught that it was his RIGHT eye. Can anybody shed some light on this? ÆsatruBard ( talk) 14:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The article says:
Does anyone know where to find more on this at Wikipedia? I found this website, bit I'd like to know more. Somebody can help me here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The text body currently features the observation "Vendel era helmet plates (from the 6th or 7th century) found in grave in Sweden depict a helmeted figure holding a spear and a shield while riding a horse, flanked by two birds. The plate has been interpreted as Odin accompanied by two birds; his ravens." This is illustrated with an image of one such plate with a neutral description. However, this edit was recently made that positively identifies the image as Odin and his accompanying animal companions: [1]. While some scholars have interpreted this object as Odin and his ravens, it's possible that depicts something else altogether. As a result, we need to keep the description completely neutral, as we do anything else. I've reverted this but it was reverted back by the same user: [2]. I'll be reverting it once again after 24 hours (I maintain 1 RR restriction) without further discussion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Who decided that Orel should be the qualifier for what names to include in the lead? It was probably an attempt to keep the list from getting out of hand, but doing so at random isn't a solution. The Manual of Style is pretty clear about this anyhow:
"Óðinn" is the only bold alternative name that should be included in the lead. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 10:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
How is she supposed to be a "poor source"? Music314812813478 ( talk) 05:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In the Archeological Record section, the following statement is not encyclopedic: " ...and it does not seem unreasonable to connect with Odin in..." It is not our place to give this opinion. I'm not sure, though, what we should say in its place. While we are at it the word used earlier in the section "modernly" is not really a word in English, but again I am not sure what to say.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 14:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that in this old version the article was first written in British English ("grey", "artefact"). Per MOS:RETAIN it ought to have been left in that version unless there was a good reason to change it. Was there? At the moment the article contains both versions, which is unsatisfactory. If there was no objection here I would standardise it on UK English. -- John ( talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Colonestarrice:, what's with insisting on repeatedly inserting this this ungrammatical edit? And why are you holding up the German and French "versions" of this article as some kind of example? They're both terrible. Additionally, you bring up List of names of Odin, which is also horrible. It needs a total rewrite to bring it up to standard (compare the far superior list of valkyries and list of names of Freyja).
This article's lead is already plenty long, and adding discussion about the scholastic discourse around sources referring to Odin as all father only draws it other further. Eventually, we'll need a section in the body discussing why difference sources describe Odin as they do, but in the mean time these edits are the opposite of helpful. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Searching this title, it appears to be cited 54 times on Wikipedia right now. This widespread usage made me initially assume it would be a reliable source, but I came across something in this 2008 book which raises strange claims about Odin which are not reflected in this article. From https://books.google.ca/books?id=2pw-CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA248
Have any publications espoused views like this prior to David F. Greenberg? I hadn't heard of them until now. Has anyone published criticisms of these assertions? Or agreements? I'm wondering if it is a controversy of any notability. I have no idea what "myths" Greenberg is referring to here. Are there any disputes about how to translate the meanings of certain phrases related to this? The claim about "corpses hanging from the gallows" and what Odin did in relation to them seems like something which might not be accepted by certain Odinists. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 06:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think every manifestation of Wōdanaz should be lumped together under the name "Odin". There's a huge misconception in the public mind that Norse mythology is a standalone thing, rather than a branch of a larger Germanic mythology. This misconception is so prevalent that often when people encounter instances of non-Norse Germanic paganism, they immediately assume it must somehow trace back to the Norse. One example of this is how so many websites out there claim the English days of the week are named after "Viking gods". Wikipedia should help fight this ignorance, not perpetuate it. An encyclopedia should not trade accuracy and informativeness for a tiny bit of convenience.
The solution is simple: whenever this article strays from the Norse version of Wōdanaz, it should use culture-appropriate names, and let the reader know the article has temporarily left the realm of Norse mythology and stepped into a sister mythology. It's a little bit of work, but goes a long way towards untangling a persistent misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blodcyning ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I fail to understand your problems with adding the deity infobox. I think they're pretty useful and I don't agree with your reasoning that they're misleading or inadequate to Norse mythology articles. They provide a quick and concise review of the main information that's sometimes hard to find within the article. That's a problem specially with the Norse mythology articles, that are some of the hardest mythology articles to read (I'm an historian, I know what I'm talking about) and often fail to mention information. For example, not all of Odin's children are mentioned in the article, which is good data to help people investigate further. Also the reductionism argument doesn't hold. The "complexity" of Norse deities can be applied to any mythological deity of some importance, at least within the European/Mediterranean world. It's not an unique feature of Norse gods.
Infoboxes are an useful tool. They are not the article and they don't reduce its quality. On the contrary, they provide basic useful information in an standardized manner. They don't prevent people from reading the article. They help people to see if the article is useful for them to read or not. There is a reason mythology pages use them, apart from creating consistency. I think the issue should be reconsidered. Flordeneu ( talk) 16:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I put the infobox back. I was responding to the lack of consensus. The box should not be removed until consensus is reached. That is the expected behavior. I came to the conversation as a disinterested editor. That was my judgement. Hash it out then edit. Instead my revert was reverted. That is not the expected behavior. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
So, I see the way of reaching consensus here is saying nothing? Great strategy. Flordeneu ( talk) 03:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a consensus here to cleanup the mixed reference style? We are very close to a clean short-footnote and source style. There are a few full inline citations mixed in. There is also one source that is not the target of a short-footnote.
What say you all? What is the style for this article? —¿philoserf? ( talk) 12:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is there no discussion of Odin's status in the article?
Granted that in ancient Germanic religion it is debatable whether Wuodan was seen as some kind of leader of the gods, he does seem to be presented as such in the Icelandic Eddas, and he is inarguably, invariably presented as such in modern adaptations. When non-scholars read the name "Odin", I would bet most of them think "king of the gods" before they think "ravens" or "eight-legged horse" or "self-sacrifice" or even "one-eyed".
If this is not, in fact, accurate, not mentioning it in this article will do nothing to correct the error. This article (like many mythology-themed articles, I'm sorry to say) is a deluge of minute detail that swamps the non-scholarly reader's comprehension of the main points.
As a general rule, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be aimed at audiences one educational level below the audience that would be learning about them in class. Thus, Wikipedia articles on doctorate-level subjects should be aimed at postgraduates; Wikipedia articles on undergraduate-level subjects should be aimed at high school students.
I'm sure there are many fine points of Odin scholarship that go up to doctorate level and beyond. However, Odin as a mythological figure is, at highest, introduced to students at undergraduate level.
— VeryRarelyStable 05:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I have done my own research among all pantheons of all religions, which is simmilar to the effort done in the Proto-Indo-European mythology page. And judging by common relationships across all pantheons and cultures (encompassing far more than just proto-indo-european) I safely conclude that Odin/Wotan is Satan, the god commonly associated with Saturn, who killed/castrated his father Uranus. This explains why Wotan is one-eyed, because Saturn has only one eye, in the huge vortex that dwells in its South Pole. Unfortunately, whereas Wikipedia has an article about Saturn's hexagon, it still lacks one about the Eye of Saturn, so I'll leave a link to NASA. 88.5.104.157 ( talk) 18:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wotan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8#Wotan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thespündragon 05:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Note: Shaw's ideas and whether to cover them have had previous discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples#Removal of_discussion of Shaw's challenge to Odin/Woden cognate assumption. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC))
As per :@ Berig:'s request that I establish WP:Note for Philip A. Shaw's arguments in Uses of Wodan to justify discussion of them, here, and thereby justify restoration of my proposed edits to the article drawing upon this work. The hypothesis has been used, engaged with, and discussed in the following WP:RS, from peer-reviewed academic specialists across a range of disciplines:
Doyle White 2014, an explicit taking up and extension of Shaw's arguments to the goddess Frigg.
Harland 2019, who uses Shaw's hypothesis as part of his argument to dispute 'Germanic' interpretations of early medieval material culture and to dispute the identification of early medieval bracteates as representing Odin.
Harland 2021, p. 185, which uses Shaw's hypothesis to state, It is extremely unlikely that Wodan/Oðinn can be reliably associated with one another, or that such a deity was worshipped by cults in Anglo-Saxon England before the eighth century,
as part of a broader argument rejecting that we should assume Germanic myths took the same form in late antiquity as in later early medieval high medieval evidence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.2.88.124 (
talk) 23:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Neidorf 2022, who regarded the argument's separation of Wodan from Odinn as sufficiently scholarly and potentially challenging to his analysis of the appearance of Woden in Widsith as to require immediately addressing in the article.
Borri 2018, who describes Shaw's thesis as the 'best survey on the topic' of Woden's earliest appearance in narrative sources (p. 1), and then proceeds to explicitly use and build upon Shaw's hypothesis to consider how this extremely early appearance of Woden in a late antique literary context functioned.
Traves 2022, who much like Borri treats Shaw as the best available survey on Woden's appearance in Anglo-Saxon England
Broome 2020 makes an assessment of Borri 2018's use of Shaw's hypothesis, and the presence of Woden in Jonas of Bobbio's Vita Columbani more generally, Says (drawing on Shaw's work):
Borri hints that he believes the Alamanni actually did worship a deity called Woden, which was Shaw's assessment: Woden/Wodan was originally an Alamannic and Lombard got later adopted as an ancestor by various Anglo-Saxon royal families, and later still conflated with the Norse Oðinn. While Jonas's may be our first reference... ...what he almost certainly was not referring to was the one-eyed All-Father accompanied by two ravens and riding an eight-legged horse of later medieval mythology
Though this theory is hardly deployed or accepted by every Germanic philologist, there thus seems to be sufficient peer-reviewed uptake of, engagement with, and consideration of it from scholars of late antique and early medieval history, philology, and archaeology, and their uses of it seem by and large to involve a positive assessment of its quality, this being the case even in the one instance where the work was not agreed with. 78.43.197.76 ( talk) 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a reference to Peter Vang Petersen in the text, but there is no source title in the footnote. How can we fix this? Creedweber ( talk) 03:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
is the translation of Odin really "the lord of madness"? I think it only means "the mad one". Where does "lord" come from? Carlberyeur ( talk) 23:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no mention in this article that Odin/Wednesday is a main character in “American Gods”, a book by Neil Gaiman and a tv series Ebond750 ( talk) 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no mention in this article that Odin/Wednesday is a main character in American Gods, a book by Neil Gaiman and a tv Ebond750 ( talk) 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding mention of earliest written attestation of Odin as Wōthnaz, which in the genitive form is Woðnas from Vindelev bracteate X13. Monroecodex ( talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect W.O.T.A.N. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § W.O.T.A.N. until a consensus is reached. TNstingray ( talk) 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Odin is referred to as "Wotan" in the Adam of Bremen section of this article. Even the latin text has been changed to reflect this, saying "Wotan id est furor" But in the original work Adam states: "Alter Wodan, id est furor". I think the use of "Wotan" is inappropriate here and should be changed to "Wodan" at least in the latin part and Wodan/Odin in the english one. Ediable ( talk) 13:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The contents of the Wotan (Odin) page were merged into Odin. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (9 February 2004) |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Wagner did not 'invent' this spelling - it is attested in the Latin of Paulus Diaconus' History of the Langobards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raschau ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit (the citation does not work, but I expect that will be fixed soon so I will let that rest). I am a bit befuddled by the edit comment "Superfluous as it is common knowledge". Is it common knowledge that a bier or coffin is carried by four persons? My guess would have been that the number of men needed to carry such an object would vary depending on size. But my main problem is what this statement is that you fail to provide any explanation why this information is relevant, or who it is that have proposed an interpretation that Sleipnir symbolises four men carrying a bier. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Final Fantasy is a high-profile series of computer games, and so I think it's a reasonable thing to link to here under the modern culture heading. But what does it mean that Odin is a "recurring summon" in the game? The noun is actually "a summons", but even so it doesn't make much sense. Could someone clarify with a few words what role Odin plays in the games? Can the player summon him? What for? Martin Rundkvist ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The role of Odin in the Final Fantasy series is to work as a mystical force, mainly called a summon. You can summon him in a fight to deal additional damage or even kill your enemies instantly. It depends on the number of the series what you can do. For example in FFVIII you can't summon Odin on command, it happens randomly but when it does, he kills instantly. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.244.33.47 (
talk) 17:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES. NO WAIT DON'T. THIS ISN'T THE PLACE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.38.196 ( talk) 10:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"In the compound Wednesday, the first member is cognate to the genitive Odin's."
Could someone rewrite the first paragraph so that it makes some sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.225.163 ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I second this. This is vague at best and highly esoteric at worst. -- DanielRenfro ( talk) 04:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Another rewrite needed for clarity: 'His name is related to ōðr, meaning "fury, excitation", besides "mind", or "poetry".'
By "besides" I'm guessing someone meant "in addition to", but it parses oddly. --
hexalm
The statements associating Odin and Mercury are confusing, and in particular the statement that Tacitus was likely referring to Odin when writing of Mercury is especially confusing. Is this claiming that Odin is based on/evolved out of the Roman god Mercury? And, it seems a bit odd to claim Tacitus was writing about Odin when he uses "Mercury." Does this mean to say that in discussing Germanic gods, Tacitus imposes the name "Mercury" on Odin because he interprets the similarities of the gods as being the result of the Germanic tribes worshiping Mercury under a different name? Otherwise, why would we suppose he is referring to Odin, when Mercury is a well-established Roman god in large part based on a Greek antecedent (Hermes)? I'm not (necessarily) doubting that good, scholarly sources have established (or at least argue) that there is a connection between Mercury and Odin, but this connection could be much more clearly established in the article. As is, it is so confusing and vague as to be unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.217.208 ( talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The lengthy section under the heading Prose Edda before the heading "Prologue" appears to be misplaced. It's a broad description of Odin's attributes with little reference to the Prose Edda and some reference to other literary and archaeological sources. It either needs to be trimmed or moved. -- Simon Peter Hughes ( talk) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that slavery was practised in 9th century Sweden (and presumably elsewhere in Northern Europe at that time), and that male slaves were sacrificed on trees (compare this practice to the sacrifice of males and male slaves on trees in Benin http://www.edo-nation.net/expedition7.htm - although this Victorian photo describes the victim as a criminal, the method was also described by the Portuguese who made first contact in the 11th century. They observed males and slaves being sacrificed in the same manner.) However, my query relates to the phrase "Male slaves and males of each species were sacrificed and hung from the branches of the trees."
Could the author please clarify what is meant by 'males of each species'? Is this referring to men of the local tribe and the male slaves taken from other local tribes, or to males from aboriginals taken from the taiga (or elsewhere) as well?
In the Benin case, the sacrifices related to the use of blood and the offering of flesh to the air spirits of the Otherworld as a means for the priest-king (the Oba) to gain the power to communicate with the Otherworld and to then draw down power from it for the benefit of himself and his people. It seems likely that the practice initially obliged the sacrifice of tribal members, but later shifted to slaves and transgressors - much as was the case with South American tribes of the same period. I conjecture that in all these cases, the situation paralleled that of king Aun's sons. Once the priests had sacrificed a critical mass of tribesmen - who doubtless went willingly in a noble cause - they were stopped by the tribespeople and an alternative source of victims was sought. Slaves taken from neighbouring tribes was the solution - no need to expend members of the god's chosen/created people when non-chosen/created and therefore non-human people were on hand, and clearly put there in readiness for such a purpose. In the case of the blot, which I assume means blood, I was wondering if one of the neighbouring Swedish tribes also happened to be aboriginals. Furthering thought ( talk) 07:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't Odin also have a giant pig? Does anybody know the name of the pig? AT Kunene ( talk) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed there was a pig called "Sæhrimner", though it did not belong to Odin in particular. Sæhrimner stood in a giantic cauldron full of boiling water, and when meat called "flæsk" was needed, it was simply cut off from it. >Luckily sæhrimner had the ability to regrow itself in a matter of mere seconds. Another particular pig is "Gyldenbørste". It's hair was made of the finest gold, and it shone like a second sun.
94.191.184.115 ( talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)DukeJuke
Regarding this semi-fringe myth, a book by one Phyllis Siefker which poses the claim that Odin is the origin of the modern Santa Claus myth is being paraphrased in the following way: "According to Phyllis Siefker, children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw, or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Odin would then reward those children for their kindness by replacing Sleipnir's food with gifts or candy."
I don't have access to the book in question, but is this an accurate wording? Besides the obvious questionable claims about apparently rather detailed knowledge of the activities of children during the Viking Age, I am rather sure that Norse houses at that time did not have chimneys, and the carrot wasn't introduced in Scandinavia until the 1500s, and there weren't sugar either. So the question remains whether this is an accurate paraphrasing, and if it is, does a book containing such claims really qualify as a reliable source? -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, Wednesday isn't named after Odin, but rather after Woden, an Anglo-Saxon god. Both descend from the Germanic god Wodanaz, so the names are cognate, but they are distinct. Saying Wednesday is named after Woden is like saying the planet Jupiter is named after Zeus. Again, the names are cognate, but they have a distinct history.
To say the days of the week are named after Norse gods is wrong, as this states the names were taken from the names the Norsemen used for their gods, rather than from the names the Anglo-Saxons used for their gods.
98.246.211.17 ( talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thursday, however, is named after Thor, a norse god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.239.253.217 ( talk) 13:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
H. A. Guerber, in his book Myths of the Norsemen; from the Eddas and Sagas, makes the suggestion that Saturday could be derived from Saturaæ, or Loki-Saturæ, the thief in ambush, one of Loki's many aspects and a patron of poor peasants. (Robin Hood?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÆsatruBard ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In recent weeks, I've made minor changes or additions to other Wiki articles, and some of them have been undone because those that are monitoring the pages felt they weren't needed or didn't fit the bill, even though they did. So before I take it upon myself to just add an addition to this particular section referenced above, I thought I'd check here first so as to not step on any toes. It should probably be noted that Odin was also featured in at least two episodes of Disney's Gargoyles, both of the episodes occurring during season two. The first being Season 2, Episode 36 Eye of the Storm, and the episode description actually links back to this article on Odin. The second one is Season 2, Episode 44 The Gathering (Part 1). Odin makes a brief appearance in episode 44 at the beginning, but is primarily featured in episode 36 when he comes upon the main character Goliath, to reclaim his eye which Goliath has. Goliath dons the "Eye of Odin" talisman to prevent the stranger from obtaining it, and struggles with its immense power. Aidensdaddy2k9 ( talk) 04:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Because he has been featured in other media. Aidensdaddy2k9 ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have re-reverted the addition of an infobox to this article. Infoboxes are misleading in articles about Norse deities, because they oversimplify, and that is especially true of Óðinn, whose huge number of names indicates his complexity. His "function" has been debated by scholars for generations and cannot be summed up as if he were a Christian saint of three or four things. Even his family relationships are debatable and complex. Yngvadottir ( talk) 05:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I reopened this topic, when I created new infobox for the article, because of course in other articles about deities are placed infoboxes, but there is a mysterious person named Bloodofox, which evidently thinks, that he is boss here and he decided, that infobox is unhelpful and he completely removed it. Evidently he obviously believes that a much better solution for the beginning of the article is only a one simple picture of a romantic 19th century painter, it is really ridiculous, surely many articles like Krishna and Vishnu have placed helpful infoboxes with mythological data, very helpful. I thinks, that he is only troll vandalising the work of others and often sabotages the development of articles, because it is far easier for him to delete than to something create. I think I'm not the only one. Dragovit ( talk) 17:15, 17 september 2017 (UTC)
Один (Russian) = Eдин (Bulgarian) = Единствен бог = 1 = The Only God? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 ( talk) 21:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I cannot understand why it would be irrelevant to add his Swedish name Oden to the top of the article. Wouldn't it be to withhold information from our readers to exclude a name used for many streets and squares and other public places in Sweden, the land of this character's probable origin? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Third Opinion- *UPDATE*: It was brought to my attention that my views about "Oden" Specifically was unclear to at least one party. "(or any other names for that matter)" was meant to clarify my position on that. I'll make my position on that specific issue clear right here. I don't believe "Oden" should be included in the lead. While it has a place in the body of the article, per MOS:FORLANG it is a foreign spelling and I wouldn't say that it is closely related/associated enough or would help an English reader identify the entity in this article/topic. I would encourage info to be added about "Oden" to the body of the article. This is especially needed if the consensus ends up going the other way and it is included in the lead. @ SergeWoodzing and Yngvadottir: Notification — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 06:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( "Oden" irrelevant?. Disagreement about if widely used name should be included in lead. 21:22, 30 January 2015 UTC): |
I have taken a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on
Odin and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The
third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. I'm going to take a position purely based on Wikipedia guidelines. While it may trend closer to one of your opinions, I wouldn't say it particularly takes either side. This is how I'd suggest editing the first paragraph- This is a good sentence and contains some info only currently in the lead, and I think parts (especially the parts not already in the body) of it should be dispersed to more appropriate sections for it in the body of the article (perhaps Etymology or Eponymy).- Overall I don't think any of the information I suggested to remove/move from the lead (or any other names for that matter) benefits the average reader in that position, is notable enough, or qualifies to be there per
MOS:LEADALT#Separate section usage because there are too many to be included in the lead. They would be better suited in other sections of the article not the lead. |
References
I would like to point out that this article has been flagged for a rewrite for a long time (since 2012) and it certainly still needs one. The ongoing rewrite handles matters of etymology and eponymy much more extensively.
On the new article, there's certainly room for us to discuss sound change through the medieval period in regions where this occurred with the theonym, like Sweden. There are some interesting things that can be said about Oden being used as a synonym for 'the devil' during the medieval period, for example. However, I don't think every form of the name should be in the lead. I think it makes more sense to keep the names in the lead restricted to their earliest attested forms in the respected regions where the attestations appear, including Old Norse. :bloodofox: ( talk) 04:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Óðin is a name from Óðreri, that is the first drink that he drank from Gunnlöð. The name Óður is not related to the word furry, but it is related to words on worship by resiting praise and such. see: http://asatru.is/troll-jotnar-hrimthursar-dvergar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.121.185 ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I have now launched the ongoing rewrite of the Odin article(s) into the live space. This talk page was getting a lot of traffic over issues that the new article either solves or can solve, and I therefore figured it was time to finally make where we're on the rewrite live. Like the rewrites that I produced for Thor, Freyja, valkyrie and many of the other Germanic mythology articles on Wikipedia, this new article is based on Good Article criteria and thus every claim is referenced to an academic source and presented in a neutral manner. This is a crucial article for understanding Germanic mythology and should continue to expand exponentially. The previous article was full of poorly referenced original research with unfortunate referencing practices (where references existed at all).
Strangely, there also existed two other articles covering the god that were nearly duplicates of one another, one consisting almost entirely of an extensively discussion regarding the etymology of the theonym. However, this situation is now resolved as those topics can be found here as well. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this article trying to set a WP record for the greatest amount of name varieties in bold type in it's lede? Look ridiculous to me. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: As it cost me nothing to provide an opinion, I will respond. I see the bold in the lede as being used consistently, and thus it looks acceptable; however, to improve it a section of alternate names for Odin could be used. The only real issue I see in the lede is that it is far too large to be concise. Consider taking some of the detail out of the lede, and the bolding could be reduced without negative impact. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be no mention of which eye Odin sacrifices to drink the Water of Wisdom. I was taught that it was his RIGHT eye. Can anybody shed some light on this? ÆsatruBard ( talk) 14:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The article says:
Does anyone know where to find more on this at Wikipedia? I found this website, bit I'd like to know more. Somebody can help me here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The text body currently features the observation "Vendel era helmet plates (from the 6th or 7th century) found in grave in Sweden depict a helmeted figure holding a spear and a shield while riding a horse, flanked by two birds. The plate has been interpreted as Odin accompanied by two birds; his ravens." This is illustrated with an image of one such plate with a neutral description. However, this edit was recently made that positively identifies the image as Odin and his accompanying animal companions: [1]. While some scholars have interpreted this object as Odin and his ravens, it's possible that depicts something else altogether. As a result, we need to keep the description completely neutral, as we do anything else. I've reverted this but it was reverted back by the same user: [2]. I'll be reverting it once again after 24 hours (I maintain 1 RR restriction) without further discussion. :bloodofox: ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Who decided that Orel should be the qualifier for what names to include in the lead? It was probably an attempt to keep the list from getting out of hand, but doing so at random isn't a solution. The Manual of Style is pretty clear about this anyhow:
"Óðinn" is the only bold alternative name that should be included in the lead. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 10:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
How is she supposed to be a "poor source"? Music314812813478 ( talk) 05:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In the Archeological Record section, the following statement is not encyclopedic: " ...and it does not seem unreasonable to connect with Odin in..." It is not our place to give this opinion. I'm not sure, though, what we should say in its place. While we are at it the word used earlier in the section "modernly" is not really a word in English, but again I am not sure what to say.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 14:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that in this old version the article was first written in British English ("grey", "artefact"). Per MOS:RETAIN it ought to have been left in that version unless there was a good reason to change it. Was there? At the moment the article contains both versions, which is unsatisfactory. If there was no objection here I would standardise it on UK English. -- John ( talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Colonestarrice:, what's with insisting on repeatedly inserting this this ungrammatical edit? And why are you holding up the German and French "versions" of this article as some kind of example? They're both terrible. Additionally, you bring up List of names of Odin, which is also horrible. It needs a total rewrite to bring it up to standard (compare the far superior list of valkyries and list of names of Freyja).
This article's lead is already plenty long, and adding discussion about the scholastic discourse around sources referring to Odin as all father only draws it other further. Eventually, we'll need a section in the body discussing why difference sources describe Odin as they do, but in the mean time these edits are the opposite of helpful. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Searching this title, it appears to be cited 54 times on Wikipedia right now. This widespread usage made me initially assume it would be a reliable source, but I came across something in this 2008 book which raises strange claims about Odin which are not reflected in this article. From https://books.google.ca/books?id=2pw-CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA248
Have any publications espoused views like this prior to David F. Greenberg? I hadn't heard of them until now. Has anyone published criticisms of these assertions? Or agreements? I'm wondering if it is a controversy of any notability. I have no idea what "myths" Greenberg is referring to here. Are there any disputes about how to translate the meanings of certain phrases related to this? The claim about "corpses hanging from the gallows" and what Odin did in relation to them seems like something which might not be accepted by certain Odinists. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 06:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think every manifestation of Wōdanaz should be lumped together under the name "Odin". There's a huge misconception in the public mind that Norse mythology is a standalone thing, rather than a branch of a larger Germanic mythology. This misconception is so prevalent that often when people encounter instances of non-Norse Germanic paganism, they immediately assume it must somehow trace back to the Norse. One example of this is how so many websites out there claim the English days of the week are named after "Viking gods". Wikipedia should help fight this ignorance, not perpetuate it. An encyclopedia should not trade accuracy and informativeness for a tiny bit of convenience.
The solution is simple: whenever this article strays from the Norse version of Wōdanaz, it should use culture-appropriate names, and let the reader know the article has temporarily left the realm of Norse mythology and stepped into a sister mythology. It's a little bit of work, but goes a long way towards untangling a persistent misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blodcyning ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I fail to understand your problems with adding the deity infobox. I think they're pretty useful and I don't agree with your reasoning that they're misleading or inadequate to Norse mythology articles. They provide a quick and concise review of the main information that's sometimes hard to find within the article. That's a problem specially with the Norse mythology articles, that are some of the hardest mythology articles to read (I'm an historian, I know what I'm talking about) and often fail to mention information. For example, not all of Odin's children are mentioned in the article, which is good data to help people investigate further. Also the reductionism argument doesn't hold. The "complexity" of Norse deities can be applied to any mythological deity of some importance, at least within the European/Mediterranean world. It's not an unique feature of Norse gods.
Infoboxes are an useful tool. They are not the article and they don't reduce its quality. On the contrary, they provide basic useful information in an standardized manner. They don't prevent people from reading the article. They help people to see if the article is useful for them to read or not. There is a reason mythology pages use them, apart from creating consistency. I think the issue should be reconsidered. Flordeneu ( talk) 16:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I put the infobox back. I was responding to the lack of consensus. The box should not be removed until consensus is reached. That is the expected behavior. I came to the conversation as a disinterested editor. That was my judgement. Hash it out then edit. Instead my revert was reverted. That is not the expected behavior. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
So, I see the way of reaching consensus here is saying nothing? Great strategy. Flordeneu ( talk) 03:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a consensus here to cleanup the mixed reference style? We are very close to a clean short-footnote and source style. There are a few full inline citations mixed in. There is also one source that is not the target of a short-footnote.
What say you all? What is the style for this article? —¿philoserf? ( talk) 12:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is there no discussion of Odin's status in the article?
Granted that in ancient Germanic religion it is debatable whether Wuodan was seen as some kind of leader of the gods, he does seem to be presented as such in the Icelandic Eddas, and he is inarguably, invariably presented as such in modern adaptations. When non-scholars read the name "Odin", I would bet most of them think "king of the gods" before they think "ravens" or "eight-legged horse" or "self-sacrifice" or even "one-eyed".
If this is not, in fact, accurate, not mentioning it in this article will do nothing to correct the error. This article (like many mythology-themed articles, I'm sorry to say) is a deluge of minute detail that swamps the non-scholarly reader's comprehension of the main points.
As a general rule, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be aimed at audiences one educational level below the audience that would be learning about them in class. Thus, Wikipedia articles on doctorate-level subjects should be aimed at postgraduates; Wikipedia articles on undergraduate-level subjects should be aimed at high school students.
I'm sure there are many fine points of Odin scholarship that go up to doctorate level and beyond. However, Odin as a mythological figure is, at highest, introduced to students at undergraduate level.
— VeryRarelyStable 05:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I have done my own research among all pantheons of all religions, which is simmilar to the effort done in the Proto-Indo-European mythology page. And judging by common relationships across all pantheons and cultures (encompassing far more than just proto-indo-european) I safely conclude that Odin/Wotan is Satan, the god commonly associated with Saturn, who killed/castrated his father Uranus. This explains why Wotan is one-eyed, because Saturn has only one eye, in the huge vortex that dwells in its South Pole. Unfortunately, whereas Wikipedia has an article about Saturn's hexagon, it still lacks one about the Eye of Saturn, so I'll leave a link to NASA. 88.5.104.157 ( talk) 18:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wotan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8#Wotan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thespündragon 05:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Note: Shaw's ideas and whether to cover them have had previous discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples#Removal of_discussion of Shaw's challenge to Odin/Woden cognate assumption. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC))
As per :@ Berig:'s request that I establish WP:Note for Philip A. Shaw's arguments in Uses of Wodan to justify discussion of them, here, and thereby justify restoration of my proposed edits to the article drawing upon this work. The hypothesis has been used, engaged with, and discussed in the following WP:RS, from peer-reviewed academic specialists across a range of disciplines:
Doyle White 2014, an explicit taking up and extension of Shaw's arguments to the goddess Frigg.
Harland 2019, who uses Shaw's hypothesis as part of his argument to dispute 'Germanic' interpretations of early medieval material culture and to dispute the identification of early medieval bracteates as representing Odin.
Harland 2021, p. 185, which uses Shaw's hypothesis to state, It is extremely unlikely that Wodan/Oðinn can be reliably associated with one another, or that such a deity was worshipped by cults in Anglo-Saxon England before the eighth century,
as part of a broader argument rejecting that we should assume Germanic myths took the same form in late antiquity as in later early medieval high medieval evidence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.2.88.124 (
talk) 23:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Neidorf 2022, who regarded the argument's separation of Wodan from Odinn as sufficiently scholarly and potentially challenging to his analysis of the appearance of Woden in Widsith as to require immediately addressing in the article.
Borri 2018, who describes Shaw's thesis as the 'best survey on the topic' of Woden's earliest appearance in narrative sources (p. 1), and then proceeds to explicitly use and build upon Shaw's hypothesis to consider how this extremely early appearance of Woden in a late antique literary context functioned.
Traves 2022, who much like Borri treats Shaw as the best available survey on Woden's appearance in Anglo-Saxon England
Broome 2020 makes an assessment of Borri 2018's use of Shaw's hypothesis, and the presence of Woden in Jonas of Bobbio's Vita Columbani more generally, Says (drawing on Shaw's work):
Borri hints that he believes the Alamanni actually did worship a deity called Woden, which was Shaw's assessment: Woden/Wodan was originally an Alamannic and Lombard got later adopted as an ancestor by various Anglo-Saxon royal families, and later still conflated with the Norse Oðinn. While Jonas's may be our first reference... ...what he almost certainly was not referring to was the one-eyed All-Father accompanied by two ravens and riding an eight-legged horse of later medieval mythology
Though this theory is hardly deployed or accepted by every Germanic philologist, there thus seems to be sufficient peer-reviewed uptake of, engagement with, and consideration of it from scholars of late antique and early medieval history, philology, and archaeology, and their uses of it seem by and large to involve a positive assessment of its quality, this being the case even in the one instance where the work was not agreed with. 78.43.197.76 ( talk) 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a reference to Peter Vang Petersen in the text, but there is no source title in the footnote. How can we fix this? Creedweber ( talk) 03:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
is the translation of Odin really "the lord of madness"? I think it only means "the mad one". Where does "lord" come from? Carlberyeur ( talk) 23:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no mention in this article that Odin/Wednesday is a main character in “American Gods”, a book by Neil Gaiman and a tv series Ebond750 ( talk) 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no mention in this article that Odin/Wednesday is a main character in American Gods, a book by Neil Gaiman and a tv Ebond750 ( talk) 19:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding mention of earliest written attestation of Odin as Wōthnaz, which in the genitive form is Woðnas from Vindelev bracteate X13. Monroecodex ( talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect W.O.T.A.N. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § W.O.T.A.N. until a consensus is reached. TNstingray ( talk) 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Odin is referred to as "Wotan" in the Adam of Bremen section of this article. Even the latin text has been changed to reflect this, saying "Wotan id est furor" But in the original work Adam states: "Alter Wodan, id est furor". I think the use of "Wotan" is inappropriate here and should be changed to "Wodan" at least in the latin part and Wodan/Odin in the english one. Ediable ( talk) 13:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)