Talk:Vanir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Venus 2 Loki leading the Vanir? 3 Vanir or vanir? 4 Necessary edit

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))