Talk:Mjölnir

Pronunciation?

Does anyone know how to pronounce mjolnir? I've not been able to figure it out or find it. I've been saying it like (mah-law-ner) and im probably wrong. anybody know? User:SirParagon

Usually Js end up with a Y sound, so something like mih-yohl-ner would be close. I figure even if I mangle the word by saying it that way, it still sounds better than saying mole-ner and pretending the J doesn't exist. ;-) --NormanEinstein 13:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I had a professor who said there was a glottal stop in there which doesn't translate at all into modern English. It's kind of a throat clearing sound at the top of the throat. Anyway, it sounds like Myoat-ner. The glottal stop is the oat.

I have heard, from not-necessarily-schollarly sources that the pronunciation is something like im-yole-nir with the stress on the first and second syllables.

can anybody give a pronunciation that is backed up and properly cited?

I pronounce it Myolnir. That's the approximate Scandinavian pronunciation (cf. Scandinavian languages). This is backed up by the Infoplease article, which cites the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. I have two other unabridged dictionaries I can check if that doesn't satisfy everyone. None that there is no vowel between the M and the y. If you find that difficult to pronounce, it could be approximated by saying "Me-olnir" with a really quick "e". --70.36.146.44 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is clering up a lot for me. I have been pronouncing it Maj-in-a-ler. This must be very wrong.

I Know 7 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the most common misstake is putting a vowel sound between the M and J which is wrong. Suggestions to think of it as Me-ölnir is probably good for english speakers. Another thing to note is that ö is not pronounced like the o in body but more as the i in girl or bird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.185.230 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, and I always thought it was my-jolly-near. Never would have guessed that the jolly j would be silent. Myolnir from now on then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Dubious: Mjolnir, the hammer's name in Norse myth and Stan Lee

Stan Lee, co-creater of Marvel Comics's The Mighty Thor claims that Mjolnir is a made up word.--Carlaude (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless Lee is a vampire or a time traveler or a time-traveling vampire, he is spectacularly wrong here. Let's clear this up once and for all. As I understand, "Mjöllnir" would be the proper Old Norse name (ctrl+f the word here: [1] - Lokasenna is from at least the 13th century) and the term is sometimes anglicized as "Mjolnir" or "Mjollnir" without the ö. In modern Danish and Norwegian, that'd be with an ø instead of ö. Now, if you think Lee's claiming he made up the precise anglicization "Mjolnir" a simple Google Books search proves him wrong, yielding hits from at least 1901 ([2]). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He must have forgot where he learned it and maybe thought he (or someone else) had made it up. In any case your link shows him to be wrong, thanks. --Carlaude (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stan Lee is famous for spinning yarns, I wouldn't really take his side if there are conflicting accounts. 惑乱わくらん Wakuran (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Stan Lee often forgets things easily. So it was probably just a simple mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.250.4 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He's technically correct as long as he didn't specify when. All words are made up at some point 208.110.180.67 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm very late to this discussion, but I think someone's misread Ol' Stan's comments (or maybe he stated them wrong, he does do that sometimes, bless him). I've never heard him say the name Mjolnir was made up, but rather that Uru, the name of the mystic material Thor's hammer is made from (in Marvel comics anyway) was made up.69.212.125.129 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Orchard Reference and Poor Editing

Dab recently altered a cited sentence and reformatted it to read "The term translated as "hammer" might actually refer to an axe or club." Before this edit, the reference was attached to "though generally recognized and depicted as a hammer, Mjölnir is actually an axe or club but misconceived as a hammer", a line that is certainly not something Orchard would have in his handbook. This transparently wrong statement stems from an adjustment by an anonymous IP here. Prior to the IP edit, the sentence was a far more reasonable "Though generally recognized and depicted as a hammer, Mjölnir is sometimes referred to as an axe or club". This appears to be what was originally attached to the reference. This is obviously not the same as a supposed issue of translation that Dab conjures up in his edit.

It's most likely that Orchard's statement refers to Thor's weapon in Gesta Danorum (club) and to perhaps even some Bronze Age-related topics. Obviously, users editing this page need to be clear what they're doing, both to themselves and others; if it were up to me, edit summaries would be required (and gibberish would be auto-reverted). It should be obvious that adjusting a citation to make it seem more "reasonable" without checking the source is a bad idea.

All that said, I do own a copy of Orchard's handbook, but it's on the other side of the ocean. I'll check it when I return to see exactly what it says. This entire article could use a total rewrite (in fact, I've slated it for demolition since I rewrote many of the Thor-related articles to WP:GA standard some time ago). I hope to be able to take some appropriate time out for it soon. Meanwhile, edits like this are not helping this page get any better. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, and was going to replace the Orchard ref with something better. I find it amusing, once again, that I only need to touch a poorly-written article to cnojure up bloodofox and his hyper-criticism. Suddenly, stuff that had been in the article for years gets weeded out before I get a chance to transform them into something useful.

Clearly, bloodofox doesn't judge articles by quality, but depending on whether "Dbachmann touched it". If I did touch it, he will indiscriminately throw out the good with the bad. As long as I don't touch it, it's ok for random nonsense to sit there for years. This is wikistalking. If you would just let me edit the article first, you can still then apply your Loki game to whatever I did and tell me which phrases I didn't footnote. Or perhaps just stop following me around and let me do my thing, because articles are usually the better for it. Not "WP:GA", perhaps, which translates "prettily formatted but still possibly abysmal in quality", but better than they were before. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have probably rewritten the majority of Norse and Germanic mythology articles at this point. Accusing me of "wikistalking" when you come to articles that I watch and add unreferenced material (or simply do something like I outline above) won't help your case. As always, your edits require references here (I guess that's what you mean by "Loki game"). Complain about it all you want but that will never change. I'll always hold you and anyone else that edits with me up to the requirement. You should probably just get used to it.

When you say "just let me edit the article", what you should be saying is "actually, maybe I should be using the sandbox more before I bring unreferenced material into the article space".

If you've got criticism for the WP:GA process, which is essentially the closest thing to peer review Wikipedia offers, then take it up with them. I know it demands citations—coherent ones, even—but that's just how we keep things like the above from happening. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

cute. I am complaining about your picking out my additions specifically, knowing full well that all you need to do is pick up a standard dictionary, while leaving random unreferenced crap alone. This is dual standards. Removing the standard etymology because it is "unreferenced (check any dictionary) but leaving in some unnotable random suggestion because it is attributed to "Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidfeld and Nicoson, 1998. p81" does not result in better articles. I know I am wasting my breath, because if you haven't developed a sense of what is encyclopedic, it's not now going to happen. If you have knowledge on the topic, you are supposed to apply your judgement. You are not supposed to act algorithmically, like a shell script cutting paragraphs without any footnote. Even less are you to apply the algorithm of "cut any paragraph added by Dbachmann if it has no footnote; leave stuff alone".

this diff is exemplary:  [3]: you encounter two statements in the lead,

In origin, Thor's hammer is a stone double hammer or battle-axe, a mythological weapon identified with the thunderbolt used to slay primeval monsters.

Mjölnir is depicted in Norse mythology as one of the most fearsome weapons, capable of leveling mountains.

both are equally "unreferenced". You remove the first (inserted by myself) but you do not touch the second (not inserted by me). Your insistence that you are just removing "unsourced" material falls flat on its face, because if you were, you would clearly have removed both. This has happened dozens of time. My claim of wikistalking is based on the fact that when presented with such situations, you will always and unfailingly remove whatever I have written, regardless of what else the article contains. It also jumps out in this case as I link to a fully referenced wiki article, my statement is completely unremarkable and just introduces a cross-link to material already referenced there. It would be a matter of 30 seconds to copy-paste the reference given in the target article, and since you are familiar with the topic, you already know that my statement isn't in any way controversial. In other words, there is really no excuse for your consistent behaviour whatsoever, no aspect of "improving the wiki", and no explanation other than puerile personal animosity. I don't know why you try to keep up the facade of your editing "in good faith", clearly you know what you are doing, I know what you are doing, and you know I know, so I really don't see the point. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dab, you're going to reference the material you add or you're just going to keep running into these problems. But this is all inconsequential. I'll give this article the rewrite it needs when I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm new to the Wikipedia editing world. I wanted to let you all know that I cleaned up the story of Mjoelnir's creation so that it was coherent and, hopefully, a little more compelling. I was careful not to change any of the details as I was working from memory and not a citable source. Utgardsloki (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sons of Ivaldi

In the section discussing Mjoelnir's orgins from the Skáldskaparmál, the wording makes it very confusing as to who the sons of Ivaldi are. Are they the two he bets with? The two who made mjoelnir? Both? I forget who the two pairs of dwarves are, but I do believe that it was four distinct dwarves, not two.

Anyone remember? Utgardsloki (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utgardsloki (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mjölnir, St. Martin Hammer

Kindly explain how you associate St. Martin of Tours and his hammer with Mjölnir. Also explain the etymological links between "Mjölnir" and "Vajra". Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: this is the text that you reverted: "Parpola notes that the Proto-Indo-Aryan *vajra means "weapon of the war-god." It appears as a loan-word in Proto-West-Uralic as *vaśara, "hammer," "ax," probably from the "hammer" of Thor." Parpola 2015, p.63 Parpola clearly refers to "hammer of Thor." Regarding the hammer of Martin Tours, it's a nice irony that a Corded Ware battle axe, the same as being used by the Scandinavians and handled by Thor, was converted into a Christian battle hammer. Note that the vajra contains a flash of lightning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that gives WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a single author and "probably" does not rise to encyclopedic levels. Your association between the hammer of St. Martin and Mjölnir is just that, your association. You're welcome to that, and it's not implausible (IMHO) that the Martins hammer actually alludes to Mjölnir, but it's not in line with WP:OR to put it into an article without very sound sources. Kleuske (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: regarding Parpola: I don't agree right away that the connection between Mjollnir and vajra is undue. On the contrary: Parpola is a respected author, and Indo-European studies are relevant for both Europe and India. Regarding Martin's hammer and mjolnir: there are no soyrces on this topic; I've already checked. Might be interesting though to contact the museum. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here's a source: A. Kehoe, "Militant Christianity: An Anthropological History", Springer, p.98. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(comment) @Kleuske: On Mjollnir (Mjölnir) and Vajra connection, many RS have and continue to discuss it: 1, 2, 3@ pages 7-14, 4, etc. I do not remember coming across any St Martin of Tours connection in past, so I don't know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks for the soirces. it's fascinating, isn't it? I was in this museum today, and I saw the relic. I immediately recognised the battle axe stone head, and was fascinated by the explanation. It wouldn't be unique, a "heathen"-turned-Christian object or story. And then this deeper layer of Indo-European history. This summer, in Norway, we saw these burial mounds from the 6th-8th century CE. From the Pontic steppe to Norway, in front of our eyes. Great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I just send an email to the museum, to ask if they've done any research on these connections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The text I removed implied linguistic links between the two. Sources pointing out simularities in mythology are relatively moot. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I have reworded it, because vajra-, vazra-, *vasara links look okay and well supported. I recall others such as Douglas Adams mentioning all this too, but I will need to locate the source and dig. @JJ: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Please read WP:BRD and WP:UNDUE. I've reverted your readdition of the linguistic claims, based on WP:UNDUE.

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'm not impressed with your say-so. Especially since none of my concerns have actually been addressed. "Well supported" does not jive with "probably" and a single authors sayso. Kleuske (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: so, what do you feel is undue about it? I've read the policy again, but it mentions various points about which you may be concerned. I can't read minds, so I'd rather hear it from yourself. My point is that the Norse culture was one of the Indo-European cultures, which was in contact with the Uralic cultures. Similarities between various Indo-European cultures are relevant, precisely because of this connection between geographically far removed cultures. Indo-European studies are a huge topic! The influence on Uralic languages is relevant because it supports the proposed contact between these two language areas, which supports the Kurgan/steppe theory. By the way, the text you removed was in the etymology section; I'd think that that's an appropriate place for linguistic aspects. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That Norse mythology is part of indo-germannic culture is kicking in an open door. No problems with that. My problem is that the statement "Parpola notes that the Proto-Indo-Aryan *vajra means "weapon of the war-god." It appears as a loan-word in Proto-West-Uralic as *vaśara, "hammer," "ax," probbaly from the "hammer" of Thor." suggests an etymological link where none is obvious and the author (i assume he's paraphrased correctly) does not make that claim unreservedly. Besides, given the time frames and assuming a definite etymological link, Mjölnir or "hamarr" would come from vaśara instead of the other way around. A speculative statement (and that's what I get from "probably") is not sufficient to rise to encyclopedic levels. Besides, a work on the origins of Hinduism and the Indus culture may not be the best source for this kind of statements on Norse mythology. Hence WP:UNDUE. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting possibility, because Parpola does argue that the name of Indra is derived from an Uralic god. NB: Parpola's book is about the Indo-Aryans and the Harappan civilization. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah... And what exactly is the connection between Indra and Mjölnir? Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The same origins in Indo-European mythology? Indra as the Indian equivalent of Thor, both carrying the "Hammer of the war-god," c.q. thunderbolt. See, for example, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], including on "vajra" and "vasara." Which are more sources than I'd expected, including one by BRILL. So, how about a section on "comparative mythylogy"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Some more: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. And here, on Thor and Indra (note 45): "His similarities with Indra have long been the subject of comments" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Indo-European mythology". There's a shitload of European mythologies (plural) and a ditto amount of Indian mythologies (also plural). But let's examine the sources you provide.

1. The Origins and History of Religions. "May have been" and no further explanation, exept that "Indra was probably a thundergod" in some regions.
2. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture No mention of Thor or Mjolnir
3. Paradise Rediscovered: The Roots of Civilisation, Volume 1 Hey, presto... It mentions Thor, Mjolnir and Indra but does not link them in any way. Let alone etymologically. Ok.
4. War and Sacrifice: Studies in the Archaeology of Conflict. Not even a reference. No mention of Thor, Indra or Mjolnir.
5. History of Religious Ideas, Volume 2: From Gautama Buddha to the Triumph of ... Erotic tendencies in Indra a Thor dresses up as a bride. Hence they are connected. Whoop-di-do. Saying this is speculative is an understatement.
6. Boot, Hooves and Wheels: And the Social Dynamics behind South Asian Warfare A (vague) resemblance (use of club-like weapons) is noted between Indra, Perun and Thor. No association whatsoever is claimed.
7. Paradise rediscovered Again. Indra and Thor both use club-like weapons, and a transfer of the Labrys (another mythology) into the hands of The Patriarchy, personified by Zeus/Indra/Thor. Zeus is, etymologically associated with Tyr (Tiwaz), not Thor, to the best of my knowledge. Again, saying this is speculative is an understatement.
8. Van Anima tot Zeus: encyclopedie van begrippen uit mythologie, religie ... Claims both Thor and Indra are "archetypal symbols of power", but refrains from actually linking them.
9. Myths of Pre-Columbian America Are you kidding me? If I were to take you seriously on this, we could link Indra Zeus and Thor to Precolumbian Mayan deities.
10. Lightning: Nature and Culture Loads of cultures had a god of thunder, because it's a very impressive natural phenomenon. There's your explaination, btw.
11. Indian Myth and Legend (Illustrations) Loads of Gods with hammers. Gaelic, Hittite, Assyrian and Chinese ones, too. Interesting, but no connection (apart from lightning). Explanation (offered by me): Lightning is impressive, a blacksmith's hammer (or a metal club) strikes sparks and the human capacity for associations is virtually unlimited. Hence Hammers and lightning got linked in many cultures.
12. The Handbook of Tibetan Buddhist Symbols Again... Are you kidding me? Thor is a "Teutonic" god? That claim alone dismisses the author as a reliable source on this subject.

As to your last ditch attempt, being the subject of discussion is not a statement of fact concerning the links between Indra, Thor and Hercules (had a club, too).

Overall, I am less than impressed. Loads of cultures have thundergods and supplying said thundergods with some implement for striking things is (given the nature of lightning and thunderstrikes) not a big surprise. You'd pretty much expect that. Sourcing a claim is not the same as typing keywords into google and copy-pasting the result. You are wasting my time. Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding "Indo-European mythology": the shared roots of Indian and European languages, and also (aspects of) religion and mythology, is an obvious fact, and a topic that's been studied in the academics for a long time. See, for example, Jaan Puhvel, "Comparative Mythology." See also Proto-Indo-European religion.
• Regarding my "last ditch attempt": WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia gives an overview of relevant info; if there is a recurrent theme of authors linking these two godheads, then that's relevant, and can be mentioned as "Thor and Indra, and their warhammer, have repeatedly been compared [source 1, 2, 3 etc.]."
• Regarding "Loads of cultures have thundergods": sure. But not all cultures have Indo-European roots.
• Regarding "sourcing a claim": this is just the Google-search. If I intend to write aboiut it, using those sources, you'll know.
• Regarding "You are wasting my time": that's a misplaced comment. If that's how you're feeling, then you should ask yourself why you're editing anyway. See also WP:OWN.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: War and sacrifice, p.83. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My point, above, was that there is no "recurrent theme of authors linking these two godheads". At best, there's a recurrent theme of authors noting similarities, which isn't very surprising, givenm the similarities in their respective divine domains (thunder and lightning). It was also my point that authors on Tibetan Buddhism, precolumbian mythology or the origins of Hinduism are not reliable sources on Norse mythology. As to the text you now propose, we should also note similarities with every other thunder- or hammer/mace carrying deity. That's way outside the scope of this article, which concerns itself with one of these mythological weapons: Mjölnir, not Thor, not comparative theology, not speculative forays into imagined Proto-Indo-European mythology. it is about Mjölnir. Linking Thor to Indra is off-topic in this article. If you want to link Mjölnir to Indra's mace, let's have the source that links them. So far, none have been provided and I needed to read the entire copy/pasted list of Google results to find out. And since you're now, very much, shifting goalposts, I stick to my point that you're wasting my time for the reasons stated. Kleuske (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got a point indeed, when you write that similarities are to be expected anyway between various thundergods. I hadn't thought about it this way yet. My interest is in Indo-European origins, so in that frame of reference it's interesting to note similarities, especially because the vajra and Mjolnir look so differently. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Kleuske having discovered that Paradise Rediscovered has plagiarised at least one of our articles, I took another look at the author. He's an "it all started with Atlantis" man.[16] Doug Weller talk 16:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The name in reference to Odin

In the Santa page on Wikipedia the word Jolnir is associated with Yule Figure when compared to Odin.

That, if true, is quite a coincidence. LeapUK (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I see no mention of any 'Jolnir' on that page, coincidental or otherwise. Nor did I find any sources referring to this. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Search for Jólnir. The line says "The leader of the wild hunt is frequently attested as the god Wodan (Norse Odin), bearing (among many names) the names Jólnir, meaning "Yule figure", and Langbarðr, meaning "long-beard", in Old Norse." So, it's another name for Odin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Found it. Thanks. I wouldn't attach too much meaning to two (more or less) similar names, though. I also advice a firm dose of skepticism when dealing with this kind of folklore pundits. Case in point: the Wild Hunt ws very popular in the 19th century and much nonsense was produced attributing all kinds of things to it. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Lifting Mjöllnir

It is my understanding the "only the worthy can lift the hammer" is just a Marvel fiction, it has no historical root in the Norse mythology. Can someone please confirm or deny this?

If it is true than the article should state it.

If it is false then the article should probably mention it, too and we should remove the note 2 which refers to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnoSD (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just want to mention that technically "Marvel Comic`s Thor" does NOT use the hammer to fly, it is rather "psuedo-flight" achieved by throwing the hammer while holding into it (as thus he spins it rapidly before throwing it, apparently it is not just for show) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:464b:90bd:0:6107:c41d:b97f:fa01 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Grindstone reference

Under etymology there are a couple of references to the name being related to grind stones and grinding meal, which would be interesting to compare to the Biblical reference to an angel casting down a "stone like a great millstone" (Rev 18:21) into the ocean (that being the home of jormungandr) to destroy Babylon (which is ruled by a Dragon).

Things like this make me wonder on cross-cultural influences. LeapUK (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be some serious OR to say that the two are related, but there was a study done a few years back that was able to trace pretty much every "origin story" myth to the same location (i.e. pretty much every culture has the same base story that came from a single region). Primefac (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we know the link amongst Indo-European religions, so it would not be that large a step. Maybe someone with some funding and tenure can look into it? :D LeapUK (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article currently shows a pronunciation with a long "aw" sound /ɔ:/, but the reference is to Random House. At the Random House Dictionary, if you click "show IPA", the IPA transcription shows a short /ɔ/ sound, not a long /ɔ:/. It also shows an ending in /ɪr/. This seems to me more correct that the IPA currently shown in this article. Worth correcting? 86.163.171.174 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Use by white supremacists

I added content on the use of Mjolnir symbology by white supremacists.

Primefac excised my contribution with the edit summary "here is already plenty of modern appropriation information."

I am going to request a fuller explanation than that. Serious scholars have written about the modern white supremacist connection. Is it your position this doesn't belong in the article? Geo Swan (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There's already a paragraph in the article citing the ADL. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much. Primefac (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please review WP:DUE. Before I added that new material I looked at the article, to see if the use by white supremacists was already covered, and that single paragraph escaped my notice.

So, are you saying that single paragraph, buried in the middle of a section, is prominent enough to reflect the symbol's usage by white supremacists? Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A single paragraph citing the ADL is plenty, yes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Clarification please, was your reply based solely on your common sense, or your existing pool of knowledge? What kind of reporting on the relationship between Mjolnir and white supremacists, skinheads, bikers and neo-nazis would it require for you to think this merits more coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems the text under contention is this:

When Jake Angeli, a fur-clad, bare-chested supporter of the QAnon movement, and a supporter of Donald Trump was recorded participating in the attempt to seize the US Capitol building, on January 6, 2021, scholars attempted to explain what his Mjölnir tattoo, and his other Norse inspired tattoos, meant to neo-nazis and other white supremacist groups.

References

I honestly cannot understand the objection to including that. It's a reasonable statement to make, it's adequately source, and it fits perfectly in the "Modern use" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the fact that the symbol has seen some neo-Nazi use in the very modern era is covered by the ADL, and the source you've posted is based on the ADL's database. This isn't the place to speculate about Angeli's tattoo choices, it's undue emphasis on a single guy's tattoo. Finally, while irrelevant, the source you're providing is misleading: A scholar in the field would know very well that the Black Sun symbol is neither "Norse" nor any older than Himmler's Wewelsburg remodel, so either editorial pasted it on after the author submitted it or the author is not as versed in the field as he should be. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is a mistake I see that is pretty common - contributors who use their own personal editorial judgment, when they should defer to the editorial judgment of WP:Reliable sources. I am not a reliable source. I know I am not a reliable source. Jimbo Wales is not a reliable source. No contributor here is a reliable source. No offence, that includes you. Bloodofox, you are not a reliable source.

Do you think your defense of Primefac excision is an instance of you using your personal editorial judgment instead of deferring to RS?

• As to what a scholar would know -- clarification - are you challenging whether Tom Birkett is a scholar? Did you google him before you made this challenge? Here are a few works I suggest establish he IS a scholar. I'd appreciate you either acknowledging Birkett IS a scholar, or offer a more substantive explanation as to why you would place your personal judgement before his. Geo Swan (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Tom Birkett; Roderick Dale, eds. (2020). The Vikings Reimagined: Reception, Recovery, Engagement. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 9781501513886. Retrieved 2021-01-16.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
2. "UCC lecturer Tom Birkett will spend the summer sailing on a reconstructed Viking ship, here he explains why" (PDF). Evening Echo. 2016-06-15. Retrieved 2021-01-16. As well as being an enthusiastic proponent of public engagement with the medieval past, I'm currently the Principal Investigator on the World-Tree Project, which aims to create the world's largest digital repository of material on the Vikings through community collection.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
3. Thomas Birkett. "Reading the Runes in Old English and Old Norse Poetry". Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317070993. Retrieved 2021-01-16. Reading the Runes in Old English and Old Norse Poetry is the first book-length study to compare responses to runic heritage in the literature of Anglo-Saxon England and medieval Iceland.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
4. Tom Birkett; Christina Lee, eds. (2014). "The Vikings in Munster" (PDF). Language, Myths and Finds. Retrieved 2021-01-16.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Iceland had a Nazi party, with a party newsletter named "Mjölnir". Here is an RS. Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Vilhjálmur Örn Vilhjálmsson (2020). Jonathan Adams; Cordelia Heß; Christhard Hoffmann (eds.). Iceland: A Study of Antisemitism in a Country without Jews (PDF). ISBN 978-3-11-063193-7. Retrieved 2021-01-16. In 1960 Iceland once again saw the creation of a Nazi party, dubbed Ríkisflokkurinn (The State Party); this was a short-lived enterprise which took material form in a photocopied party newsletter called Mjölnir (the name of the Norse god Thor's hammer). Mjölnir's racist content included antisemitism, and in particular white supremacist praise for South Africa and apartheid. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Birkett is obviously a scholar, but the article you've provided attributed to him prominently displays an inarguably false statement about the black sun. We know this because we have reliable sources over at Black Sun (symbol) that chart the symbol's origins from Wewelsburg and discuss how and why it became to be known as the "black sun" around the early 90s.

There's a ton of stuff named after the hammer. This is particularly the case in the Nordic countries, where one will encounter locations like Mjølnerparken ('the Mjölnir park') in Copenhagen, Dennmark and frequent visual representations of the hammer, as well as references to the hammer for a variety of govenrnment and military uses (like the HSwMS Mjölner). Meanwhile, in the US, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs offers it as a headstone option for veterans, and American company Marvel's rendition of the hammer, Mjolnir (comics), is super represented in pop culture.

In short, the symbol sees a tremendous amount of use in modern popular culture, and one small aspect of this is its use by a segment of white nationalists (and, come to think of it, after spending a fair amount of time checking out the Capitol riot's iconography, I am not aware of symbols from the ancient North Germanic record appearing beyond this guy's tattoos, a guy who was also wearing what appears to be a faux Blackfoot headdress and evidently considers himself to be both a Christian and an alien). An improved modern influence section, which I am preparing, will chart the many uses the symbol has seen in the modern era. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bloodofox, thanks for clarifying that you acknowledge Birkett is a genuine scholar. Note: that makes him an RS.

You then assert that in the article I linked to Birkett displayed "an inarguably false statement about the black sun." I've worked on some articles on pretty controversial topics. I've worked on articles where I personally disagreed with every single RS. The way I see it, a policy compliant contributor has just two policy compliant choices when they disagree with RS. The way I see it the two choices are: (1) keep our personal opinions to ourselves, and doing our best to cover the RS we disagree with as neutrally as possible; or (2) walk away from that article, and let other people work on it.

I've made thousands of edits using RS I personally disagreed with. I think I did an okay job of using those RS, and keeping my personal opinion to myself. I'd like to be able to expect the same effort from my fellow contributors.

Now if I understand what you are saying here, aren't you justifying excising the material I added, and the Birkett reference, because you PERSONALLY disagree with Birkett? So, aren't you falling short of various policies? Isn't your personal disagreement with Birkett, well, irrelevant - because he is an RS, and you, well, are not.

I spent hundreds of hours reading the 25,000 pages of OARDEC documents. I read every page that was made public, through FOIA. Privately, I thought that put me in a very exclusive club. I thought there were very few people who had read all 25,000 pages. When we concentrate on a topic, spend a lot of time on a topic, we can come to feel we are experts in that field. I did come to think (privately) that I was one of the world's most informed on those 25,000 pages of OARDEC documents. But it didn't make me an RS. When it came to covering what those OARDEC documents said, and the conclusions genuine RS stated about them, my obligation, as a policy compliant contributor, was to rely on what the genuine RS wrote, and when their conclusions were at odds with my own conclusions, keep my own conclusions to myself.

I think I did an okay job at that. I make no apologies over expecting the same kind of effort from you to keep your personal opinion from influending what goes into article space.

The passage that concerned you doesn't even have anything to do with Mjolnir.

• With regard to the Veteran's Authority including it in the choice of tombstone... okay, that is mildly interesting. Did you include that in the article? With a good RS it could be included in the article.

I brought up WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE. If RS are writing about Mjolnir in the context of its use by neo-nazi, skinheads, white supremacists, and they aren't really writing about it in the context of VA headstone choices, doesn't DUE imply the use by neo-nazis merits more coverage than, say, its use as a VA approved headstone?

• Was it your intent to mock Angeli, to imply he was voicing incoherent political positions, and should be ignored? Well, if Angeli was a mere blogger, scribbling a blog in his mother's basement, that practically no one read, his political, philosophical and spiritual opinions would be beneath notice, for us. But, the situation here is that multiple RS have made the effort to explain his use of the Mjolnir symbolism to their readers. It is the RS that make his use of Mjolnir relevant here, not his own interpretation, which may very well be incoherent. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite incoming

Despite its visibility, this article is currently largely in a poor state, a far cry from the quality of English Wikiepdia's Thor and Thor-related articles (compare many of the well-developed articles listed at Template:Þórr, which carefully outline primary sources and chart discussion by scholars). I'll start preparing a rewrite over the next few days that will bring it to that level of quality. I qill post a link when I've made progress. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate if you could possibly neutralize the taint that is afflicting this part of our common Scandinavian cultural heritage. As you can see in the graph the interest grew suddenly after Trump's shameful attack on the United States Capitol. The White supremacists are doing what the Nazis did, tainting something that has nothing to do with them. Winge's painting of Thor was once a liberal statement against ignorance, now it is being interpreted in ways it was never intended.--Berig (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I figure the best way to deflect the efforts of, for example, neo-Nazi groups who hope to co-opt this stuff is by producing the best possible entry on the topic—drawing only from the best possible sources—making it much more difficult for these groups to present their personal interpretations as fact to the general public (and the media). I regret that this article wasn't in a better place when it received so many views recently (fortunately the site's Yggdrasil and valknut articles are much better). For now, I'm dropping my ongoing work on Ægir to focus on getting a new draft together for this page. As of now I am most of the way through the eddic poetry corpus. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Good, thank you. I agree that that's the best strategy. I'm afraid I can't help, for a number of reasons including increasing conflict of interest, except by possibly providing page refs to de Vries and some other old scholars that Berig may also have ready access to. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are all most welcome to assist! One thing that would be really helpful would be a table listing as many archeaological finds of the hammer as possible, which could include data about where it was found, its material, and in where it is today. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Berig: and @Yngvadottir:, I've made some progress with the rewrite here. Looking for databases outlining all hammers found to date, I encountered something I wasn't aware of: Eitri - the Norse Artifacts Database by Katherine Beard. Beard produced this database in parallel with her MA thesis, which is focused on Mjölnir and will make for a great place to draw current references and data for the rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Launched

I've launched a rewrite of the article that should provide a much stronger foundation moving forward. Please edit (especially any typos you find!) and expand. @Alcaios:, care to sort through the etymology? I've just pulled the data in the current "etymology" section directly from Simek and I realize that entry may have been written in the 1970s.

Please note that there's plenty more that can be added to this rewrite—for example, it'd be great to have a lot more data on the amulets and their precursors, sections about potential Nordic Bronze Age depictions, discussion about comparative material from Indo-European studies, and the potential Sámi depictions. The saga corpus also isn't yet addressed in the "attestations" section. Beard's 2019 database and MA thesis (supervised by Gunnell) were extremely helpful for producing a rewrite in a timely manner and features discussion of all these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Add reference to Marvel comics in the popular culture section

At the moment the only reference to the Marvel comics, which represent one of the dominant occurrences of Mjölnir in the popular consciousness, is in the disambiguation. This probably ought to be changed by someone who knows more about both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.71 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)