Jump to content

Talk:Hel (mythological being)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Hell"

"Her name is cognate with the English word hell." Wouldn't her name rather be the Source of the English word Hell, rather than a cognate? I would believe early Christian preachers used the heathen word Hell, as well as other pre-Christian concepts, to help spreading the new religion to common people in Northern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.72.148 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

Her Birth

I think perhaps more detail should be provided on her birth. The way it's currently written makes the common mistake of impling she was concived in the usual manner. This is not so and may put Loki in a worse light than nessessary.

The [Asir] where attempting to kill Angarboden, but she wouldn't stay dead. After the first two attempts, she simply came back to life. So, on the third attempt, Loki eats her heart. This succeeds in killing her, but the ill effects thereof lead to the creation of three of Loki's "children": Hel, Fenrir, and Jormungund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.204.2 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hel in modern literature, movies, etc.

  • Hel plays a role in Marvel Comics' Thor series.
  • Hel causes much trouble for David, Christopher, Jalil and April in K.A. Applegate's book series, Everworld.
  • Hel, called Hild, also appears notably in Kosuke Fujishima's Aa! Megami-sama manga strip. (Here she is depicted seemingly in the older sense, evil and cunning but also somewhat fun-loving and true to her word. In the manga, she and Odin fathered the elder norn Urd, who therefore has two distinctly different and conflicting sides to her personality. Like Wagner and others, the author took some notable liberties with the original Norse mythology.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haukurth (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move plan

I don't think Hel is called a "goddess" in any of the ancient sources. I think putting "goddess" in the title misleadingly suggests that she was worshipped, something for which there is no evidence. If no one objects or has a better idea I will move this page to Hel (daughter of Loki). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe something shorter would be better, but what? Hel (person) is misleading since it suggests she is human. How about Hel (being)? My feel for English isn't good enough to estimate whether that is a good name. Thoughts? Or does no-one care what I do as long as it doesn't involve diacritics? ;) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
"Being" is very vague in English; I will say that, as an English speaker, I'm comfortable with her being referenced as a goddess; while she wasn't worshipped, she was part of the extended family of the Aesir. Though, of course, I wouldn't go with the designation of "god" for Fenrir or Jormundgandr, so there you have it. If "mythological figure" is good wiki-ese, it would work; it's accurate, without being quite as wordy as "daughter of Loki". ---Mr. Nexx 05:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... maybe. At any rate I'm not comfortable with "goddess" - if she's the daughter of Loki and Angrboða she doesn't have a drop of godly blood. She is, as far as I know, never referred to as a god(dess) in the ancient sources and there is no evidence that she was worshipped. I don't really like "mythological figure" - the disambiguation is needed because of Hel (realm) and I wouldn't want that to be at Hel (mythological realm). And I don't really like "daughter of Loki" for various reasons. I'm moving it to "being" for now - it's better than "goddess" and if someone comes up with something better than we can move it again. - Haukur 23:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hel (entity)" sounds nice. 66.63.86.156 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What's about non-christian version?

My articles with sources have been censured. You have motivation I suppose, (I know that my Englih isn’t so good! I’m only a Viking) but there’s still a big problem to be impartial in Wiki ! When articles speak about Norse mythology we have only the Christians’ opinion! What's about Asatruar opinion? For us it isn’t mythology! Today Christians are quiet and Honest and I respect them, but history claim and prove that Christians were like ayatollahs during thousand years! How can one thinks that they give us the truth on our Viking’s believes and pagan one?: All serious Historians agree with this(Boyer, Renaud, Mabire, Musset, Barthelemy…)(christians were inspired by vitae latina and bible) Here my article: We have to remember that it's the Christian clerks whom wrote and translated sagas, written a few centuries after the Viking era. But this version is contradicted in the Odal Properties, and also by the historians, as for the bad faith of their authors whom wanted to destructed pagan believes!(1)(2) In the pagan version when you don't die like an Einherjar there is “the straw’s death”. That means “natural death in the bed”. In that case of death the spirits take the way for Hel where the quiet and mysterious Hela, Goddess of death, who has half face in the shadow of darkness and the other part in the brightness of the life, leads spirits (Fylgja) on a ship which follows the current of one of the twelve rivers Eligavar. One of these rivers brings them in the country of Gimle (same as Greek Champs-Élysées). (1) sources: "L'Islande Médiévale" Régis Boyer, Guide belle lettres des civilisations ISBN 2-251-41014-7 and "Le Christ des barbares" Régis Boyer, les Editions du cerf 1987 ISBN 2-204-02766-9Thorgis 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I’m sorry for my English. I’ll take care to stay completely neutral in regards to subjects. I’m not accustoming yet with encyclopedic definition! The article "Theories" confirm what I want to explain "description of Hel is of later date, and that she originally was a much more neutral goddess" If you think that the following article is better, I request your help to translate in good English with changing few words if I still write not neutral sentences. Here my new article: Historians know (1) that a large majority of Norse Mythology have been wrote or translate by Christians few centuries after Viking period, they wanted to give a bad look for Norse Gods. For the oral tradition the spirits fylgja whom had a “a straw death” that means, natural death or “none-fighting” death, they go to Hel, where: "the quiet and mysterious Hela the , Goddess of death, who has half face in the shadow of darkness and the other part in the brightness of the life”, led them on a ship which follows the current of one of the twelve rivers Eligavar. One of those rivers brings them in country of Gimle (same as Greek Champs-Élysées)

sources: (1) "L'Islande Médiévale" Régis Boyer, Guide belle lettres des civilisations ISBN 2-251-41014-7 "Le Christ des barbares" Régis Boyer, les Editions du cerf 1987 ISBN 2-204-02766-9 Thorgis 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So it sounds to me like Hel really is a Goddess. I'm not sure that pagan deities were or had to be 'worshipped' in the modern sense of the word. As a matter of fact, I'd suggest that they were NOT worshipped, but rather revered and respected. The idea of 'worshipping' implies being inferior to the deity. I think 'worship' is what the Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu 'High' gods demand. They are somehow vastly superior to humans, who are next to nothing in their eyes. I don't think pagan gods were this totalitarian or dictatorial.

At any rate, could we please change the title of the article back to 'the Goddess Hel'?? Athana 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Naglfar

I have checked and cannot find a direct reference to Hel building Naglfar. I am going to remove it. If you find a source, please also add it to the Naglfar article. --Trakon 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Please, share your opinions at Talk:Hel (realm).--Berig 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Theories, Hel as a neutral goddess

From the article it says, It has been suggested that this description of Hel is of later date, and that she originally was a much more neutral goddess over the realm of shadows, where all, both good and evil, courageous and cowardly, gather after death. Tell me where one gets the idea that Hel is not a neutral being? True, her possessions are hunger, famine, etc, but Odin is just as much to blame, for he is the one who organized the situation. This is unlike Fenrir (or even Jormundgand), who is actually a dangerous and problematic foe who needed to be handed. Furthermore, this article is about Hel as the being, not the realm. The defining characteristic for dying is whether or not it was a death suffered in combat. Those who do not die in combat go to the realm(s) of Hel (the being) while those who do die in combat go to either Valhalla or Fólkvangr. If Hel is really such a bad or evil goddess, explain something she has done that is malicious or lawbreaking that was actually her own doing, instead of something ascribed (by either Odin or Loki) for the purpose of creating a scapegoat to empower some apparently holy or good aristocracy of warriors and gods. --Trakon 10:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, none of Loki's Jotun children really did anything wrong prior to their exile, other than being born. They are all fearsome in appearance, but not necessarily "born evil," and at least two of them (Fenrir and Hel) are obviously intelligent. Their classification has more to do with what they're destined to do (yes, that reasoning is admittedly a bit lame, but it predates any of us). Kelledin 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the Theories section needs to be properly cited or removed. Furthermore, if something has primary sources (of Norse Mythology itself) as references, then it should probably not be under the theories section, but the article itself, if not another section on equivocations or inconsistencies. --Trakon 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Man In Picture

The Hel depicted in the Wiki picture here is obviously a man. Could this be replaced with a picture an appropriately gendered, female Hel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozarker (talk • contribs) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the picture is terrible but I am afraid it's all we have at the moment. I've been looking for something better with no luck so far. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Side note

Anyone else think her description makes her sound half Drow? Also, she's in the comic Order of the Stick. - NemFX (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the Drows of a much later date? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Leikn

What's the purported etymology of the name Leikn? Is it related to lich (wake), German Leiche, etc (body or corpse)? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image removal

[1]

As per edit summary, image doesn't match text description, at all.77.86.10.42 (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The unbearable lightness of (being)

It doesn't seem to me that "(being)" disambiguates from anything. Can something be used like Hel (Norse)? GregKaye 06:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It disambiguates from the location of the same name; see Hel (location). Both are from Old Norse sources (yet may not have been restricted to them). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I wrote a comment at the naming conventions discussion, but I'll restate it here. It seemed to me that you were the only one really championing (being), with one person agreeing, one person suggesting entity, and just looking above, the majority consensus was against "being". I see that the arguments were:
1) she didn't receive a cult
2) She wasn't technically in the class of deities in popular parlance called "gods" (as exemplified by the one comment "she didn't have a drop of godly blood")
3) She isn't referred to as a god in translations of the Sagas (but yet, is in the commentaries).
These are all arguments, so far as I can tell, based on synthesis and original research.
Content moved to next section
The term deity that we're referring to is an academic one. We use secondary, independent sources, especially in onosmatics. In a subject like this, we almost wholly use expert sources. She's consistently referred to as a "goddess" or "deity" when not being referred to contextually (that is, "in-universe"). The term "god" is often, yes, a translation for Aesir and Vanir, but that doesn't mean that other supernatural beings are not considered deities in academic treatments of the subject. The use of the word "god" is largely stemming from the Romantic period, and how it's shifted peoples' conceptions. Otherwise, when specifically discussing Norse mythology, it's usually easier to refer to differing types of deities and spirits by the names used in the Sagas, for clarity, and popular consumption. I can assure you, the scholarly sources in the field of religious studies do indeed refer to her as a deity in academic usage.
If you can make a case for the term "being" having been used by a majority of reliable sources (and this isn't synthesis and OR) then go for it.(cont. next section) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot of confusion here. As my time is frequently limited here, I'll address comments as succinctly as possible.
The discussion about Hel didn't begin with me. Like I've pointed out, scroll up and you'll find Haukur (himself a scholar in Old Norse studies) discussing exactly this over a decade ago, thus resulting in the original move to Hel (being). Otherwise this article would just be at "Hel". "Being" disambiguates from "Location" and that's all that the sources give us. It is what it is, folks. These sources are often frustrating like that. This is why here you see specialist Judy Quinn intentionally avoiding calling her anything but rather being ("female being named Hel", "where the word Hel is used to denote a being" [2]) and commenting on her relation to other female figure paradigms, such as the valkyries (which is absolutely not glossed as "deity" in Germanic studies).(cont. next section) ::bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually "being" is in similar standing as the terms "figure" and "implement" which are legit disambiguating words (as per Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation).
I agree that when used standalone as in "Hel, the being" it sounds a bit off, but that applies for "fan, the implement" as well, and this does not preclude either from being used as a dab word. So Quinto Simmaco is making an invalid claim that somehow the use of "being" in a majority of sources must be demonstrated, since clearly, writing out there on the "fan" does not overwhelmingly employ the word "implement".
That said, I am inclined to agree with Necrothesp that Hel (mythological being) has a better ring than Hel (being).--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. It might be advisable to read that section more closely. I think they're words used in this context to illustrate absurdity by juxtaposition. (Figure) appears to have been abandoned as a dab word. Implement is used, but that doesn't it's analgous to (being). The selection uses those words in the context of illustrating when not to use parenthetical dab words, when natural disambiguation could, and should, be used. It says to use common dab words as well, rather than invent new ones- such as "mythological being, analagous to the example "mythological figure" that is used":
"Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation; for instance mechanical fan and hand fan are used instead of fan (mechanical) and fan (implement). If natural disambiguation is not available, a parenthetical is used. If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".
The "(being)" dab is nowhere else used on this encyclopedia. I wasn't able to find a single usage, aside from this article. It was also a minority position, advocated by only two people, and receiving a comment from another. Seven or eight other people were not in favour when comment was requested; it may have actually been more, but I'd have to look again. My point has been essentially this: we shouldn't go by what sounds "good to my [own] ear". Aside from my own opinion that we should unify these disambiguations using the most neutral and widely applicable term possible (that still fits each of the [five] criterion to some degree), we should also bow to what would be recognisable to the reader, and what's commonly used in academic literature, even if it's not entirely agreeable in certain specific circumstances- such as is the case here. It's just my perception, but it seems niche usages, and personal taste of the most heavily involved editors has seen an upsurge here, versus what actually makes the encyclopedia "run better". I find it a bit concerning. I'd rather work out a decent compromise with the involved editors, than drag this out, and have it come down to bureaucratic decision. I'm always a staunch advocate of civility and consensus, as well as common sense. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We can't use "mythology" because there's Hel (location), which "being" disambiguates from (which I still don't see the issue with). Straw polls like the one above don't mean much. It's clear that most of the editors involved were drive-by editors without background in the material and that they didn't have much if anything to say about it. The editors with background in this material acknowledged the issue with basically anything else but "being" and this discussion has gone back since a decade ago. It's possible that there's nowhere else on the encyclopedia a similar situation as this. Most of the folklore and mythology articles aren't as developed as a lot of the Germanic articles (I have no idea why). As a result, it seems to me that if there is an issue with convention, then convention needs to change. As for "bowing to the reader", I believe the reader needs to know that this isn't a clear cut case—most figures fit somewhere in the paradigms presented to use from the corpus, but Hel isn't one of them. I don't think we should cover this up to make the situation more simple to a reader than it is. I think the lead makes it fairly clear as is and I doubt the reader will have much trouble with understanding the concept. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

While "(being)" seems less than popular, at least two (Necrothesp and Number 57) were comfortable with it so long as it was qualified as "(mythological being)". The phrase "mythological being" is used in many articles, applicable to not-quite-god entities such as Greek Fates, Charon, or Menoetius mentioned recently at User talk:GregKaye. One can reasonably assume that a fair fraction of those who would vote against "(being)" find it palatable to keep "(mythological being)".

@Quinto Simmaco: Last time, you advanced the claim that "(being)" or "(mythological being)" can only be used as dab phrases when you can demonstrate their use in the majority of literature about the subject. But there is no such rule.

This time around, you are claiming that because "(being)" is not used in any other article, this violates a rule banning introduction of new dab terms. Again, this is a misstatement. The rules only discourage inventing if a "possible" alternative exists using existing dab phrases. And common sense dictates that "possible" here should be taken to mean "comparably viable", not "any possibility even if it's bad (e.g. has POV issues)".

If you pause to think about it, it's not so terribly surprising "(being)" is found so far in only one article, because the odds are against it. The situation here is that Hel has two meanings in the context of the same (Norse) mythology AND one of them a not-quite-god being. Such alignment of conditions is a remote occurrence. One can conceivably be forced to invent a unique dab phrase in other situation, e.g. hypothetically "(Yemeni handball player)".

I realize that you think your candidate "(goddess)" or "(deity)" is a dispassionate bjective choice, but it is actually problematic in the methodology by Wiki rules, and is clearly non-neutral. I suggest you consult WP:RS re "authorities" etc., but I will elaborate in the split-off section below. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed as such, my friend. :) I said nothing about any rules, nor did I advance any claim. I just was reiterating that it isn't an ideal situation, given that there are no other such dabs, and that it's far from the kind of parenthetical disambiguation Wikipedia prefers. It doesn't fit either of the two guiding principles for dabs:
  1. the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (emblem)
  2. the subject or context to which the topic applies.
Or the five criteria for naming:
  • Recognizability
  • Naturalness
  • Precision
  • Conciseness
  • Consistency
And that it was contrary to what was preferred by the majority of people in the request for comment, some of who explicitly rejected it... Yet it was touted as consensus in the edit summary. Which makes me concerned, is all... Mainly because it seems part of a pattern of recent editing on this article. To be honest, the naming isn't a big deal to me. And I agree with the "essence" of why bloodofox wants this. If "being" sticks, that's fine. I do think that there should be a request for comment that casts a wide net for naming, just so that this is a community decision, rather than of two people.
I'm really more concerned about the categories, as that in fact is a big deal. It had no consensus or discussion, and does muck up the works. And as I said, I'm a bit troubled by the way this is being done; I don't want to see other potential editors squeezed out because of a tendency toward toward ownership. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It still sounds to me like you're saying there is some clear-cut rule book argument why "(mythological being)" or "(being)" cannot be used, but if I insist on this, we're just be going in circles.
So anyway, I will concede that "(goddess)" is a natural and clear choice, if it didn't have any issues, but it is not very well-accepted by the Norse studies academics, and therefore is too POV to be usable. Neutrality is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS so it outweighs other finer vagaries. I've elaborated my argument in the split-off section below. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm late to the party but I just thought I'd note that I agree with my 2005 self that 'goddess' would be unfortunate in the title. I agree that 'being' is a weird word for disambiguation but it's hard to come up with anything else that is suitably neutral. Haukur (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Although there appeared to be general agreement that the current name is unsuitable, no consensus appeared to develop on an appropriate alternative. (Norse mythology) was deemed to be inappropriate as it could equally refer to Hel (location), whilst it was pointed out that (goddess) and (deity) would be inappropriate as she is not referred to as such. Perhaps the best suggestion put forward was Hel (mythological being) or Hel (mythological figure), so it may be worth starting a second RM on one of those (or thrashing it out in an RFC first). Number 57 12:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Hel (being) → Hel (daughter of Loki) – or Hel (Norse mythology). How many things in Wikipedia are there that can be described as non being? What kind of a disambiguation is this? However I generally find disambiguations such as (mythology) as violations of NPOV as the related topics typically constitute facets of sincerely held beliefs that parallel content of many current time "religions". GregKaye 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As a potential parallel see Aegiale (daughter of Helios). GregKaye 09:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate and 209.211.131.181, is she a goddess? (note, I am not asking about your personal belief here ). GregKaye 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, she is not referred to as a goddess in any historical source. There's also no "state of being" referred to as Hel, whatever that may mean. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The "state of being" is being dead, a general prerequisite of being in the location. In my opinion being counted among the Aesir makes her a goddess, regardless of whether whe was worshipped.209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Various figures go to Hel without being dead, including Odin and Höðr. One apparently need not be dead—the same goes for Valhalla. As for the "state of being', I suppose you're talking about phrases translatable as 'to go to Hel'. These phrases are ambiguous, but they either refer to to the location or the figure—or both. But I don't think that's relevant to the point here. More relevant, Hel is not included in any of the numerous lists of goddesses (ásynjur; which also means she's not included among the Æsir or Vanir). As a result, the term "goddess" is misleading. There are numerous other female beings other than "goddesses" in the corpus, from trolls to norns. Norse mythology is brimming with female beings of various, often overlapping, categories and designations. However, Hel is not included among any of them a far as we know. I don't think "goddess" should be a default designation for 'we don't know'. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nowhere in the corpus is Hel referred to as a goddess or as a deity. She is also not referred to as a valkyrie, a dís, a jötunn, or any other sort of being in particular. In this sense she is enigmatic. She does, however, share her name with the location in which she dwells; Hel (location). This is why the disambiguation is being and why being is in my opinion most appropriate for this page. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "being" is the appropriate disambiguation for any page. It's far too uninformative. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Goddess" is misleading (see above), "daughter of Loki" defines her by her relation to a male figure, and "Norse mythology" is only makes things more ambiguous given that there's a location of the same name. I don't see any more accurate designator than "being". :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is "goddess" misleading? This article seems to be written from a POV that she isn't. I'm not so sure I like that. But, anyway, I did locate this article from the Harvard Theological Review, a peer-reviewed journal, which identifies her as the Norse goddess of the underworld. Whether this is the mainstream academic view, I do not know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Goddess is misleading because she's not called anything translatable to that in the source texts. The Old Norse word usually (arguably inappropriately) glossed as "goddess" by academics and translators is ásynjur. She's never referred to by this term, nor any related terms, nor any other of the many terms used to refer to female 'supernatural' figures in the Old Norse texts in which she is solely attested. In academia, she's generally assumed to be some kind of goddess-like figure (thus Davidson's comparison to Hindu figures), but she's not considered to be among the ásynjur nor vanir by any academic that I know of.
The 1983 article you're linking to—which has its own section in the article body—seems to theoretically place her in this designation, maybe along the line of Persephone or Styx, and now and then you'll get an academic who falls back on this term for lack of something better. You'll also find her described as a "giantess" by in academia sometimes, which is also inaccurate for other complex reasons and probably has something to do with her birth via Loki and the jötunn Angrboða (in Gylfaginning). However, speaking from the sources, she's not described as anything but a daughter of Loki or the daughter of the union of Angrboða or as the sister of Fenrir and Jörmungandr. She's also not the only 'underworld' figure in Norse mythology, and there are other figures associated with other afterlife locations that are explicitly referred to as goddesses (for example, Gefjun and Freyja).
Assuming Hel isn't to be considered some aspect of some other goddess outside of the texts we have (which Davidson seems to argue late in her career), Hel had narratives of her own at some point that we just don't have record of. This isn't rare, unfortunately. More careful scholars who write about her will just refer to her as Hel and avoid referring to her as anything in particular (for example, John Lindow in his popular handbook ([[3]] or Judy Quinn, who refers to her as a "being" [4]). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm noticing some votes here from IPs and registered voters without explaining about what we'd thereafter have to do with Hel (location) if we moved this article to Hel (Norse mythology). Then there's the issue of referring to Hel as something not in the source texts and avoided by a many scholars (the term "goddess") or choosing to define Hel by a male figure, Loki (that may only be related to her in North Germanic religion) while ignoring Hel's mother from the same sources, Angrboða. To be blunt, familiarity with this topic is a necessary prerequisite for a decision on this article title, and there's a good reason that Haukur chose to move this article to "Hel (being") a decade ago. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

When this discussion opens back up again

Rename as Hel (goddess)?

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning This section split off from previous section.

We continue with topic of whether "goddess" can be appropriately applied to Hel:--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(cont.)The term deity that we're referring to is an academic one. We use secondary, independent sources, especially in onosmatics. In a subject like this, we almost wholly use expert sources. She's consistently referred to as a "goddess" or "deity" when not being referred to contextually (that is, "in-universe"). The term "god" is often, yes, a translation for Aesir and Vanir, but that doesn't mean that other supernatural beings are not considered deities in academic treatments of the subject. The use of the word "god" is largely stemming from the Romantic period, and how it's shifted peoples' conceptions. Otherwise, when specifically discussing Norse mythology, it's usually easier to refer to differing types of deities and spirits by the names used in the Sagas, for clarity, and popular consumption. I can assure you, the scholarly sources in the field of religious studies do indeed refer to her as a deity in academic usage. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There are search results that may be significant in this debate:
Amongst those later results we find
  • "Hel was not a goddess to be trifled with"
  • "Some believe that Hel was not a goddess at all, but that she was merely a personification of death, one that the Norse people would have understood to be a mere personification. Another thought is that she is a late goddess, and exclusive to the Viking period."
  • "oh and to those who say hel was not a goddess, " Hel was a goddess of the netherworld, and half her facve had human features while the other half was blank. She ruled the dead." blog comment
  • "Ms. Paxson admits that Hella is a “shadowy figure in the lore” but points out that “she has become an important deity to a number of heathens today.” This may be, but it seems to me that we should not ignore evidence that Hel was not a goddess at all in the minds of our ancestors, but a late poetic device."
From my searches only this last view found here seems to support the claim. GregKaye 17:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(cont.) Of course, we can add to the article that some scholars have referred to her as a goddess, like Hilda Ellis Davidson (discussed in article, citing Grimm)—then again, some see her solely as a poetic invention of the skalds (Rudolf Simek echoes this claim in the article body), which doesn't exactly make for a "deity". "Deity" simply isn't a neutral description of the figure any way you slice it.
In Germanic studies, the word that is conventionally glossed as 'goddess' or 'female deity' is ásynja, plural ásynjur. Sometimes dis is glossed as 'goddess' but only under certain circumstances, and then there are various other terms glossed as 'deity' in translation that are also in the texts; none of them are used to describe her. Besides that, there are a multitude of other terms; norn, valkyrie, jötunn, etc. which powerful female beings also fall under. Mercifully, in folkloristics, philology, anthropology, and other related disciplines, there's a little more concern for specifics than simply glossing every supernatural entity, female or male, as deity (!). To make things even more confusing for a concrete paradigm among these beings in Old Norse, some figures fall into multiple categories, like Eir, Þrúðr, and Skuld.
As for secondary sources, please stick to academic sources only. Let's leave the blog comments alone. Neopagans publishing outside of academic are not authoritative/reliable sources. Google Books tallies are also not at all helpful; you'll find a lot of non-academic stuff that is very poorly formed and far from peer reviewed. One of our most important secondary sources, Rudolf Simek's handbook, isn't searchable or viewable there. Stick to academics working in ancient Germanic studies.
Sure, we know nothing of a cult regarding Hel. But that's irrelevant—it's the case for most figures in our patchy knowledge of North Germanic religion. Germanic Neopaganism is varied and vast; academic sources are our concern, not modern Neopagan blogs or works published through, say, Llewellyn Worldwide. We can discuss how the figure is treated in Germanic Neopaganism, but we need secondary sources for that, which can often be hard to find.
I suggest that we just accept the situation as it is—Hel is nowhere referred to as a term glossable to "deity" and in fact powerful figures exist in the material that aren't described in this manner. She's a special case. The disambiguation "being" exists here to disambiguate it from the location in a neutral manner. I'm not sure why this is a problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
While a few scholars in the field refer to her as "goddess", other authorities plainly do not, and since there is dissent on this in the academic field, you cannot choose such name as Hel (goddess) or Hel (deity) that is so prejudicial in favor of one WP:POV.
I think one clear authoritative dissent is found in the Cleasby-Vigfusson Icelandic Dictionary, which defines Hel as "ogress".
Prose Edda (Faulkes's translation) glosses Hel as "daughter of Loki", as well as Finnur Jónsson's ed.[5] so that's another case where something other than "goddess".
This added to John Lindow and the Judy Quinn examples Bloodofox gave, demonstrates that the scholars in the specific field do not unanimously (or in the majority) agree to using "goddess".
It seems Quinto Simmaco wants "scholarly sources in the field of religious studies" to have considerable say, but they are not authorities and there for not WP:Reliable source on the subject of Hel in Norse mythology.
The same non-RS applies to GregKaye's Google polling on usage "goddess", because it indiscriminately counts uses, whether by a lay author or those outside the field. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kiyoweap, do editors of Britannica count as lay authors or those outside the field? In their article it reads:

  • Hel Norse deity - Hel, in Norse mythology, originally the name of the world of the dead; it later came to mean the goddess of death.

GregKaye 06:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Britannica is a poor source on Norse mythology. We've been over the debate about the origins of Hel—let's stick to scholars in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg, that's a good catch, and if you can specifically identify the specific author, he/she might be another authority to build the case within the article for commonplace usage within the field. And I certainly don't endorse the view that a generic "editor of the Britannica" constitutes a single almighty authority that trumps all other notable scholars on the subject.
It is already conceded some expert scholars such as H. R. E. Davidson employ "goddess" (this is already reflected in the article). There are probably other examples to be found (e.g. Larington's Poetic Edda indexes Hel as "goddess of the dead").
However, as long as there is considerable dissent, it would be inappropriate to represent one side in the dissent in the article title itself, of all places.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In line with Britannica subtitles I see no reason to opt for short disambiguations. I would also be happy with anything from Hel (ruler of Hel) to Hel (ruler of Norse realm of the dead). GregKaye 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason, if this really wasn't obvious to you, is WP:TERSE. You can redirect from longer names if you like but there's no reason to force people to use unnecessarily long dabs as the default.
This whole section is badly formatted but, as noted above,
  • Support move to Hel (goddess) per WP:TERSE WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs, when this discussion comes back around. The majority of opposition to the move is badly taken. Her status outside the Aesir and Vanir has no bearing whatsoever on her status as a goddess in the English language. It simply calls for a section of her article to address that she was considered something apart from either of those communities of Norse gods. — LlywelynII 03:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Category Removals

Bloodofox, as per your suggestion, I have now read the entirety of the talk page, and reviewed every revision of the article. I had already read the majority of it before. The category removals were never discussed. In fact, no such discussion or debate ever appears in the history. It appears that the article is now completely categorically orphaned, and it is no longer indexed whatsoever. By every measure that I know of, these are indeed the correct categories for this page, and they've actually been static for years - the last category change was four years ago. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but you seem to have a strong objection to referring to Hel as a goddess, a deity, or anything except "being"; but these are the correct categories, and no other categories exist for this subject matter. It appears that aside from two changes, years ago, the categories have been there for about twelve years. I really, truly don't understand this. You keep referring me to the talk page, but all I see is either no discussion of what you're talking about, or only you giving these opinions. I only saw a singular instance of a single editor agreeing with you on one point, and another editor saying hell "didn't have a drop of godly blood". That's not consensus. This seems like a case of WP:OWN to me, but that's just my opinion. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that Haukur discussed the problem with the "goddess" designator above about a decade ago—which led to the move to "being"—and Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) recently commented on it as well. Both of these editors are specialist editors on these topics. The issue here is that the Hel was included in a "goddess" Wikipedia category but she is nowhere in the source texts referred to as a anything glossable as "goddess". I've also included examples of scholarship following suit, as well as adjusted the introduction to highlight the thread of scholars who view her as a late skaldic personification. "Goddess" should not be a default fall-back when there's 'nothing better'. I've simply added her to the "Norse mythology" category in the meantime :bloodofox: (talk)
True enough. I actually agree with you regarding the ambiguity of Hel, and her later, more conventional divinisation by skalds, especially post-Christianisation (in particular, Snorri's "Gylfaginning"). I'm familiar with the topic (although I'm in no way a specialist in Germanic studies; I'm a cultural anthropologist, but I do lecture in religious studies). My expertise, or lack thereof, is beside the point.
The article name actually doesn't fit any of the criteria for title disambiguation (and thus will likely have to change to something else, whatever our personal feelings on it)... I'm personally open to a non-unified dab that meets most of the criteria. But that's completely immaterial to what I'm talking about here. We're talking about the categories. Removing those categories mucks up the internal workings of the encyclopedia, and such drastic removals based on niche expertise never stick, at least as far as I've seen. There are simply no other categories in which to group it. It doesn't matter, in this particular case, what's particular or popular in Germanic studies. According to the policies on categories, it should actually be a "default fall-back", as it's meant in part to aid interested editors and readers in finding similar subjects. I'll restore the article titles. Revert again, if you wish, but if we go down that road, be aware it probably won't stick, because of the purposes that the categories themselves serve. It's an inclusionary outlook, rather than exclusionary. If you want to change the category names themselves to suit this particular article, then suggest it, if they meet the established criteria. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Although scholars writing in the area usually acknowledge some sort of overlap or connection in the areas of 'female supernatural beings' among the ásynjur (or, per glossing conventions, "goddesses"), valkyries, norns, and dísir, we have so far lacked an appropriate category to put these figures in. I finally got around to making such a category today and now we have [[category:Female supernatural figures in Norse mythology]]. Given the mysteries of the sources and the commentary from secondary sources, I think this is the most neutral category for both Hel (being) and the similarly ambiguous Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Irpa. In both cases, neither figures are attested as ásynjur, valkyries, norns, or dísir, but scholars speculate that they may have belonged to some or all of these categories. As a result, this solves our taking any sides in the scholarly debate about whether or not Hel was a late personification or if she was seen as an ásynja, a dís, a norn, or a valkyrie or a combination of these categories. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

On the category issue, I tend to side with Quinto Simmaco.

It already seems to be the working practice to tag category:gods or category:goddesses even if that is not strictly the correct category (e.g. Greek Moirai). I second the opinion that categories should serve as easy guide for general reader to finding articles key terms. And my sense of how other editors use category is that it's okay to tag if it is applicable in some even minority contexts, which QS worded as "inclusionary outlook".

So I am of the opinion that category:goddesses should be kept as a working category here. Instead of summarily replacing, I advocate it being kept side by side with whatever opposing view category (i.e. Category:Female supernatural figures in Norse mythology Bloodofox just invented)--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this violates NPOV. Not every non-human figure in mythology and folklore can be labeled a "goddess", and I can't think of a single scholar that glosses, say, valkyrja as "goddess" rather than simply "valkyrie". In my opinion, if it isn't correct, then it just needs to be fixed, regardless of "working practice". Wikipedia would be totally worthless if we decided things on "working practices" over incorrect! All adding this category to "goddess" is going to do is cause reader confusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Bloodofox, I was originally writing this to Kiyoweap, but due to the intervening edit, I guess it's to you.
I'm not opposed to the addition of a new category grouping those subjects whatsoever, actually. I think the category is one that should be retained.
I'm starting to feel, that for the sake of civility, I should clarify that in a content dispute, I don't see it as a rhetorical tug of war like some do (not saying anyone here does). I simply want to improve content; we can disagree, and still respect each other. Often, people get a little overly emotionally invested in articles they edit, and/or end up edit-warring.
However: Bloodofox, your comment betrays to some extent that we aren't even talking about the same thing. I should probably be more clear about this now, since I keep getting reverted. When I said wholesale removals like this gunk up the works, I actually meant it. I don't think most editors realise that this data is also tracked by WikiProject group pages, used for article assessment, linked globally to micro wikis, and serves as meta-data for the Wikimedia Foundation. As this is a Good Article, honestly, it should be restored immediately. The categories serve multiple practical and technical purposes. I'm more or less washing my hands of this as far as the naming so as to avoid possible contention, but Bloodofox, you absolutely should restore those categories. This isn't like a content dispute where we can hash it out ad nauseum, and you can pick and choose. They've been static for over a decade for a reason. Especially on a GA or FA, which uses this data more, this kind of wholesale removal of either content or categories is generally very much frowned upon. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, this is a Good Article, not a Featured Article. I wrote it some years ago, along with numerous Germanic deity articles (including many figures described with words that are commonly glossed as "goddesses").
On the topic of categories, I've been editing here for over a decade. During that time, I have created, removed, and edited numerous categories in this area. While doing so, I've seen a lot of mistakes and, unfortunately, even outright fabrications over the years here. In the past, accuracy of categories has been praised, the more accurate the better. I never had any issues. I'm not sure why this is a problem now. Categorization all too often remains a mess on Wikipedia, especially in the corners of folklore and mythology, and I think that the fact that the Germanic mythology articles have received the attention they have deserves some praise. That said, more work needs to be done in the categorization, I can see after looking at it. Actually, years ago we had a great user here who spent a lot of time taking care of some of the biggest category issues on this side of Wikipedia, but unfortunately that user no longer edits.
As the new category makes clear, Hel is not alone in being described as a falling into an unclear category. And Lindow even calls her a "monster"—should we use [[Category:Monsters]]? I really don't think so. After all, it's our goal to be neutral and accurate here, and the current category was created exactly for that reason; it brings together designations for various female figures in the corpus in a categorical manner, many of which are simply never glossed as "goddess" and putting them in a "goddess" category solely on Wikipedia makes Wikipedia the only pace where they're listed in that manner, and that's a problem. On top of this, in Hel's case, as we've discussed, there exists a scholarly debate regarding the potential of late personification. As a result, it's simply not neutral to categorize Hel as a "goddess"—it's taking sides and violates NPOV. If we've got more deep seeded issues with categories—and the vast majority of our mythology and folklore articles unfortunately tend to need total rewrites by specialists—then those issues need to be addressed on a case by case basis, rather than simply throwing all supernatural female beings into the category of "goddesses". That's bad practice and I oppose it. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Here, my "working practices" refers to the fact that editors of other mythologies have certainly encountered this problem and have dealt with it in a certain way, and a faction from the Germanic mythology subproject should not be instituting a unilateral way of doing things without coordinating with the UN of mythologies.
While stably GA status for many years which Quinto Simmaco cited may not be strong enough grounds to arugue against WP:BOLD editing on a myopic individual article level, I feel the act is disruptively consensus-breaking on the grounds I just mentioned.
So, procedurally, I regard it as preferable and duly courteous if Bloodofox had given a due broadcast announcement of this sweeping categorization reassignment, and incubated a hierarchy of categories somewhere within his user page as he did with his Odin rewrite for feedback before launching it.
For procedural issues and choice of wording issues on Category:Female supernatural figures in Norse mythology a thread should probably be set up at that category talk page there, or at the mythology project talk page, and cross-announced at various affected articles' talk pages, rather than the argument being perpetuated here.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As for categorizing Hel (being), I believe the system Bloodofox is trying to institute is too opaque, and I don't really think he has very successfully defended his system. It is a bit 'forced' piece of editing practice that while Larrington's translation of the Poetic Edda is being used in the article, you should see fit to suppress her glossing Hel as "goddess of death" (in the index and in her endnotes to p. 240). And based on Larrington there is sufficient grounds to place Hel under Category:Death goddesses. I perceive that Snorri not listing Hel among the ásynjur is the primary grounds why Bloodofox is against calling Hel a goddess. However, I don't see this is a consistently viable policy. Under that system, Loki who is listed among the aesir should unequivocally count as god. But for whatever reason, Grimm and Haukurth deny Loki a god status (Grimm: Hel cannot be "shown to be.. daughter of a god"; Haukur: Hel "doesn't have a drop of godly blood"). --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added into the article the fact that in the Poetic Edda, there is a stanza where presumably Hel is being referred to as an "ogress", and as I mentioned Vigfusson's dictionary defines Hel as "ogress", so I think this makes it viable to tag Hel as Category:Ogres also. This has Category:monsters as a parent category, so this incorporates Lindow's view also, without having to tag her as "monster" per se.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Disruptively consensus breaking"? Maybe I should point at that this article was at "Good Article" status for years because I wrote it and brought it to that status. And when I wrote it, I was aware of both the primary sources and secondary sources involved that make Hel a unique figure among supernatural female figures in Norse mythology (all anyone has to do is read the "theories" section that approaches the very different ways some scholars have approached this material and resulted in very different conclusions—some quite adamant that Hel isn't to be considered a "goddess" but rather a late poetic invention). I'm not sure when those POV categories went up, but they're clearly taking sides in a scholarly debate and that is not OK, which is why I removed them. In fact, the push to get these categories up reminds me a lot of the craptastic state of many of these articles prior to the time I invested in rewriting a lot of them to GA standards—no real concern for accuracy, a lot of misleading information, and some notable outright falsifications.
So, if I get this straight, now you're advocating we just categorize Hel under everything every scholar has ever described her as? That's a problem for a number of reasons, most immediately the problematic practice of glossing. I'm not sure what your background is in Old Norse or Germanic studies, but "ogre" is a gloss, a translation choice on the part of the translator. And in this case not a very helpful one. I'd have to check exactly what is being glossed in this case, but "ogre" is sometimes used as a gloss for "thurs" by some translators. However, a thurs is rather mysterious being designation that we still need a decent article on (I've been intending to write one for a long time now). We can easily produce a category called "thurs" without the confusion that instituting a gloss would, and the way that kennings work in Norse mythology does not necessarily mean that Hel falls into the category of thurs anyway, whatever a thurs was thought to be. This sort of confusion is exactly why we need to stick to what the sources say without the confusing and arbitrary glosses, rather than just categorizing willy-nilly.
As for my rejection of deciding to go with a "goddess" category—no source that mentions Hel refers to her as a goddess, including Snorri. And that's why she wasn't simply listed in such a category, unlike the many other ásynja I've written articles about. On top of that, the ásynjur are not the only figures designed as "goddesses"—there's also those among the Vanir. Which is why we now have a "North Germanic goddesses" category that covers figures in both of those designations.
The situation with Loki is another matter entirely. Loki is indeed listed as among the Æsir (and he would thus unarguably be placed in the Æsir category) and the status of his mother is unclear (perhaps a "goddess") as well. However, note that we do not list him as a "fire god" because of some rather outmoded theories that once floated around there (they may in fact have more merit than they're credit for, but we don't make that decision here).
As for Larrington, we can use whatever translation for this article page at will—many translations are not as gloss-happy as Larrington's translation. We could even use Thorpe's translation, which is more careful with the glossing. So, here we have various scholars calling Hel various things (such as a "Monster" per Lindow) and she is nowhere listed among goddesses (or other categories, notably!), yet you're pushing to have her categorized as a goddess, monster, and, perhaps most ridiculously, an "ogre"? Let's stick to keeping the sources separate from the theories, let's stop having pointless debates over whether or not to add inarguably POV categories, and let us focus on adding more to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
While "disruptively consensus breaking" may not have been the kindest way to put it, you abruptly yanking the "Category:death goddesses" category tag that's been there for 5+ years fails to show due consideration for other users who employ "category" as a browsing tool. I was therefore suggesting initiating some sort of ex post facto discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology etc., and make some effort to coordinate categorizing philosphy across the project. If you can't be bothered to, I guess I will start a thread on this more generalized discussion. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The point with Larrington's translation was that it was already present in the article page, and not cherrypicking-ly introduced by me. Let's not get silly about removing Larrington now, upon this discovery that there is something inconvenient about it for your purposes.
My position stands that "Category:death goddesses" should be restored. Though I am less comfortable with it, a compromise might be to send her to the grandparent category Category:Personifications of death, leaving some navigational (see also etc.) note in the old category.
I don't see that Category:Ogres deserves to be cast as "ridiculous". It is the existing gender-neutral category that covers "ogress" so that is the applicable classification. To recap, the Cleasby-Vigfusson dictionary defines Hel as an "ogress". Then I found that "ogress" construed as Hel (or a dís) occurs in the Eddic poem Hamðismál. The ogress word here is flagð (= "an ogre, giantess.. demons = tröll", Cleasby-Vigfusson). The kenning is munr flagði translated "joy of the troll-woman" by Larrington, "delight of the ogress" by Dronke, and "Hel's delight" by Thorpe.
However, while "ogress" is used by Vigfusson in the 19th century, and Dronke in the 60's, it is seemingly avoided recently by Larrington and Lindow, so maybe this is considered a dated term. Or perhaps it too strongly reinforces folktale imagery. "Stith Thompson uses 'ogre' as a generic form of monster, not as a specific sort of monster. Therefore, under ogres we find information about cannibals and cannibalism, and witches, giants and trolls."[6] So I'll put the decision of whether to tag "ogress" on hold, as I'd have to think about this more.
I never meant to convey that Loki faces the same categorization conundrum as Hel. Loki was an example that an identification on Snorri's lists isn't accepted on face value by scholars universally. Therefore the categorizing method of "let's stick to the sources" isn't free of POV implications either. I maintain that inclusionary policy is better for neutral presentation here.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hel_(mythological_being)/Archive_1&oldid=1075170430"