Talk:Sól (Germanic mythology)

Image Accuracy

this wiki page is an attack on the believers who know Sol is Thor's mate and the sun goddess and keeper of tthe earth's time. BTW: Earth is now called Canas Minor**************** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.46.83 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The REAL name of OUR Planet is "Canis Minor". Our Star cluster is Still needing a formal name. Alpha Centauri the closest sun. Use this parallax reference for its Definition, Please. It might be just 45 stars. 108.45.46.83 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The sowilo rune traditionaly does not look as this image or this image depicts it, which is how unicode fonts portray the rune.
See the images here or here or even the Schutzstaffel insignia for examples of what the Sowilo rune traditionaly looked like.
The Nazi symbols legal disclaimer indicates that the rune should like more the Schutzstaffel insignia than the unicode character.
Anyone able—and willing—to correct this image so it no longer uses the unicode version of the rune?
—Asatruer 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted - I'm on it. :bloodofox: 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created and added a new image for the article. :bloodofox: 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Good call. :bloodofox: 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sinthgunt as moon

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)

Proto-Indo-European deity

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)

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sól (Sun)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The section on the Merseburg Incantation is unreferenced. Or is this an autoreference, with the naming of the source implying the reference?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   One reference, and it will pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! I've put the reference in place and made a few adjustments per Lindow's translation. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. In which case I pass the article as Good. Congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Male "Anglo-Saxon Sunna" statue

The statue in question.

Recently Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

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)

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)

Genders

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 {{Why?}} -- 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)

The nouns themselves are masculine and feminine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_grammar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.89.67 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Father Sol, Mother Earth and Aunt Luna

Sol is the Latin name for the Sun. In English: solar refers to the Sun. Life on this planet is the result of Father Sol's interactions - the energy & information - with Mother Earth and 'Aunt Luna'<ref]source needed</ref]. 73.85.207.81 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Like, did you even read the article at all? Sól's name is etymologically linked to the Latin Sol, but they're fundamentally different interpretations of the sun as a character. Also pretty idiotic considering Sól is considered a female deity and the Norse moon god, Máni, is male.

Requested move 6 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus to move the article as there have been no new comments after the previous relist. Editors disagreed on whether to use Sól or Sun and whether “mythology” or “paganism” is more accurate. Because no option gained clear support, the title will remain unchanged. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Sól (Germanic mythology) → Sun (Germanic paganism)Sun (Germanic paganism) – This diety and article is Pan-Germanic, thus, its a bit misleading to call it by the Norse name, which just means "sun" anyway. Likewise, limiting it to "mythology" is also problematic, as this is a proper diety. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 02:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Compare Dielli (Albanian paganism). ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 04:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as proposed. Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. We should use the COMMONAME in English scholarship. It's not uncommon to "pick" one particular transliteration as the winner by usage (see: Valhalla, not Valhol), and there are plenty of terms better known by their transliterated forms than as a translation (too many examples to count - "angel" rather than "messenger", the raw translation of the Greek, say). I am willing to change my !vote if a COMMONNAME argument is made that this isn't the common name. SnowFire (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Jackson Crawford uses Sun in his translations. So does the translations we use in the article. Benjamin W. Fortson IV uses Sunna in Indo-European language and culture: an introduction. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 03:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, and that's great for a translation, but it's not responsive to the main point. I checked Andy Orchard's 1997 " Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend" (cited in the article) and it has the entry under Sól (‘sun’) and opens with "Personification of the sun". This suggests that in English-language scholarship on the topic, the Old Norse term is still used.

  Side note: If this article is moved, I think it should go to Sun (Germanic mythology). I do not understand the claim that being a "proper deity" means that "paganism" (a rather contested term) should be used, nor is it even clear that this was a "proper deity" (it was likely a "personification" as discussed in the article). (But to be clear this is a second choice, first preference is no change per above.) SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  A proper deity is meant in contrast to example Elli and Sigurd, who are soly mythological figures. The sun is an actual pagan deity with traditions. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 20:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC) For the same reason we dont put Ra under Ra (mythology) or God in Abrahamic religions under God (Abrahamic mythology).--ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 20:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  Further, "Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend" from 1997 was during the peak of the 1990s Neo-Pagan/New Age Celtic/Norse revivalism movement (whatever this phenomenon is called); its 28 years ago and should be taken with a grain of salt for today. Back to Jackson Crawford. He uses "Sun" in his dedicated video on the topic: The Sun in Norse Myth, description: "The sun (Sól or, it's a long story, Sunna).." Using 'Sun' also works better in terms of language, since Old Norse Sól isn't a constructed name which is transferred between languages (like Billy, Bob, Kevin etc). It is a figurative name which shifts between languages: German: Sunna → Norse: Sól → Baltic: Saulė, etc. Sun also avoids putting Sól on a pedistal next to Sunna, which is the more common name among Germanic tribes. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 21:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot understand your argument above. "Abrahamic mythology" is not a thing or a used term so of course it's not there. The god Ra is the primary topic for "Ra" so it's at Ra unadorned ((WP:POPIC). Let me state my point: "mythology" is a much more sweeping and less judgmental term than "paganism", a term fought and contested over from people who want to reclaim it to people who think it's an insult to people who think it doesn't exist. It is as simple as that. Whether the Sun/Sol is a deity or not, this topic is about mythological beliefs broadly, so it's an accurate disambiguator.

  As far as your video, I already agreed that Crawford uses "Sun". I just don't think that's the end of the argument. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Behold Category:Abrahamic mythology. As for paganism, it is an academic term for pre-christian religions and thereof, especially in ethnology, archeology and history etc. We can and should use it if applicable. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 16:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  A category created recently in 2025 that was previous deleted at CFD and should not exist because it's not a thing. And yes, you're clearly part of the group that thinks "paganism" is a great term, but hopefully you can agree - even if you disagree with them - that other people have strong opinions otherwise, certainly including academia, or who have wildly varying definitions of paganism's scope. Why would we use a contested and controversial word when we have a non-controversial word with a clearer scope in "mythology"? SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Abrahamic mythology is a proper hyperonym for the mythologies of the Abrahamic religions, but that is not the discussion. I gave Ra (mythology) and God (Abrahamic mythology) as examples of why "Sun (Germanic mythology)" is a poor name. As for "paganism" being a "bad word" or whatever: Wikipedia is apolitical and we use academic language, as requested for the move above. And to be real, iv'e never actually seen anyone irl who thinks the term "paganism" is controversial, instead, this discussion seems rather bloated by loud voices on the internet. Anyway. An alternative could be Sun (Germanic religion), but that is objectively a worse title, since Germanic paganism never was a formed religion, simply the running ancient faith. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 16:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I see an option for Sun (Germanic mythology). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move notes

Blockhaj moved the article anyway after the RM result. I restored it because that's not how the RM closed. I'm still not sold by the arguments above and I think moving in contravention to the RM result (without even pinging me, the opposer) is quite poor form. SnowFire (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@SnowFire the Sun chariot is quite clearly depicting the same entity as described in the eddas, which is found in many other Indo-European religions as well (see Sun chariot). Even if we cannot prove it by technicality, it still works as a great representation. And either way, many researchers considers it the same entity, especially since it is oriented with the sun going left to right – see Kaul, Flemming (1998), Ships on bronzes; Kristiansen, Krister & Larsson, Thomas B (2005), The rise of Bronze Age society, etc. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)