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)

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".[4][5] 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.[6] Although the notion of Thor's red beard is widely acknowledged by major scholars, Seigfried also notes that this is easily disproven.[7]

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)