Talk:Vanir

References

I see more discussions about Vanic tribe history/prehistory here, saying they did not fight with each other, and implying they were non-Indo European. I'd like to have a few more references for these rather definite statements. I wonder whether there is a consensus view amongst historians about this though. Martijn faassen 22:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't delete it on this page, but I do think it should be described as a theory, and I'd like to see some references to the literature on this. Right now this is a statement as fact, and I do not believe this has such a status amongst the consensus of historians. Please supply evidence for a strong consensus when adding any theories about mostly-prehistorical developments. Martijn faassen 22:43, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. However, if the Vanir/Aesir theory is an amalgation by you only then it does not belong on wikipedia (See Wikipedia:No_original_research). I'm highly doubtful there is enough consensus about this to state it as fact; if so this would be the theory on a prehistorical people I've seen that can be treated this way. If this is a popular theory referenced in many works, then this should be specified and referenced, and contrasted with competing theories. Right now you act as if everybody knows the Germanic tribes are descendant from a hybrid Vanir/Aesir people that lived on the shores of the Vanern in Sweden. If this is not your original research but a popular theory, such a discussion should be confined to one or a few wiki pages, not scattered all over the place as throwaway statements of supposed fact without introduction of terms and background, nor specific references. And if it is your original theory, it does not belong on wikipedia. Martijn faassen 23:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and therefore it is not for publishing original research. If you want to provide your ideas elsewhere go ahead, it's a free internet, but the wikipedia has a clear policy about this which I referenced. If this wikipedia had been produced at the time of Copernicus or Galileo, I'd have asked them to move their assertions elsewhere as well, until a significant portion of the scientific community starts to support them.

This has nothing to do with a positive or negative view of the vikings, and I don't know why you're talking about it in this context. I'm just saying that your Vanir/Aesir theory, if it is a private theory, does not belong on wikipedia. If later on it turns out to have been correct and this is accepted or at least supported by mainstream historians, we'll add it again. Martijn

Someone who has published work, and whose work is known and taken seriously by other mainstream historians. This will likely be the case if the work is backed up by solid evidence and reasoning. The wikipedia is not the venue for publishing original research (see Wikipedia:No_original_research), as it is not intended to be a primary source of new information or theories. I think you are presenting original research as fact. When you back down, you're presenting it as a very well-known theory instead. Both are misleading. This is quite apart from whether your theory is true. Martijn faassen 20:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not." If you must, collate this stuff into an article. Link to this article from the other pages. Don't go and scatter your private theory across wikipedia as if it is fact or a well-known dominant theory. Your private theory on the origins of Germanic speakers may be the truth itself, it is not a well-known theory and needs proper introduction on its own page. When you create such an article, wikipedians can evaluate it and see whether it'll be kept or not. Martijn faassen 21:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've created such a page at Vanir/Aesir theory. Right now it's a mess, but I hope you can improve it. Martijn faassen 22:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Venus

Maybe something should be added about Venus here, Venus and Vanir seems to come from the same IE root, also they seem to share similar mythological traits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.118 (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2004 (UTC)

This was included in the opening paragraph some time ago. --(Mingus ah um 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Loki leading the Vanir?

I reverted this:

It is said that Loki will lead the Vanir once again to war against the Aesir during a time called Ragnarok, when the world is destroyed and a perfect paradise is created thereafter.

I've never come across this in the lore. Also, the war between the Vanir and Aesir (which occurs in the mythological past) is not the same as Ragnarok (which occurs in the future). —Ashley Y 05:01, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

As well as Ragnarok being a war between the Æsir and the Jotun, not the Æsir and the Vanir. 85.226.122.152 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanir or vanir?

I'm posting the same question here as on Talk:Æsir#Æsir or æsir?: should "Vanir" be written with lower or upper case initial? Salleman 4 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

Although it was a good idea to post the question here as well, perhaps it's better to keep the actual discussion in one place. I've replied at Talk:Æsir#Æsir or æsir? Shinobu (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Necessary edit

From the first sentence of the Members section: ...and Freyja, goddess of love and sexuality, who lived among the Æsir at Yggdrasil directly below the Æsir. Did she live among or directly below the Æsir? --(Mingus ah um 04:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Heimdall/Vanirlink

I'm requesting more info from Ashley Y on this, and Ashley has a standing request that people mention article discussions in the article page.

I'm curious to know about the Heimdall/Vanir link. It would be a good thing to expound upon in the article, but I'm asking for my own understnding.

Liastnir 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a proper ref. It's only a possibility, says Davidson, because we don't really know all that much about Heimdall. —Ashley Y 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Parallels

According to this annotaded version of Völuspá:

The cult of the Wanes (Vanir) seems to have originated among the seafaring folk of the Baltic and the southern shores of the North Sea, and to have spread thence into Norway in opposition to the worship of the older gods; hence the "war." Finally the two types of divinities were worshipped in common; hence the treaty which ended the war with the exchange of hostages. Chief among the Wanes were Njorth and his children, Freyr and Freyja, all of whom became conspicuous among the gods. Beyond this we know little of the Wanes, who seem originally to have been water-deities.

This is similar to the Parallels section in the article, although not exactly the same. Shinobu (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It in fact seems to describe about the opposite from the article's Parallels section. This would agree with the text of the Völuspá, in which the Vanir entered and were victorious over the Æsir, but then of course myth is myth and perhaps not to be taken too literally. Shinobu (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Vanir

Maybe, Sif, wife of Thorr,was Van before marriage? What's about another wives of Æsir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The only three figures directly attested as Vanir are Njörðr, Freyja, and Freyr. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond these three direct attestations there is only guesswork. This article will hopefully, by time, give a full coverage of theorized Vanir as well. –Holt T•C 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mythology?

The article is written in a way that seems like it's talking about a real thing; should it be changed to a different point of view to avoid confusion? Kausill (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a general rewrite where all attestations are brought out in detail (which will solve the problem). I've long intended to rewrite this article and bring it up to GA-status, but right now I am working on another rewrite. I'll try to get to this one next. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I've since rewritten the article and am working to bring it up to where it needs to be. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be unkind to Bloodofox, and I appreciate all the work she or he has done, but this article is very poorly written. I've fixed up the syntax a little by replacing "describes that" with "relates that" and "tells that", and "references that" with "mentions that" in a couple of places, but the whole thing reads as if it were written by a high school student. Poor writing style casts the authority of the article into doubt.

More substantively, I would like to see some anthropological and historical information about the probable origins of these legends, the history of the religion, and the culture that produced them.

In response to Kausil, I would note that mythology is a real thing, and that unless one is contending for the superiority of one religion over another, there is no special reason to label ancient legends as mythology. Compare Wikipedia's treatment of the Book of Exodus, which nowhere mentions that the legends recorded in that book are mythological, even though they are wholly so. Jdcrutch (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

While the article may well need copy editing, I'm going to have to ask why you comment that the article "reads as if it were written by a high school student". Exactly what do you want changed? If you're complaining about the Poetic Edda section, I strongly advise that you look at the source material yourself and try your hand at producing a superior version. Secondly, yes, the article currently lacks a 'theory' section. I'm working on it when I have the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vanir are an Old Norse and not an Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European topic

A quick research on the Vanir, as is also stated in the very introduction of this article, will tell that the Vanir are only attested in Old Norse sources. There is trouble even drawing evidence of them among other Germanic cultures. To say they are a broad Indo-European topic or a reflection of "Indo-European X" is plainly wrong and lacking in evidence. There is no mention of the Vanir or parallels, in say, the Paleo-Balkan, Celtic, Greek or Roman religions - from other Indo-European peoples - and because of that, the references to Indo-Europeans and Proto-Indo-Europeans in the article should be replaced by Old Norse and Pre-Germanic. Please provide a case for undoing such editions, or don't undo them for no reason. 187.36.176.42 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Before modifying a source, become familiar with it. Historically, the biggest point of discussion among scholars on this topic is whether the Vanir reflect a pre-Indo-European people encountering an Indo-European people or if the Vanir represent a Germanic extension of Proto-Indo-European myth where the war with the Vanir represents a social charter. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually I consider modifying the message and the intent a referenced source to be unacceptable. There is a reason why a scholar attributes the Vanir to the Indo-European traditions, and changing it to Germanic alters the intention of the author referred to and the context in which he wrote it.--Berig (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem here is ultimately one of misattribution. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then explain why such scholars would attribute that to Indo-European traditions when the very article states that mentions of the Vanir are only verifiably found amongst the Old Norse (being extremely hard to conjecture them even in other Germanic - which are also Indo-European - peoples). Again, where are the Vanir validly found among other Indo-European rooted peoples such as the Celts or the Slavs? The maintenance of such terms because "scholars tend to speculate so" leaves an open contradiction within the article.

There are many outlandish and baseless theories that were ruminated upon for years by scholars and biased academics, but which end up having little to do with reality. I will say this seems to be the case here, and more, that this seems to be a common pattern among "Indo-European studies" - to overextend themselves and make odd conjectures and attempts at find comparative terms in every european tradition that remotely stems from a people who spoke a branch of the Indo-European language families... And there are just so many "Indo-European study-centers and academics that tend to analyse every aspect of culture based on something that is, quite frankly, not that relevant.

If I may add further, much of these speculations are carried on by covertly-racist scholars and pseudo-scholars that found their way into academic circles and who cling to a romanticized stereotyped vision of "pure-race, warlike Aryans" who subjugated other peoples and imposed their "superior" culture over them. "The Vanir? It's obviously a reference of 'darker races' and 'fertility cults' that were subjugated by our Aryan ancestors in their glorious past!". Such ridiculous and baseless theories have circulated among academia since the 19th century and the original proposition of Aryans and the Indo-European language-link, especially in the earlier 20th century, hyperbolized by the romantic 'Aryanism' & related theories and by Orientalist views on India, Sanskrit and Vedic Culture. The fact that they have been 'in circulation' for all these years, don't make them right or add to their truthfulness, especially when these idle speculations contradict the basic evidence provided in a quick glance not just upon the subject, but on the very article itself.

It is leaving an open-contradiction within the article simply because crackpot racist academics have been spitting out delusional fantasies about the subject for many years. The proper approach would be to assert the evidence, and this, I feel, strongly points out against any Indo-European topic. The Vanir are part of the Old Norse mythology. There are no Vanirs in Persia because they spoke a language that stems from the same ancient language-family as the Norse. Sorry if spoke too much on a 3-character change to the article, but I see many such cases... 187.36.176.42 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your motivations for changing the text are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, i.e. the rules here. I fail to see anything in your arguments that will allow you to change anything. Please, consult the following policies before changing anything: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But to say the Vanir are not found among other peoples (Indo-European or not) other than the Old Norse sources is not speculation (in fact, the claim they are related to some broader "Indo-European" concept is speculation), it is not my original research (the reason for the changes is based on facts stated broadly across this article and related ones here on wikipedia) and is not a partial or un-neutral point-of-view (in fact, the lack of neutrality comes from the Indo-European studies proponents, who apply their theories and speculations about Indo-Europeans to nearly everything regardless of pertinence).

Maintaining the plainly non-factual speculation that the Vanir represent a broader Indo-European theme and reflect something in the lines of "darker races which were subjected to an invasion by a warlike Aryan people" is to perpetuate covertly-racist fantasies and theories only because they were circulated and discussed by academia for a long time.

I fail to see how the edits would not be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. That the Vanir are an Old Norse theme is a fact. Please consider this. 187.36.176.42 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This article may help you understand Wikipedia's approach to facts.--Berig (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Indo-European/Pre-Indo-European duality and the subject of the Vanir as fertility gods

Neolithic Europe does not equate to "Pre-Indo-European", the Proto-Indo-European and the ancestors of the Proto-Indo-Europeans were also part of Neolithic Europe. Using such dual terms Indo-European/Pre-Indo-European may induce the fallacy of basing the entirety of historic on a single topic. Thus, it is better to refer to the gods of ancient europe as Gods from ancient times, as they may stem from time immemorial not just a pre-Indo-European/Indo-European era - that is a limited view.

Also, while the Vanir are popularly seems as "fertility gods", this very view is an archaism, a conception held by early scholars who first analised the pre-Christian European religion, but still through a christian-dominated view. Modern scholars, including the sourced Dumézil translated by Lindow, do not necessarily apply the term "fertility gods" as a classification for the entirety of the Vanir. Their so-called structuralist view only stresses that they fulfilled certain structural functions but, for instance, divide gods responsible for fertility between the Aesir and Vanir. In fact, many modern scholars even question the idea/archetype of 'fertility gods', so-called, ever being an actual belief and function held by the ancient pagan worldview to attribute to their gods.

The changes I made to the text are substantiated and should stand, while (User talk:Bloodofox) gives no reason for his reversals. (User talk:187.36.176.42) 05:56, 01 April 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need to become familiar with the scholarship on this topic or you're going to simply be reverted everytime you introduce these bizarre changes. It's indisputable that a significant amount of scholarship on this topic, particularly pre-Dumézil (but also post-Dumézil in the case of Gimbutas), hinges on notions about the arrival of the Indo-Europeans among the so-called Old Europeans. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)