Talk:Loki/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WTH?!

Um... what happened to Loki being Odin's son? That is true in the movie Son of the Mask, was in this article (from non-movie sources, of course) when I first read it around two years ago (complete rewrite since then), and is known by the majority of people I talk to who have heard of Loki (most of whom have not seen Son of the Mask) as well as in 2 novels I have read (I forget the names because I do not own the books).

This article, although highly encyclopedic in it's form of prose, is a very poor article. Gods of any tradition (except for modern monotheism) have all kinds of legends, myths, and tales surrounding them. A 3-or-4-page line-by-line recount of Loki's conversation when he incites riot in just one poem, for example, is not only highly unnecessary but also highly annoying. A simple paragraph such as, ~"After a whole bunch of events and tales which are mentioned prior to this paragraph], the poem [name of poem] says that Loki came to a dinner [wasn't invited blah blah] and started insulting every god he could think of in order to purposely cause chaos. As a result of this, according o the poem, he was bound[...]. However, this poem mentions many recounted tales during the argument (such as when Loki says "[caught whoever doing whatever]") where the tale mentioned is not actually recounted by any source we know of."~ It is probably rare to say an encyclopedic entry is too long, but this article is way too long... or perhaps just that so much of what is written is extremely overly specific and should not be written there. For example an article about the movie The Matrix would not recount the entire script!

Well, we're not dealing with films / novels in the article. If you check the kenningar in Skaldskaparmal c.16, you will find a lot of information in the answer to "What is Loki to be called?", including "son of Farbauti and Laufeyja (...) blood-friend and father-brother of the aesir, Odin's fellow in seat and journey" etc. And in Gylfaginning c.33 you'll find the same more or less. I personally can't share your criticism about this article. Trigaranus (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

yes that is right, movies aren't always right, if you look up other websites and researched it more you would find out that Loki and odin had a strange sort of relationship and they are in a blood-brotherhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.24.118 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I named my puppy Loki, and many people ask me does he live up to his name? I ask them what they mean, and most people say "you know, the Norse God of Mischeif" I say, yes!! he is very mischevious.2601:9:3000:158:E018:7657:AE2D:6CF6 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Utgårda-Loke

I finished the paragraph on Utgårda-Loke (Or Útgarða-Loki, in old norse. Gylfaginning, 2.2.1) from memory. Better than nothing, but still needs expansion and references. 130.239.140.196 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Loki Worship

The article fails to address the notion that there is no archeological evidence that Loki was ever actually worshiped.209.2.210.144 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is conjecture. If added, whoever is making said conjecture must be plainly stated. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, playing devil's advocate, the article then fails to mention any archeological evidence of Loki worship. Either way, the lack of discussion of the worship of Loki (as opposed to simply his role in myth) is missing from the article and an attempt should be made to fill this void with sourced information.209.2.229.239 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have a pretty solid 'archaeological record' section that covers Loki. The section doesn't much go into the implications of the find (as in what it may say for religious practices involving Loki), but it does make it pretty clear that there is some pretty convincing archaeological evidence for the figure. Ideally, such theories would be handled in a "theories" section (currently absent), and there anyone who has discussed the issue would be appropriately attributed.

You may be interested to know that we currently do lack a section handling the role of Loki in later Scandinavian folklore (and there's a surprising amount to write about on the subject). I'd go ahead and start working on this stuff myself, but as it is I am pretty strapped for time. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Loki as Hermes/Prometheus/Enki to Odin as Jove/Zeus/Enlil?

In Sumerian Mythology, Enlil is given dominion over Eurasia, while Enki is given dominion over Africa. "Enlil" means "Lord over all", whereas "Enki" means "Lord over the Earth". Specifically, Enki is the "creator" and patron God of Mankind, and often acts for the benefit of humans, while Enlil often acts to their detriment. One of Enki's titles, "Nudimmud", translates roughly as "Artificier" - Enki is the God that creates new technologies for Man (i.e. Prometheus giving fire to the Greeks, Loki tricking the Dwarves into creating many items [Mjoellnir, for example], and sundry similar myths starring Hermes as such a Friend of Man). The holes in this theory are the following: Enki and Enlil are on bad terms with each other, as are Loki and Odin, and Prometheus and Zeus - however, Hermes and Jove appear to be friendly towards each other, for the most part. Similarly, Enki is the creator of Modern Man, fulfilling a similar role to that of Heimdalr, yet it is Loki who slays Heimdalr at Ragnarok.

Perhaps the passage of time caused the myths to change slightly between different cultures, but there should still be sections in each of these characters' pages dealing with the (rather obvious) links between them, so that a better understanding of the potential roles of these characters can be ascertained.

Specifically, all that we know of Loki comes predominantly from Christian-era texts. The Christian God is often identified as Enlil from Sumerian Mythology, thus, if the Enlil/Enki conflict were to be translated into European myth, it would make sense for followers of Enlil to paint Enki in a bad light. If Odin corresponds with Enlil/Christian God, then Loki corresponds with Enki/The Adversary (Satan or Lucifer, depending on your preference). We cannot know exactly how Loki was seen by the Norse peoples, as we only have potentially (and probably) biased records against him. However, it would be viable to say that Loki was a similar figure to the Norse as Prometheus was to the early Greeks, and as Enki was to the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and so on.

Perhaps this topic of discussion is rather larger than originally intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.159.23 (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

it is notoriously difficult and controversial to suggest that a god from one pantheon has a direct cognate in another pantheon. for example, are the similarities there because of cultural influence, or because any given polytheistic pantheon is a creation of biologically similar human minds? it is even more complicated if we see the gods as real entities who may have changed their forms and names to reflect their environment. it is very difficult to cite the influence of one pantheon on another, because the myths developed over a long period, and we dont really know how the different cultures interacted economically or socially.

in my opinion, the norse pantheon is unique because the king is also the magician (mercury > mercredi ; woden > wednesday), and the giants (jotun, titans) are gracefully accepted as part of the structure, if not the ruling class.

you may find this article fruitful for your studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion Substatique (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While it would be foolish to make unsubstantiated claims about specific cognates, this article seems to ignore any discussion of the importance of Loki as Trickster/Fool motif. That seems to be a problem. JDClaunch (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Louis Huard - The Punishment of Loki.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Louis Huard - The Punishment of Loki.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 26, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-08-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Punishment of Loki by Louis Huard illustrates an event in the Elder Edda. The Norse god Loki, as a typical trickster god, works both with and against the other gods. However, when he engineers the death of the god Baldr, the gods finally decide he has gone too far, and bind him to a rock with a serpent dripping venom above him. His wife Sigyn stayed with him and tried to catch the venom in a bowl, but when she left to empty it, as here, his writhing from the pain of the venom created earthquakes.Restoration: Adam Cuerden

"The arrival of Thor and the bondage of Loki "

In this section it mentions Nari & Narfi, though the disambiguation pages say they are the same, just alternate spellings, and that the brother who changes into a wolf is Váli not Narfi (as Narfi is Nari). 71.34.67.135 (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Those articles need to be rewritten. While incomplete, this article is concise. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Loki had two sons: Narvi and Vali. The æsir changed Vali into a wolf, and he then attacked his brother and tore him apart. Loki was bound with the entrails of Narvi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.88.54 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mother of Sleipnir

I would like to state the problem of how it says Loki is the mother Of sleipnir, I'm not quite sure what that means! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.137.43 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Prose Edda book Gylfaginning, Loki is described as having given birth to Sleipnir in the form of a mare, a female horse. The father was Svaðilfari, a stallion. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the original myth, it soon becomes clear that Loki is a shapeshifter, often crossing borders between both species and gender, like in thrymskvida, where he dresses up as a woman and constantly uses female gender variants. (The hyper-masculine Thor also dresses up, but doesn't seem to give a damn about his appearance.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Error in Snaptun Stone description

The section about the Snaptun Stone says "The figure is identified as Loki due to the lips, considered a reference to a tale recorded in Skáldskaparmál where the Sons of Ivaldi stitch up Loki's lips". The Slaldskaparmal acctually says it is Brokkr, and not Ivaldi's sons, who sows Loki's lips. I didn't modify this in the article itself, because it's possible that it is the source (Madsen, 1990) that is mistaken.. so I don't really know how to go about it.--Munin75 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of the source and will go back and check this out. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back with the source, which, regarding Loki's depiction on the stone, states (in both Danish and English) that:

Han indgik et væddemål med smedekyndige dværge, og da han tabte, havde de ret til at sy hans mund sammen, hvad de også gjorde i glad forventning om om at have sat en stopper for hans velkendte og ofte ubehagelige tungefærdighed.

He made a bet with the gnomes of the smithy, and when he lost they had the right to sew his lips together, which they did in the happy expectation that this would put the seal on his well-known and often unpleasant volubility.

Of course, Danish "dværge" is linguistically cognate to and semantically the same as "dwarfs", so the choice of "gnomes" makes one wonder what was going on with the translation, but you can see that the Sons of Ivaldi were in mind here. And while the articles relating to the Sons of Ivaldi are in need of a rewrite, a look at the source material Skáldskaparmál (Faulkes (1995:96-97) indicates that more than one dwarf of that family was involved in the actual stitching, and so one may as well just drop the definite article and call it a day. Nice catch! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Loki ballad from Faroe Islands

I've added this (the IP is me, but I've only just registered so added it when I was unregistered) because I was surprised that the article failed to mention an outstanding piece of the folklore from outside Scandinavia.--Herneshound (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We appreciate such input. I had no knowledge of this poem and was pleasantly surprised to learn that it existed. Perhaps you could elaborate and provide the date and estimations about authorship, or if there is none state that. As it stands is fine, but since we are an ecncyclopedia we wouldn't mind the rest of the information concerning this poem. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition because Northvegr.com—a commercial, ideological website—is not a reliable source. We do need coverage of this ballad, but only by way of a reputable, preferably published source. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand about Northvegr, though I disagree. Yes, the site has a religious function, but its ideological purpose is to provide translations of untranslated works within this religious category. However, that aside, I could have used the Faroe Islands Post Office, which is a site that is a prime source for Faroese folklore, but as the site merely reproduces without explanation I presumed that would be less acceptable than a source devoted to translating the texts. Would Wikipedia Loka_Táttur do as a source? Or would that also count as a commercial site, as it requires money to accomplish its ideological aims? --Herneshound (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounded a little more aggressive than I intended. I would welcome a more expanisive explanation of why Northvegr is considered unreliable in order to assist me with any future contributions. :)--Herneshound (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article you mention above employs reliable sources. Those are the sources you should be looking for. Northvegr is non-reliable because it is a website with an agenda; it openly attempts character assassination on Viktor Rydberg, for example, while at the same time racking up money on ad programs. All of the public domain material it hosts can be found by way of reliable sources (such as Google Books). All other material the site hosts is either dubious and/or is of no use here. Judging by your comments above, I should also point out that the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization. :bloodofox: (talk)

That is a better explanation, thanks. I don't care whether sites indulge3 in Ryborg criticism or obtain support by selling ads - my only concern is wether the material on the site is a reliable translation. Surely that is the issue when a translation is posted, not its ideology? I could say that a non-profit organisation generally has an ideology, so it would then be a question of personal preference of ideology, but that is netierh here nor there - the point is the reliability of the material, not the politics. What makes the material on Northvegr unreliable? --Herneshound (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced something about this into the article with the Wiki reference, under the 'folklore' sub-heading. --Herneshound (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The main issue is that the website is essentially an ideological, money-making device with no academic merit, and due to its ideological slant, anything transcribed on the site is going to be questionable. Wikipedia is not a platform for these websites to advertise, and, since there are far more appropriate sources available on the internet here in 2011, when someone sources something to Northvegr here they are essentially doing exactly that.

Wikipedia is never a primary source; Wikipedia policy dictates that original research is not allowed, and therefore Wikipedia is intended to simply report what other sources have stated. As a result, the circle of referencing Wikipedia articles to other Wikipedia articles is inappropriate. What we want are published (in this case academic) sources. I've rewritten the section with an appropriate source. :bloodofox: (talk)

Loki is the devil and Satan

Not a forum

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? He is called "originator of deceits" and "disgrace of all gods and men". He is also the father of Hel_(being) and therefore Hel_(location), as in: the one who brought death into the world, hell itself. He is also the father of the world serpent Jörmungandr who kills Thor, and the wolf Fenrir who kills Odin. In the Lokasenna (in this article) Loki is literally Satan. He is the accuser, the slanderer, the liar, as in: the father of lies (the "originator of deceits"). Thor refers to him as an "evil creature". And then there is his alternative name, Loptr. Since most experts agree that the name stems from Old Norse lopt, meaning air, there is yet another indication that Loki is indeed the devil. In the Bible, the devil is alternatively called "prince of the power of the air". Remember that many stories in the Bible are based on older mythologies (i.e. Sumerian). Also, Loki is a shapeshifter. He did appear as a fly. Beelzebub, the "lord of the flies", is another name for the devil. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Loki is also responsible for the death of the god Baldr, as in: "a murderer from the beginning", as the devil is called in the Bible. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC) First off you are making the point as if Satan is a real thing and Loki is a representation of that, whereas WP does not hold that stance. So in the end you are talking about two completely different mythologies. At best this is WP:SYNTH. If you have sources that make this connection then maybe they could be added. But I would be against it in this article. Perhaps a separate article about all mythologies with these kinds of characters. Again, they would all need sources that make the connections of course. Colincbn (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC) The article does mention that Sophus Bugge theorized (in the 19th century) that Loki is Lucifer. This theory isn't largely accepted by specialists anymore. The only times I've read any mention of this is in Simek's dictionary, and Régis Boyer's French translation of the Poetic Edda, and they both disagree with the comparison. The other specialized books I've read don't even feel the need to mention that old theory.--Munin75 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Loki also specifically accuses and slanders the Aesir. Satan is most often understood to be a slanderer against humanity, but in the Book of Revelation it is made clear that Satan slanders the angels in heaven - see Revelation 12:10. Just as Loki accuses the Aesir, Satan accuses the angels. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC) There are 3 main enemies of God and humanity mentioned in the Book of Revelation who play a major role during the end time: the Dragon (Satan), the Beast from the Sea and the Beast from the Earth. During Ragnarök, Jormungandr (literally a Beast from the Sea) comes out of the ocean and poisons the sky. And Fenrir (literally a Beast from the Earth) comes free and kills Odin.178.201.17.154 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Any percieved similarities you see between the Norse myths and the Bible is irrelevant in connection with Wikipedia, as such a method would be original research. Per policy you will need to present reliable secondary sources that presents this theory of yours. As Munin75 mentions above, the only noteworthy example of this is the 19th century theory which has long since been abandonded by scholars, and is already covered in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Loki and Útgarða-Loki

I'm struggling to find sources discussing the other possible theory of Loki's origin, that he developed out of the figure now known as Útgarða-Loki. It neatly explains why there is a vagueness as to whether Loki is a god or a giant/jotunn, and why there is no evidence he was actually worshipped. Both are trickster figures, too. According to the page on Útgarða-Loki, in Gesta Danorum, a figure called "Utgarthilocus" lies chained and tortured in a cave like Loki, another odd link between the two figures.Kaid100 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing explanation

This article seems to cover everything there is to know about Loki, but one thing. Where did Loki's power originate? He seems to be by far the most powerful of the Jotuns. Not only that, his power and influence is on par with Odin's, the leader of the Aesir. In fact, Loki is able to change the course of destiny. He fathers Fenrir, and all what the Aesir can do about it, is to bind the wolf. But they can't change the fact that Fenrir WILL kill Odin on Ragnarok. Odin, the most powerful of the Aesir, cannot prevent his own death by Loki (as the father of Fenrir). The same goes for Jormungandr. The Aesir cannot prevent Thor's death. They cannot bring back Baldur from Hel. They can't prevent or revert these things. Why not just kill the children of Loki and prevent all that from happening? Again, it seems that Loki is so powerful that he can change the course of destiny. He fathered Fenrir and from that moment on it was clear, and nothing could alter it, that Fenrir WILL kill Odin. It is destined that Odin will be killed. 88.153.214.148 (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Trivia

I have removed a large assortment of miscellaneous use of the name Loki in popular culture which appeared without any references. This section had multiple problems, a lack of external sources and a very shallow and unencyclopedic structure. It is important when dealing with the uses of historical and literary figures to explain, using third party, independent sources, why such borrowings are important. It doesn't realy matter that a character loosely based on Loki appeared in this or that comic book, and puts undue emphasis on pop-culture which in relation to the wider subject is only a minor concern. If serious academic study or critisim of the literature (read: comics and film) sheds some light on how Loki is used by these authors, then we can cite that, or if the authors in question have gone on record talking about their influences and specifically mention the mythological Loki, then we can cite that. I do specifically recall reading Neil Gaiman discussing his version of the character Thor, so he may well have mentioned Loki. It's worth doing the research to find these kind of sources, as it will improve the article. Otherwise there is no real reason to keep unsourced, largely trivial information. Davémon (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

In the 4th paragraph: change Loki is attested in the Poetic Edda to Loki is mentioned in the Poetic Edda

The original form implies that the existance ok Loki (not in a poem or legend or whatever, but in reality) is already accepted, known to be true and the Poetic Edda bears whitness to that. 188.24.179.239 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Good point, fixed. But used "referred to" instead of "mentioned" which suggests too passing a reference. Let me know if that presents any issues. Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Edda Resenii

According to The Fairy Mythology, Loki is attested in the "Edda Resenii". See here. Those myths, if valid, should probably be added to the page; if it turns out that Keightley was inaccurate in claiming these to be legitimate myths, then maybe on a Loki in popular culture section?72.12.205.35 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring and Loki "depicted as evil"

Recently a user (Madreterra (talk · contribs)) has repeatedly been adding this wall of text to the introduction, complete with the usual sign of a problem—a daisy chain of Googled references, many of which are poor. In any case, the introduction already covers what this seems to be attempting to convey in a neutral and competent manner without some vague nonsense about undefined "depictions". However, the user is edit-warring, at times restoring the problematic text without an edit summary and not responding to questions about exactly what they're trying to communicate. If this keeps up, this page is going to need to be protected. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how my edit is "unclear" or "vague nonsense." There is nothing opinionated about it, it is merely stating a fact, and briefly at that. The sources for the most part don't seem poor to me, and most are in fact rather scholarly. Regardless, the sources' very existence certainly support the assertion that Loki has been portrayed as a "god of mischief," "trickster god," and even "evil," as they all state this at some point. My edits are certainly not POV in intention, and I don't believe they are POV in actuality. They are merely stating that Loki has been portrayed in a certain way, which is an undeniable fact. I believe it is important to state somewhere in the article that Loki has time and again been portrayed as both a "god of mischief" or an "evil" entity, regardless of whether you believe these labels are anachronistic or inapplicable to Pre-Christian Germanic mythology. I would mostly agree with you on that point. I'm not in disagreement with you, overall. Labelling Loki an "evil diety" is overly simplistic when applied to the enigmatic Loki and reflects a more modern view (although it does states earlier in the article that Thor himself referred to Loki as an "evil creature," according to the Larrington source.)

That said, I think that denying, censoring, or erasing the fact that Loki is and has been portrayed as "evil" or "mischievous" is certainly more POV than merely mentioning this fact in two short sentences, which, by the way, include a caveat that mentions that many scholars view such portrayals as inaccurate or the result of Christian influence on Norse mythology. It is not as if I am trying to turn Loki into some sort of demonic entity. I have no such intentions. But to ignore and constantly revert two sentences that simply state that Loki has been portrayed as "evil" in the past seems to me to be the result of some sort of scholarly indignity at a perceived misinterpretation of Norse mythology. That's all well and good. But Wikipedia is not a place where you should leave out information that you disagree with or that does not support your scholarly point of view. I intend to merely state a fact, scholarly or not. That's it.

Furthermore, neither the introduction nor the rest of article completely cover what I am trying to say. The introduction briefly mentions that Loki has been called a "trickster god," and states that there is controversy and debate over his origins and role, but that's about all it says. There is also reference to the 1889 Bugge theory that Loki is a variant of Lucifer, but this also does not quite convey what is being said in my edits, though it may hint at it a bit. Overall, I have no intentions of forcing a POV, I just think it's important to state this information (which is strangely nowhere to be found in the article) even if this information does not coalesce with Germanic studies or current scholarly views on Norse mythology. I apologize if this information is controversial, as it is not intended to be. But its existence remains, and it should be included in the article. Madreterra (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're going for—thank you for clarifying. As I see it, the major problems with your proposed addition are as follows:

1. "has often been depicted by more modern sources as an enigmatic" is far too ambiguous to make sense. Are you talking about popular culture? Are you talking about scholarly discourse?
2. This is essentially all covered or can be covered more accurately by sources already summarized in the article. For example, by the von Schnurbein citation. I recommend against creating a daisy chain of references, some of them dubious, and perhaps creating a more detailed summary of von Schnurbein's article.
3. If you're talking about pop culture, then it's better to draw from Rudolf Simek's handbook or maybe even expand on what we have there from Arvidsson's book.

In short, right now the entry you want to add is ambiguous and overlaps a lot with what is already there. If you're seeing a point that's missing, then it may be wise to look to the von Schnurbein article or from Simek and expand our write up from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

God or Jötunn? Not both.

The article reads: "In Norse mythology, Loki, Loptr, or Hveðrungr is a god or jötunn (or both)." What is the source for "or both"? Loki is a jötunn, not a god. I find this confusing, has "god" been added simply because popular culture of today keeps depicting Loki as a god? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5A81:2F00:D46B:AC84:5733:B0D1 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Loki's father is a jotun, but as far as I know, it's not known what his mother was. My guess is he's called a god because he was worshiped by the Norse. But I agree that line is weird. An explanation could be Loki's mother being a god would make him a god and both. But I would like confirmation from someone who can cite something. Why is he called a god? Because of his mother or because he was part of the Norse pantheon? Enacional (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between what Loki is in the mythological universe and what he is in relation to our current description of Norse religion. Thereare no "Gods" in the mythological universe. There are Aesir, vanir and jotun. "God" (or probably better deity) is a concept that we use today when we describe the religion. It is unrelated to what their family relations within the mythological universe are. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Maunus is right on the mark here. It's an all but invisible but major issue in ancient Germanic studies. I would expect a total reassessment of the vocabulary used to describe these entities at some point in the future. Fortunately we're treading pretty lightly around this headache-inducing topic on Wikipedia at the moment but we could do a better job of being clear about what is being translated over to "god" and "goddess". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I call the Æsir and the Vanir gods because that's what it said when I read about the Æsir-Vanir War. If I remember correctly, since the Vanir won the war, the Æsir accepted to share with them their title of gods (their being worshiped by humans). I read it in English though, so as Bloodofox says, it might not have been god in the original language, which I hadn't considered. Enacional (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014

This article quite often uses the plural form "jötnar" when the singular form "jötunn" is meant (e.g. "... Skaði's father, jötnar Þjazi." should be "... Skaði's father, the jötunn Þjazi.") All instances of "jötnar" that refer to a single person should be changed to "jötunn".

I would have edited it myself, but for some reason this page is locked... Fer radstake (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. It looks like someone came by that was well-intentioned but unclear. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

On the topic, both jötnar and jötunn are actually the Icelandic forms of these words and should be substituted with jǫtnar and jǫtunn as ö did not exist in Old Norse.199.48.106.4 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Inappropriate"

"I don't like it" is never a good enough reason. What exactly is wrong in putting Satan in the See Also section, aside from the petty reason of it going against your nerdy-ass fantasies?Music314812813478 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As the article stands, the inclusion of the link is WP:OR. You've added it twice, but given no reason or references for the addition. The Dystheism link you deleted is arguably relevant (although I wouldn't argue strongly for it); but the only connection to Satan in the article as written is the mention of Bugge's 19th C. theories, which aren't backed by any more recent references, and which already have a link to Lucifer in the text.

See also several discussions earlier on this talk page, including #Loki is the devil and Satan.

Nitpicking polish (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Music314812813478 (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Music314812813478, "nerdy-ass fantasies"? This isn't the internet, you know--please maintain some decorum. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Loki is Loke in swedish

His name in swedish should be mensioned at the start of the text together with his norwegian and islandic names. This god is nordic and not just norwegian. Does norse mean norwegian? 94.191.140.167 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Old Norse. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Attestations"

I believe the section heading "Attestations" is misused. In fact, the word is in direct contradiction to the subject matter.

From Merriam Webster: 1 : an act or instance of attesting something: such as a : a proving of the existence of something through evidence b : an official verification of something as true or authentic

2 : the proof or evidence by which something (such as the usage of a word) is attested

We are not pretending Loki is anything more than a mythical, supernatural being, are we? The word "attestation" is being applied to the literature recounting this being, but could also be misconstrued as proving the existence of the article's eponymous construct. It's the wrong word, it's superfluous, and imho does not belong in this article.Nickrz (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a term used by specialists to refer to where the figure occurs in the historical record (for example, 'Loki is attested in ...'). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Mythical characters are of course attested in recorded mythological narratives. Just like other intangible ideas can be attested in written sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

want to ad that the character Atreus in God of War 2018 is revealed to be Loki at the end Humanstingmon (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That sort of looks like miscallenous information (and a spoiler). You can of course point to reliable sources showing that this appearance has had a cultural impact. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone purged nearly the entire ==Modern popular culture== section

About an hour ago, one editor purged nearly the entire ==Modern popular culture== section, on the alleged grounds that discussion of Loki's appearance in modern storytelling has "zero educational value."

I undid this edit.  Here is my rationale:

Encyclopædic coverage of modern storytelling is no less educational than encyclopædic coverage of ancient storytelling.  Storytelling influences the cultures in which the stories are told, and modern stories involving Loki are of no less notability than ancient ones involving him.

Indeed, I would argue that the fact that Loki is prominent enough in our modern culture that stories are still being written about and involving him is of intrinsic educational value.  The removal of the section only serves to make the article less educational than it previously was by hiding from the reader the enduring influence of Loki as a character.

(The reason I opted above to express my reasoning for the reversion is in an effort to ensure that no edit war results therefrom.)

allixpeeke (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's pure junk. ...and can you pls not add info that you can't source your self. --Moxy (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also where's Matt Damon's portrayal of Loki on Dogma? --Some Lazy Guy, 7:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Pop culture sections always need to be regularly purged and then rewritten with only representations that are actually notable in relation to the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Pop culture sections are trash, and usually just turn into nerd trivia sections. No sources, big list, no proof of notability. And it's also WP:RECENTISM. A story can exist for thousands of years, but pop culture sections end up taking 2/3 of the article from media from the last 20 years. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Name of the river of venom

Hi,

AFAICR the river of venom running from Loke/Sigyn has a Norse name - Vån? -, but I can't find the name and esp. the meaning of it anywhere, not on the web, at least. Does anybody know? Or know where to, ahaha, looke? Then it could even be included in the article.

T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.163.126 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know it wasn't a river but a snake suspended above him.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved: the river in question flows from the maws of Fenrir. Nothing to do with Loki. Sry. T

88.91.200.88 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Style of English

As I see words get spelling corrected from perfectly good American English to perfectly good British English i wonder, is it time to pick one? —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

As the introductory paragraphs of this article alone make clear, sources matter. Unfortunately, an editor is adding and readding an infobox to this article, as if it were a vehicle or a comic book character or some similar item or entity, rather than a deity known to us from a complex of often-contradictory and always complex sources. Unlike a brand of cereal, there's no ready-made set of stats one can list about a deity, as any such information is dependent upon source; something an infobox cannot communicate without turning into a paragraph. As it stands, infoboxes like these are misinformation for the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Haukurth: and @Yngvadottir:, who have engaged in similar discussions in these spaces. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. All the information in the infobox can be found in the article itself. There are just some basic facts. Many pages use infoboxes, including mythology, history, etc. Complex subjects. You're over-simplifying them because you don't like them. That a subject is complex doesn't mean some basic facts can't be distilled from it and presented in a clean, summarized way. Controversial information has already been removed from the infobox.

And I see that you are, once again, calling in your friends to support your position. You can't even wait for people who follow this article to express their opinion?

Flordeneu (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The "controversial information" this editor is referring to is an earlier version of the infobox the editor was pushing, which listed the deity as "Father of Lies" and "personification of fire", using Daly's notoriously inaccurate Norse Mythology A to Z. Some fundamental background in these topics is necessarily to get a handle on them: Again, we're not writing about car models or cereal brands here, and Wikipedia has a lot of terrible articles on the topic of myth—there's no need to try to turn this into one of them. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, this article should not have an infobox. I am pleased to see that the latest attempt did not have a "god of" bit to it, but it still inevitably oversimplifies and thus misleads. It makes it seem as if he's about his family relationships. And Ragnarǫk (why's there a line for "battles" in this infobox?) The lead provides an altogether better introduction, including mentioning the controversies (although it still rather swallows Snorri's line). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

bloodofox, you're talking about an old version. That wasn't in the last version. Read it before you criticize. And the "cereal brands" and "comic characters" comments only show how little you know about how infoboxes are used around Wikipedia.

Yngvadottir: I think you have a misconception about what infoboxes are. Family information doesn't make it look like is all about the family. It just gives some background information. It's the same thing the infoboxes in monarch's pages do and nobody thinks the article is all about the family. For example, look at Isis or Hathor, or even Mary, Queen of Scots. All three are featured articles that have useful infoboxes and nobody thinks they're oversimplifying or misleading. That's because an infobox is a tool. It is not an article and nobody expects it to be. And if you don't agree with the "battle" parameter, we can just leave it blank. That doesn't invalidates the rest of the infobox. Flordeneu (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like this is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: Again, entities from the folklore record are not comparable to living people whose ancestry and progeny do not vary by source, place, or time; and poor coverage on myth elsewhere on Wikipedia does not mean we lower standards on superior articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

1) That you think that in history "ancestry and progeny do not vary by source" shows that you know nothing about history, ancient and medieval history specially. Loki's ancestry and progeny are crystal clear compared to some important historical characters.

2) Featured articles have "poor coverage"? Do I need to remind you this "superior" article is B-rate? Get off your ivory tower, please. And apply that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to yourself. You're in dire need of it. Or better, read the articles before you dis them.

Flordeneu (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me run that by you again, as you seem to have not quite read it, with added italics: "entities from the folklore record are not comparable to living people whose ancestry and progeny do not vary by source". Again, some fundamental background in these topics would save you a lot of time when editing on these topics. Second, the FA process is not a means of measuring quality, and "B" grade can be warded by anyone Both of the articles you've linked to have major, fundamental flaws, the core being the inability to discern between synchronic status and diachronic change. Were you familiar with these or related topics, you'd understand the importance of source criticism and core aspects such as diffusion and motif transmission. In fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

1) Let me run that by you again: you're totally missing the point, once more. You're conflating two different things and that's the root of all the problems. You seem to believe an infobox is an article, when it's not. It's a tool with a definite scope and purpose. It's not the infobox's job to explain all of those things you comment. It's the article's job to do so. None of these arguments you're so hung about has anything to do with the infobox's job.

2) If the "FA process is not a means of measuring quality" then any article could be a featured one. You may not like how these articles are written, but that doesn't make them bad.

3) I'm very aware of the problems of source criticism, thank you very much. And all those things are for the article to explain, they're not the infobox' purpose. At all.

4) I've had enough of is your "holier than you" attitude, both here and in the Odin article. You may be a folklore expert, but that doesn't give you the right to look down on everyone else. Check your ego at the door. This isn't the place for it.

Flordeneu (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

PD: Several persons are editing this article, yet you seem to be the only one who has a problem with the infobox. You should think about that too. Flordeneu (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We are several people who have pointed out the problems with the infoboxes, it's not just Bloodofox. I think they should be avoided in all these articles, because they will inevitably give the impression that the myths exist in a static, logical system, which not even 18th-century rationalists believed. Whatever names and objects you place there will only apply to certain versions of the myth, in some cases a single poem or not even that, yet it will appear to the reader as universally established. Ffranc (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing that and I have no problem with it. My problem is with Bloodofox's "I know best" attitude. I'm going to wait a bit to see if someone else replies and then we can talk it out like reasonable people. Flordeneu (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems nobody but Bloodofox really cares about the infobox, not even to get a consensus. Flordeneu (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Loki also has a child thats an 8 legged horse that was then gifted to odin 122.56.76.171 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already mentions this in several places. Please clarify what you are asking for. RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Should there be a bit on Loki's pop portrayal? Neil Gaiman, "The Mask" and others. Out of Norse myth he's a popular character. On the other hand, the "In popular Culture" sections are a bit silly sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.132.200 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If "popular culture" was limited to things where the subject played a substantial part, then they'd be fine. The problem is they quickly degenerate to things like "Loki was mentioned in one line of a song by this little-known band from Bakersfield that I happen to like that has managed to sell 10 albums".Ekwos (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I fully expected the 90s film "The Mask" starring Jim Carrey to be here. More than just a nebulous mention in a song lyric, he's an integral part of the story, this old relic washes ashore and is deemed to be related to old Norse culture, where "Loki" is deemed "the Night God of Mischief" it is after this point Stanley discovers the mask only works at night. Also, in Norse folklore, Loki is often referred to as a,"shape shifter", we see evidence of this in all the crazy cartoon like manifestations of Stanleys suppressed "personalities" and the same is seen in Dorian the villain, and even Milo the dog. Though Loki is only mentioned briefly, he's a huge part of the film plot, and given The Mask was an absolute blockbuster, I'm surprised it is not mentioned in the Modern Culture section and I feel Wiki should revise that. Thanks for reading :) 2A02:C7C:D84B:5900:6EF6:325D:B079:7B9E (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Loki is the "true" final boss of Valkirie Profile, a role-playing game for the Playstation developed by Tri-Ace. He is depicted as a somewhat naive Aesir but if the conditions for the "true" ending are met it turns out he actually hates both Aesir and Vanir because neither of them have never accepted him as one of their own. He then kills Odin and then goes on a rampage to destroy Midgard -the world of humans-. While en route to defeat him you must fight against Fenrir and a dragon named Bloodbane (might reference/symbolize Jörmungandr). On this "true" ending the main character Lenneth (a Valkirie) states: "Nobody knew what was on your mind. You have decieved us all".--Ihavepinkbootson (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would very much like to see a picture of Jim Carey on this page! I wasn't really interested in anything other than an experts comment on the film's mention of Loki. For us mortals it would be a nice thing to have. Beerni (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Love Jim Carey, would hate to see a pic from "The Mask" on this page. I'm a big fan of Cuban Pete ("they call me king of the rumba beat"), but somehow this would seem out of place, especially with a picture. Trigaranus (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the mention of Loki's mention in "The Mask". Just the line would be fine, I bet some people don't like that because of the "seriousness" of this article, but Loki's mention in The Mask is an ocurrence of Loki in popular culture, and it's real (or would be "citation needed"?). Something expected to be found here. --Julius (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is this nifty feature called "what links here". What does a trivia section accomplish that just using that feature doesn't? Ekwos (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a Yu-Gi-Oh! card named after Loki, if that is relevant, as seen on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhigpx (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

After Loki is named a character in "Stargate" TV series , Loki is also referenced in TV series called "Vikings".212.25.58.46 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

At the least, while I understand that the popular culture references can spiral out of control of not carefully watched, should a reference to Atreus (known to his fellow giants as Loki) in the new God of War video game be mentioned and how he and his father inadvertently killed Baldur and started Fimbulwinter. 128.138.59.49 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Modern Culture - Film - The Mask

I fully expected the 90s film "The Mask" starring Jim Carrey to be here. Loki is an integral part of the story, the old wooden/metal "mask" relic washes ashore, and after a bout of chaos, this mask is later deemed to be related to old Norse culture, representing "Loki", where upon he is described as "the Night God of Mischief". It is after this point Stanley (Carrey) discovers the mask only works at night. Also, in Norse folklore, Loki is often referred to as a "shape shifter", we see evidence of this in all the crazy cartoon like manifestations of Stanleys suppressed "personalities", the same is seen in Dorian the villain, and even Milo the dog. Though Loki is only mentioned briefly, he's a huge part of the film plot, and given The Mask was an absolute blockbuster, I'm surprised it is not mentioned in the Modern Culture section and I feel the Wiki geeks should consider revising that. Thanks for reading :) Chaz x 2A02:C7C:D84B:5900:6EF6:325D:B079:7B9E (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Popular name for Loki “Locked one”

Quick note one of his many names that he’s usually the most popular is known as the locked one this is due to the fact that when he kills Baldur with the mistletoe arrow by deceiving his brother the blind one he’s locked away on Midgard chained up in a cave with a serpent dripping venom on his head constantly 69.119.145.159 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting point about "the locked one", my Dad lives in Norway so I know a bit about Norse folklore, Valhalla, Odin, Loki etc. Oddly enough, the name Loki (lo-ki) actually sounds somewhat like the Anglo term for "imprisoned", "locked away" or "locked up" i.e "under lock and key" > lock-key > lo-ki. Though that could just be a translation coincidence, it has never occured to me until now, it's a pretty cool analogy :) Thanks, Chaz x 2A02:C7C:D84B:5900:6EF6:325D:B079:7B9E (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Loki Tale from the Crypt Presents Vikinguard (Version)

Alessandro Nivola as Loki 148.252.132.57 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Loki also appeard in the fantastical drama series called Ragnarok. 93.32.222.161 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

loki god of fire

does it say that loki is a god of fire? it should —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.128.129 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Source? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no indications of that. Some traditional etymologies tried to link his name with German "Lohe" (=flame), but as far as I know, that's about that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are actually several reasons to conclude that Loki had an association with fire. I'll add a section about it in a 'theories' section later. Right now the attestations are very much incomplete, so we haven't gotten that far yet. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reason besides wagners Mr. Flameyhair god of fire portrayal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.250 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for instance, there's the hearthstone, the wrestling of fire personified (Logi) in Gylfaginning, Loki's threat of death by fire in Lokasenna, association with heat in later Scandinavian folklore, and likely a lot more I can't pull off the top of my head. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of alternate etymology I have also read that a modern Swedish (or such nordic language?) word for a spider is awfully close to Loki/Loke; being that he spawned the eight legged horse of Odin it makes sense that Loki may be a name for a "spider" type personification. 71.34.67.135 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was scholar Anne Holtsmark who proposed this. There's an article somewhere that handles many theories involving Loki (including Holtsmark's theories), and we would be well served to build a "theories" using said article. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, after some search, I found the dialectal or archaic Swedish word "locke". [1] [2] Other modern common Scandinavian words include spindel/spindler (related to "spider" and "spin"), "edderkop"/"edderkopp" (poison/pus/eitr-cup) and Icelandic "kónguló" (weaver?). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Loki is the god of fire, just as Odin is the god of earth, and hoenir the god of air. Helblindi and Býleistr are kennings for Odin and Hoenir respectively. They represents three elements, that tamed the element of water/ice that is Ymir in the norse cosmological origin story. The Ragnarrök ending in a worldwide flood, the release of the element of water/Ymir. Ideas of Loki being a spider is nonsense, if he was a spider why doesn't he transform himself to a spider? It is also interesting that Odin doesn't know Loki is the conspirator that will bring forth the Ragnarrök. He is told that Loki will be bound and suffer, but never that he is the instrumental figure of Ragnarrök. This might be correlated to Odin transfering Mimir (wisdom and forsight) to the Vanir, thus losing complete understanding of the future events. 83.252.205.53 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

They do not represent three elements, where do you get that from? Very few Norse gods have direkt links to any "element" and Loki is not one of them. Instead of arguing, ima just link to an actual expert on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icUElWDmFW8&t=502s Blockhaj (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Loki's Other Children

What of some of his lesser known children, such as his supposed daughter Moder? EmoTrash2319 (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2024

I want to add the loki series that came out in 2021 2A06:C701:74E6:4300:353A:4406:1035:D36F (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the article about the Norse god. There is already a mention of the Marvel character in the "Modern popular culture" section; adding more would be off topic. Liu1126 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Contemporary worship of Loki

Is it appropriate to add informations about people currently worship Loki and call themselves "Lokean"? There are some sources on that and how it's perceived by other norse heathens. Matinee71 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A small well sourced note wont harm. Blockhaj (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We will require WP:RS for any such additions. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

I wish to add more information to this page regarding Loki's children. There are a few missing from the list (the child he gave birth to after eating a witch's heart, and the half-mortal children she bore as a milkmaid, as referenced by Odin in Lokkesenna). I also wish to add some information regarding possible theological domains of Loki, possibly add some context around the possible etymological origins of his name. AnthonyRennaisance (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)