# Talk:Æsir–Vanir War

I have no idea what Dumézil is on about with the "Middle-Eastern migration". However, because Lindow mentions vanir exhibiting incestuous practices, to identify them as a historical people all one needs to do is find such practices in European history. So far as I'm aware, the only populations to exhibit this was the archaic Hellenic tribes, but they are somewhat out of the way in Scandinavia, and also separated by about a millennia of history--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Brought over from [1]:

Hi. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that such an important part of the eda needs to be far more sourced then just the four you have there. Maybe I have high standards, but I see at least three different sources for each section in any article as a minimum. Also, the images seem very modern depictions of the subject.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are three primary sources here: the Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, and Heimskringla. The references in these sections are all translations and, when there's anything more than a direct translation, it's directly sourced. I don't see why we would need reference tags from multiple translations for a few stanzas - the article is pretty air-tight in terms of references. If you can spot a point where it's not, please point it out. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about primary sources. Its the secondary and tertiary sources I'm more concerned with. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
So you are talking about the "Theories" section? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Æsir-Vanir War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Review is imminent; article does not quick-fail. Arsenikk (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The lead does not summarize all aspects of the article; add another paragraph that relates to the meta—sources and theories. As a minimum mention Edda and Heimskringla and that theories exist (all sections should be mentioned in the lead). Otherwise I have done some minor copyediting; it is generally well written prose. The only sentence that does not read good is the one exchange of gods; I tried to fix it up but I don not really feel I did a good job at it.  I am also a bit concerned with that you are talking about what Lindow feels and thinks. Though he is a scholar, these are words to avoid in an encyclopedia.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is in my opinion better to use good old books for references than questionable Internet resources; I applaud your choice of references, but I cannot verify them. Requirements for references are not high for GA, but I am a little concerned that the entire theory section has only one reference; you are putting it all in the hands of Lindow. Is it possible to find other references for at least some of these theories (for instance scholar journal articles) or other works on Norse mythology?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
I do not feel that reciting the theories by only one scholar concludes to a fair point of view; I mention this under criterion 2b—all single researchers are biased, but two comprehensive authors should balance each other out nicely.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I am putting it on hold; fix the lead and find at least another  (two more to satisfy mrg3105) reference for the controversial theories and do some rephrasing and it will be passed. Overall a nice and comprehensive article. Arsenikk (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this article. One thing I should probably clarify is that the reason Lindow is referenced so much in the "Theories" section is because his encyclopedia entry provides a basic overview of theories regarding the subject. The two main theories on this particular subject are easily the invasion theory and the Freyja/Gullveig connection and can be expanded accordingly. I agree that the theories section needs more citations (and expansion) but I should note that these are not just Lindow's theories; he doesn't state he agrees or disagrees either way outside of where I've noted he's expressed his opinions. You can, by the way, confirm all of these references through books.google.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In the light of fixing the references and the lead, and a personal review of the literature, I promote this article to GA status. Congratulations, you have done a good work on this one, Bloodofax. I do not have many comments about further work on the article, unless more can be said on the theories, but you seem to have exhausted the references concerning the topic. Arsenikk (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it was a pleasure. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article from Æsir-Vanir War to Æsir–Vanir War (changing from a hyphen (-) to an endash (–)). I was bold since as far as I could see all other war articles on Wikipedia use this notation, and because an endash indicates a "range" or "something between". Arsenikk (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Since my edits were reverted and categorized as "misinformation", I'd like to ask what parts of my edits would count as such, excluding the specification of the stanzas notified, which I changed in my second edit after the first one was reverted. All my edits are sourced and my source is Bellows, who is quoted many times on this site. Eladabudi (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Eladabudi (talk · contribs)! Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I don't have any qualms with adding stanzas from different translations, particularly public domain translations. I think this enriches the article. However, I think it's wise for us to be careful about what we say about stanza order, particularly since some translations are more free with how they treat the stanza orders in whatever manuscripts or normalized editions they're drawing from. Additionally, I think it's a good idea to try to bring in more modern translatons wherever possible, particularly Larrington's second edition. Anyway, thanks for putting the extra effort in, and here's hoping to fruitful future collaboration. :)  :bloodofox: (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, Bloodofox (talk · contribs). I definitely agree that Bellows' use of archaic language is problematic, but I don't see a problem using his translation here, considering that it is widely cited. I'd definitely like to see it here, too. Regarding Bellows' interpretation of the two stanzas, I think that his interpretation is too significant to this article to ignore it, his viewpoint of the two stanzas is different, and important. Additionally, the one problem I see the GA review had with the article is that it doesn't bring many viewpoints, and in my opinion what I added would certainly count as a valid, interesting and different viewpoint, that would improve this article. Also, in my edits, I removed the specification of the stanzas in one of the paragraphs here, which is confusing, as the numbers are not mentioned beforehand. Eladabudi (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Bloodofox (talk · contribs), I'd definitely like to see the addition of Bellows' opinion in the article, and the clarification of what stanzas are referred to in the last paragraph of the poetic edda section. Please reply to my previous message, so we can see what we can agree to add there.
Hello Elabudi, I don't have any problem with adding Bellows's opinions, as long as they are directly attributed to him (per usual). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, all of Bellows's opinions are attributed to him, and there seems to be no problem with adding his translations, so I restored my edits.Eladabudi (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The theory of the Vanir being invaded by "a more warlike people" and thus being unwarlike compared to these people is completely surpassed and contradicts the very reality of the myth. Even the very source formely used in that passage, Dumézil translated by Lindow, states on page 9: 
"The War between the AEsir and the Vanir. -Óthin made war on the Vanir, but they resisted stoutly and defended their land; nor the one, nor the other was victorious, and both devastated the land of their opponents, doing each other damage. But when both wearied of that, they agreed on a peace meeting and concluded a peace, giving each other hostages."
This goes as an example to why calling the Vanir as unwarlike is misplaced and such by-now fringe theories shouldn't be given more attention than they were given in the article after the revisions.
As for point number two, to call the theory on the Aesir-Vanir War being a reflection of a historic meeting between different peoples as an "Indo-European basis" doesn't take into account that not all the theorists of such historic meeting theory propose the Aesir to be Indo-Europeans, some proposing they were simply "Asians", "People of the Spirit", or more fringe theories such as them being Turkic peoples (Norse/Turkic runic script similarities proponents) or even Armenians (who moved to Lake Van, home of the Van-ir) and such. Thus, it is better to call the section about the theory as what the theory is, a "Historicist" theory and not necessarily an "Indo-European" one.
I hope this better explains the changes and avoids the unnecessary and unmotivated reversals of editions with deprecatory comments. User talk:187.36.176.42 00:04, 02 April 2021 (UTC)

The removal of further ellaboration on the (by-now fringe) historicist theory with more of other peculiar and non mainstream-accepted THEORIES such as Dumézil's tripartite hypothesis also seems appropriate, as it fills a fringe theory section of the article, that is only mentioned in the first place for the historical scholarly discussion importance, with an unnecessary amount of further fringe theories which, in the end, just clutter the article rather than giving information on the actual subject: The Aesir-Vanir War (Tripartite functions of society? No! This article is about the Aesir-Vanir war, such things should not be given such huge space here). I hope this clarifies the third edit I made. User talk:187.36.176.42 00:13, 02 April 2021 (UTC)
This IP is repeatedly removing material from J. P. Mallory from the article (for example) and is evidently referring to his work (and the topic of Indo-European studies) as "fringe theories". Can we get page protection? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, the referral of such theories (historicist view with the Aesir being a reflection of a purported Indo-European invasion) as a minority view is listed even in the sources of the articles, such as Georges Dumézil himself. To extensively detail such theories and merge them with theories further unrelated to the articles, such as the "Trifunctional Hypothesis" only clutters the article. You're also reverting other editions and contributions to the article. Please explain yourself and justify the mention of things like the "trifunctional theory" in the article (as an addition to the the historicist view subsection) and why they are not cluttering it, rather than leaving deprecating comments about other editors ("bizarre", "original research", "unreliable", "mislabeling things as fringe theories", "not using sources") and asking for page protection. I've explained myself EXTENSIVELY, while you complain about it, leaves deprecating comments about my editions and now even ask for page protection, rather than giving any actual explanations for why you're reverting the edits, or any substantial argument against anything that I have, again, extensively put in the edit summaries and the talk sections. Explain yourself and why you're simply discarding entire edits, or things won't move. User talk:187.36.176.42 03:03, 03 April 2021 (UTC)
You've provided no valid reason for removing material form scholars form the article. @Berig: & @Yngvadottir:, in case you've missed this. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)