Talk:Valknut

message: Is the notion —
:In these, it represents the interlinking of the nine worlds, and the spirit and power of Allfather that binds and pervades them all. and is worn by those who chose to give themselves to Odin.
— originally neopagan or traditional? I'd have thought the latter...
I'd removed the Neopagan section previously, because it contained this and the reference to Davidson (to which I'd added the actual quotation). Davidson was certainly talking about the traditional symbolism (although of course that may persist in neopagan use!).
So I'd rather move the neopagan sentence to the end... or add it to the "image stones" para?
--Ant 09:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neopagan 

message: What is it? does it deserve its own article? The link given was commercial ("VALKNUT PENDANT $33.30"), and we shouldn't link to commercial sites, or at least not directly to product placements. dab (T)   11:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wodanesdag press

message: :no:Valknut has a definition that is both more general, and more specific: A figure with one line looping in round or square loops. I guess they should add a requirement for some symmetry to their definition. -- (unsigned and undated entry)
: Yes, the meaning of Norwegian no:Valknute differs from the use of that word in other languages, including the neighboured Swedish se:valknut which resembles the English meaning. Thus, :no:Valknute and :en:Valknut are in fact "false friends". At least in Norwegian dialects, "valknute" even can denote some pretzel-like pastries. See here fig. 4 items #9 and #10: "a kind of combined pretzels with numerous loops" ("enslags kringler sammensatte av en hel del løkker"). -- Karl432 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more general term? 

message: I remember reading (a) that the Berserkers used this symbol, and (b) that members of the  Nazi S.S. had it tatooed either in their armpit or inside the top of their upper arm. Is there any truth to this?129.94.6.28 05:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you read this? :bloodofox: 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not remember the source precisely. It was in an English language book, rather than a magazine article, that I read, as far as I can remember, somewhere around 1965. However, I have a very clear memory of the Valknut/Berserker/SS claim, precisely because, up to that time, I had never heard the term valknut before. As I distinctly recall, the valknut was represented as being connected with "Odin's power to bind and unbind" and that it was described as being "three interlocking triangles". It may have been another 20 years or so before I was ever able to view a valknut symbol.129.94.6.30 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true, at least not the SS part, they had the german eagle, their service number and their bloodtype tattooed there. And I highly doubt the Berserkers had this as a "symbol", mainly because the vikings was not a structured society with distinct symbols per troop unit, nor were berserkers a specific troop type. And as Odin was the all father and god of death, while tyr and thor was gods of war, it is unlikely that warriors would use him as a symbol. Sneaking Viper (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Berserker

message: If you made that image yourself, then it would have been nice if you had made it larger and clearer... AnonMoos 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added responses on your talk page. Nagelfar 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It says "...depending on artists depiction" so it seems intelligible enough to me, though somewhat verbose. Though I don't know why you're bringing this point up against me; being as I had nothing to do with adding that line nor is it my wording; my edits were subsequent to that, I only added to the line. Nagelfar 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence had a highly-specific meaning before (as I explain in excruciating detail below); since you started "improving" it, it appears to have no meaning at all. AnonMoos 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg]]

message: I hate to break it to you, but as soon as you start comparing two sets of closed knotted and/or interlinked loops to each other, in order to decide whether they are the "same" or "different", then you're automatically entering into the realm of mathematics.  In some of the simplest cases, common-sense and superficial visual inspection can tell you whether two knots or links are the "same" or "different" (without writing down any equations) -- but as soon as you encounter more complex knotted configurations, or someone asks you to prove that two knots or links are the "same" or "different", or someone asks you what is a general procedure (that will in apply in all cases) to determine whether two knots or links are the "same" or "different", then you'll need mathematics pretty quickly. AnonMoos 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, mathematics are in everything. What is your point about how the artucle is wrong again? I don't see it. Nagelfar 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your very latest version, you still have the Valknut as topologically equivalent to a Triskelion, which is gibberish. AnonMoos 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knots are mathematics

message: Dude, topology is by no means confined to knots.  Examples involving Toruses, Moebius strips and Klein bottles often figure prominently. AnonMoos 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that's why I assume it makes sense in regard to a Triskelion, and why I left the wording as is. How can something that is visual not exist in terms of topology? Nagelfar 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Topology

message: the word Borromean is always capitalized (being the adjective form of the name of the Borromeo family of italy)
Fair enough.
the word "Triquetra" has a highly-specific meaning in modern usage (and is not merely a vague equivalent of "Triskelion")
No where did I claim such, I was indicating the difference. The line Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent to Borromean rings, a closed 3-link chain, a triquetra or a triskelion Is not saying they are all equivalent, rather that they are all different in how they are made. It isn't grammatically proper to write "or" after each line but rather put a comma & only add "or" after the last instance, am I wrong? Also, you're argument is moot, because the revert you went to had the exactly same wording only ending in a closed 3-link chain, or the triquetra, so if you're using that argument, your revert needs to go back further.
If you made that image yourself, then it would have been nice if you had made it larger and clearer
I made it a long time ago with on a different computer and have had it on my harddrive for ages. I don't have the means to make another at the time, maybe someone else could upload it and replace it, but as it stands, it is the only available image example of a valknut symbol that I've seen used in this capacity elsewhere.
the three horns symbol on the Snoldelev stone is not equivalent to any form of a Valknut
"See also" isn't required to only link to something equivalent, is it?; The Snoldelev stone is a Nordic tri-part symbol found on ancient runestones, what more is needed to require a "see also" link? That seems enough association to me.
Nagelfar 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word "either" is that better? Or would you prefer a full rewrite? I personally can see what is meant, though, as I said, I did not write that nor is it my wording. Nagelfar 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I think it was the part "depending on" that allowed me to understand what was meant. Nagelfar 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article says nothing about how the knots relate to mathematical concepts, and for a very good reason; it isn't a mathematics article. However, though the first three items pictured may be Valknuts as they relate to knots that are mathematically defined; the fourth is still "geometrically" and topographically a triskelion; regardless of whether or not it falls into a particular category which is mathematically a knot; this is an article on Valknuts and the section is on categories of Valknuts. Not on mathematical kinds of knots; but a traditional kind of knot which does not require a rigid classiciation; It is not a science article, but a symbolistic / historic / neo-pagan one. Nagelfar 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't even know if that was your argument. Are you arguing that the forth item added, the so labeled "triskelion valknut" is not a knot? It is still used as a Valknut, so it still is completely viable article addition. Nagelfar 00:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I would agree with you if it had said "Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent as a knot to" but it doesn't use the qualifier "knot" in that sentence. So the argument as to whether or not it is a knot is a separate issue from the wording in this instance, in my opinion. Nagelfar 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valknut argument from user talk page 

message: I reverted to the previous condition of the article, and hopefully we can make slow incremental improvements to it (if necessary), which will not change mathematically correct sentences into meaningless gibberish, or introduce one person's own floundering improvised ad-hoc terminology ("with gaps between the knot links" etc. etc.) instead of standard accepted conventional terminology.  Why don't you start by answering the following questions? --
1) Is the version of the symbol in :Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg (which includes a Triskelion, but is not itself a Triskelion) your own personal individual invention?  (The fact that it doesn't follow the standard artistic conventions or "grammar" of proper unambiguous interlacing means that it almost certainly isn't ancient.)
2) Is it used by any noteworthy individuals or groups (other than by you personally)?
3) If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no", then why should it be included on Wikipedia at all? AnonMoos 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly talk a lot, but you don't appear to excel in the ability to give clear answers to simple questions.  What website was it that you saw this symbol on?  Furthermore, having three-fold rotational symmetry without reflectional symmetries is certainly a necessary condition for being a Triskelion, but it's by no means a sufficient condition for being a Triskelion -- otherwise many things (such as the Borromean rings and the Diana de Poitiers crescents emblem) which are not in fact usually called "triskelions" would then qualify.  And pretty much by your own admission, you don't have enough understanding of the relevant mathematical concepts to understand when you're writing a mathematically-true sentence and when you're writing mathematical gibberish. AnonMoos 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website is defunct, probably offline for nearly 10 years   (& I know some other pages). About the "definition" of a triskelion, this is POV on your part. Three part rotational symmetry, and a center emanating point (axis) is all that is quite logically by anyone standards needed for something to be a triskelion; this disqualifies true knots of any kind; and anything without a center axis (Borromean rings, emblem of Diane de Poitiers). Because I asked you for different technical terminology regarding knot variants does not mean I lack the common sense to understand what qualifies any other designs to be categorized by definitional standards. There is no reason for the Valknut article to be linked to "triskelion", only that there was a symbol variant used that forms a triskelion, and then that is covered in the article. About supposedly not "writing a mathematically-true sentence" (as if literariness or philology had anything to do with math structure), this page has nothing to do with needing to conform to mathematical terminology; just dictionary terminology; I don't see a "mathematics" category tagged to it; where it links and references mathematics it has always been true to them; always, on every edit of this page. Maybe it gave you the wrong taxonomical assumptions, but the structuring posed no actual logistically fallacious content. Nagelfar 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It means; in terms (that is, 'wordings' or 'labelings') which relate not to "true" (meaning; classicially taxonomical classifications of) "knots" (since Val'knut' is a name only). It is perfectly viable English in every sense. Nagelfar 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm making a useful contribution here but you seem to want to constantly fight it over what is in my opinion very weak arguments over spurious semantics. Nagelfar 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting over with a clean slate

message: What is "In terms not of true knots" even supposed to mean???  The individual words are certainly English, but it really doesn't add up to a meaningful clause. AnonMoos 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means; in terms (that is, 'wordings' or 'labelings') which relate not to "true" (meaning; classicially taxonomical classifications of) "knots" (since Val'knut' is a name only). It is perfectly viable English in every sense. Nagelfar 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And furthermore...

message: You obviously know something about Scandinavian placenames etc., so why not concentrate your efforts in areas where you can make a useful contribution (as opposed to geometry, which does not seem to be one of those areas)? AnonMoos 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making a useful contribution here but you seem to want to constantly fight it over what is in my opinion very weak arguments over spurious semantics. Nagelfar 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not confine yourself to what you know

message: I think the image for the Borromean rings and the image for the 3-chain should be switched. The gray and blue triangle in the present "Borromean rings" image are disconnected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.184.31 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the three loops in any Borromean rings configuration is ever "connected" in the sense of a Hopf link.  See Borromean rings article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images wrong? 

message: /\
         /  \
        / /\ \  /\
       / /  \ \/  \
      / / /\ \ \/\ \
     / / /  \/\ \ \ \
    / / / /\/ /\ \ \ \
   / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \
  / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \
 / /_/ /_/_/__\ \_\ \ \ \
/___/ /________\ \___\ \ \
   / / / /______\_\_____\ \
  / / /____________________\
 / /______________\ \
/____________________\
Just because I saved this from some time ago and thought it should live on in some form to someone or several (potentially) who perhaps maybe a use for it. Nagelfar (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ASCII art]] Valknut 

message: How much stuff do you want here?  Off the top of my head I can think of another two examples: the Swedish metal band Amon Amarth's 2006 album With Oden on Our Side has the valknut as the background of the album artwork, and the 'barbarian invasion' expansion to the computer game Rome Total War has it as the faction symbol for the Alemanni, but I don't know how important or relevant those are.  If anyone's interested they could put them in I suppose130.216.234.125 (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern use. 

message: — Assignment last updated by Berserkz (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

message: — Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II