Talk:Sól (Germanic mythology)

message: The sowilo rune traditionaly does not look as this image or this image depicts it, which is how unicode fonts portray the rune.<BR />
See the images here or here or even the Schutzstaffel insignia for examples of what the Sowilo rune traditionaly looked like.<BR />
The Nazi symbols legal disclaimer indicates that the rune should like more the Schutzstaffel insignia than the unicode character.<BR />
Anyone able—and willing—to correct this image so it no longer uses the unicode version of the rune?<BR />—Asatruer 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted - I'm on it. :bloodofox: 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created and added a new image for the article. :bloodofox: 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, the sigma shape is Elder Futhark, the S-shape is Younger Futhark. The cursive form is unnecessarily fashioned after the Nazi design. —The preceding comment was added to the edit summary by Dbachmann (talk • contribs).
Do you have any sources for that?
All of the books on Runes that I have read depict the Elder Futhark sowilo as  and not . If you check the external links listed on the Elder Futhark page, the two of the links that show the runes show the  form or a mirror image of it. One of these links has a subpage that is rather usefull to the discussion, where it is indicated that while the  form —and its many variant— pre-date the  form, the mirror image of and  forms were the dominant forms between 200–750.—Asatruer 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do I have sources? I daresay. How about the Kylver Stone, to begin with? It doesn't get more authentic than that. But you can also check the Unicode definition chart (16CA vs. 16CB). dab (𒁳) 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: there is an alternate Elder Futhark s shape. But it isn't your , which is an oblique sigel as used by the Nazis. The crucial difference is the middle stroke, which is slanting downwards as well, as in :Image:16 s sowelu rune.gif (e.g. Spearhead of Kovel (uncertain, may be a Latin S), or the Golden horns of Gallehus, Seeland-II-C): we can present such a shape as an alternative to the sigma shape, but not the oblique "Sig" you are suggesting. dab (𒁳) 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. :bloodofox: 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Accuracy

message: I've just made an edit where I removed a note regarding Sinthgunt, sister of Sol, as a moon goddess. I intended to specify this in my edit but I mistakenly hit enter a bit early. Anyway, what I was saying is that if it stays in it needs rewording as a theory and it needs to be attributed. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinthgunt as moon

message: From the theories section: 
Theories have been proposed that Sól, as a goddess, may represent an extension of an earlier Proto-Indo-European deity due to Indo-European linguistic connections between Norse Sól, Sanskrit Surya, Gaulish Sulis, Lithuanian Saulė, and Slavic Tsar Solnitse.
I suppose it would be appropriate to add the Greek Helios to this list, with a proper source? –Holt  T•C 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that Helios would fit the etymological lineage that this list puts forth, but more sourced information about these connections would be most welcomed here, and a sourced examination of other Indo-European personifications of the sun would be handy too (which I presume would include Helios), especially if it included which cultures featured male personifications of the sun and which feature female personifications. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word Helios is related. Indo-European initial s gave rise to initial h in Greek, compare 'super' and 'hyper' or 'same' and 'homo'. Haukur (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. We should definitely add this with a reference, including the note about the S and H relation too. Some basic information about the figures prior to their names, and their gender, would probably also be handy, and we could place it in a "theories" section on each of the individual deity pages too. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Indo-European deity 

message: thumb|The statue in question.
Recently  added this photograph (to the right) to the article. As can be seen, this is a an attempt at depicting the Germanic sun goddess, but as male rather than correctly female, seemingly directly influenced by Helios from Greek mythology rather than anything Germanic. The problem with putting this in the article is evident in that it sows confusion and is misleading when this is not directly explained up front, yet an explanation would require a reference, especially when claims are made about romanticist depictions of Germanic gods. For the record, I agree with the statements in his edit summary above, but as the article is currently fully referenced and has gained GA-status, I think this needs to be put on hold until some solid references about this statue can be found and, with it, the appropriate sourced commentary.
If I am correct, this is one of a series of "lost Anglo-Saxon gods" statues, and we could also use photographs of the others for some other articles as well, if you have the, Midnightblueowl, although if they're as outright wrongly depicted as this one we'll be in a similar situation, I'm afraid. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the achieved GA status, I would support Bloodofox' claims that it would be most appropriate to not add the image until claims about it and its non-intuitive nature are referenced. In theory, any GA article can become delisted if it fails to meet the GA criteria at any users discretion (though a reassessment is always permitted). Perhaps this is something that could also be discussed in the article proper? Arsenikk (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that we are experiencing some technical difficulties here. I attempted to add this to the proper talk page, but it seems it may have ended up on the GA review sub-page? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this discussion from the GA talk to the main talk, so it should be fine now. The problem might be that if one presses "edit" on the GA talk, it gets into the GA review template. Arsenikk (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Male "Anglo-Saxon Sunna" statue

message: I tagged 
: and "that Sól is female and Máni male probably has to do with the grammatical gender of the nouns: Sól is feminine and Máni is masculine."
with  -- i.e., what about each reveals its gender? Is it just that sól is feminine when it doesn't refer to the sun and "máni" is masculine when it doesn't refer to the sun (or to the moon?). Presumably not just that writers use the pronoun of corresponding gender on second reference to each proper name! In some languages you can tell bcz any word ending with -e or -a or -ess, for instance, is feminine. But it's confusing to just say "is", especially since "probably" implies that there is reason to examine the evidence.--Jerzy•t 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genders