Talk:Valknut

Neopagan

Is the notion —

In these, it represents the interlinking of the nine worlds, and the spirit and power of Allfather that binds and pervades them all. and is worn by those who chose to give themselves to Odin.

— originally neopagan or traditional? I'd have thought the latter...

I'd removed the Neopagan section previously, because it contained this and the reference to Davidson (to which I'd added the actual quotation). Davidson was certainly talking about the traditional symbolism (although of course that may persist in neopagan use!).

So I'd rather move the neopagan sentence to the end... or add it to the "image stones" para?

--Ant 09:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course the Neopagans use the symbol as they imagine was the original significance. Therefore, attributed statements about the presumed original meaning are certainly admissible. They just cannot be made in an assertive voice by the article itself: Afaik, we only have the symbol drawn next to Odin on a couple of runestones. We have no idea about the actual thoughts behind that, binding, all-pervading, or what not. (or, if we do, I don't know it and will gladly be told otherwise. Maybe something in the Edda? Or what other sources do we have?) [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 09:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An interesting point! When does a notion cease to be an academic interpretation of the archeology and historical evidence and start to become a living belief? I guess there are three layers of neopagan belief:

1. continuance of known traditional beliefs (known in the sense of attested by the evidence and accepted in the academic canon);
2. assumption of beliefs that are academic best guesses (poor evidence, disputed);
3. presumption of beliefs based on interpretations from other traditions - layered with ideas from modern disciplines such as psychology (e.g., Jung) - that have no academic support.

Davidson's quotation is clearly of the second type... but is this notion adopted by neopagans?

It would be good to be clear whether the "nine worlds" para. is type 2 or 3. As it stands the implication is that it's 3. --Ant 23:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, if a notion is a living belief, it is so regardless of whether or not it is also an academic interpretation of historical facts. I am not trying to slight living beliefs at all here, and of course they are worthy of inclusion. traditional beliefs are always syncretic, there was no "pure" Germanic paganism in the year 150 BC which started to degenerate from that point. Beliefs are always in flux. "Academic support" is restricted to the question whether a particular belief was commonly held at a specific time. For contemporary beliefs, this is a simple matter of checking. The special case of Neopaganism arises from the fact that some groups take academic notions of reconstructed beliefs, and decide to hold them as personal, contemporary beliefs. This completely changes the nature of the notion: While an academic reconstruction is in principle always subject to revision, it will be more difficult to give up a personal belief, just because academics decide that they were wrong, and things were really different. Other groups have less qualms of historical correctness, and consciously blend ancient beliefs with modern notions (Jung et al). Yes, it is our job here to describe the nature of the different associations of the Valknut symbol. So far, we have evidence of how the symbol is seen in Neo-pagan communities, and we should state it as such. If we can come up with academic notions of the symbol's status in the Viking Age, we will of course add those, too, and compare them to the modern notions. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 11:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I was looking for was some statement like one of the following –

1. This is a neopagan practice (belief, etc.) based on established traditional practice
2. This is a neopagan practice based on conjectural traditional practice
3. This is a neopagan practice with no known basis in traditional practice
4. This is a neopagan practice of unknown provenance.

Anything that's (1) or (2) should be firstly part of a "tradition" discussion. Only (3) or (4) should be first mentioned in a "neopagan" discussion.

I'll grant that the "nine worlds" quotation is in the right place... It's (4) until someone with the right knowledge comes along to move it. Which is what I did with Davidson: why the "neopagan" header before the quotation wasn't appropriate.

--Ant 18:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wodanesdag press

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

Four-cornered variation?

Thanks to Dab for correcting my mistake - I got the Valknute mixed up with this[1] symbol. Any known relation between the two?

I'm sorry, I only saw the "valiant" (val- means simply "battle", no connection with "valiant") addition when I reverted, I didn't even see the "firkant" part. Although you are right in that you were wrong :) The symbol? Why, it's the Apple key, of course :oP (seriously, I don't know what it's called). dab (ᛏ) 13:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The square version, if the center square isn't any bigger than the outer four, and it's rotated 45 degrees, is called a "cross fretty" in the traditional terminology of heraldry. I have no idea if it has any traditional significance. AnonMoos 19:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC) -- Article Saint John's Arms -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Apple key (⌘) is most generally known as a "clover". If you can speak US English you would be able to very accurately say that it was named "clover" by a plurality of speakers (by contrast with what speakers of British English would call a majority of speakers).

More information of its Viking origins, Apple usage history, and names at the Command key Wiki article. Lindsay658 01:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A more general term?

no:Valknut has a definition that is both more general, and more specific: A figure with one line looping in round or square loops. I guess they should add a requirement for some symmetry to their definition. -- (unsigned and undated entry)

Yes, the meaning of Norwegian no:Valknute differs from the use of that word in other languages, including the neighboured Swedish se:valknut which resembles the English meaning. Thus, no:Valknute and en:Valknut are in fact "false friends". At least in Norwegian dialects, "valknute" even can denote some pretzel-like pastries. See here fig. 4 items #9 and #10: "a kind of combined pretzels with numerous loops" ("enslags kringler sammensatte av en hel del løkker"). -- Karl432 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Berserker

I remember reading (a) that the Berserkers used this symbol, and (b) that members of the Nazi S.S. had it tatooed either in their armpit or inside the top of their upper arm. Is there any truth to this?129.94.6.28 05:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did you read this? :bloodofox: 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can not remember the source precisely. It was in an English language book, rather than a magazine article, that I read, as far as I can remember, somewhere around 1965. However, I have a very clear memory of the Valknut/Berserker/SS claim, precisely because, up to that time, I had never heard the term valknut before. As I distinctly recall, the valknut was represented as being connected with "Odin's power to bind and unbind" and that it was described as being "three interlocking triangles". It may have been another 20 years or so before I was ever able to view a valknut symbol.129.94.6.30 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, at least not the SS part, they had the german eagle, their service number and their bloodtype tattooed there. And I highly doubt the Berserkers had this as a "symbol", mainly because the vikings was not a structured society with distinct symbols per troop unit, nor were berserkers a specific troop type. And as Odin was the all father and god of death, while tyr and thor was gods of war, it is unlikely that warriors would use him as a symbol. Sneaking Viper (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Valknut argument from user talk pages

I really don't see what your edits added to article "Valknut", since (among other things), the word Borromean is always capitalized (being the adjective form of the name of the Borromeo family of italy), the word "Triquetra" has a highly-specific meaning in modern usage (and is not merely a vague equivalent of "Triskelion"), the form of the symbol shown in image Image:Valknut-Symbol-3linkchain-closed.svg seems to be used by some modern neo-pagans (even if it isn't ancient, as clearly indicated), and the three horns symbol on the Snoldelev stone is not equivalent to any form of a Valknut. AnonMoos 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg

If you made that image yourself, then it would have been nice if you had made it larger and clearer... AnonMoos 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added responses on your talk page. Nagelfar 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry, but your edit replaces facts with non-facts. What does the Valknut being "topologically equivalent to a triskelion" even mean?? Nothing that I can determine... The Triskelion being topologically equivalent to a triquetra means that it is fundamentally the same as the 3_1 knot (external link to Knot Atlas), The Triskelion being topologically equivalent to the Borromean rings means that it is fundamentally the same as the L6a4 knot (external link to Knot Atlas), but it being equivalent to the Triskelion has no meaning. AnonMoos 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It says "...depending on artists depiction" so it seems intelligible enough to me, though somewhat verbose. Though I don't know why you're bringing this point up against me; being as I had nothing to do with adding that line nor is it my wording; my edits were subsequent to that, I only added to the line. Nagelfar 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence had a highly-specific meaning before (as I explain in excruciating detail below); since you started "improving" it, it appears to have no meaning at all. AnonMoos 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Meaning into gibberish

Dude, in the article as of 22:58, 24 February 2007 (see here), there is the sentence which reads:

Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent to Borromean rings, a closed 3-link chain, a triquetra or a triskelion, depending on the particular artistic depiction

That sentence, as it left your keyboard (and therefore your responsibility, since you freely chose to edit the sentence) clearly says that a Valknut is sometimes topologically equivalent to a Triskelion, which is absolute meaningless gibberish, as far as I can determine.

Conversely, the sentence as it existed before you came along, read as follows:

Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent to the Borromean rings, a closed 3-link chain, or the triquetra, depending on the particular artistic depiction

Which meant that Image:Valknut-Symbol-borromean.svg is equivalent to an L6a4 knot , Image:Valknut-Symbol-3linkchain-closed.svg is equivalent L6n1 knot , and Image:Valknut-Symbol-triquetra.svg is equivalent to a 3_1 knot -- which is both meaningful and true.

I really wish you wouldn't meddle with things where you don't appear to know what you're talking about. AnonMoos 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes the same amount of sense, as the last item in the delineation of the sentence, is also equivilent to a triskelion symbol, in the exact same delineation as the sentence was previously, with but one extra item. Your argument is moot. Nagelfar 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. You appear to have a large vocabulary of vague abstract conceptual terminology (though you don't always spell it correctly), but you appear to be rather deficient in knowledge of very basic facts of knot theory (a branch of mathematical topology), and in being able to understand or to decide when and why a sentence says something which is either mathematically true or mathematically false. That being the case, it might have behooved you to take a less "bold" approach to the article.

Furthermore, you are responsible for the particular parts of an article you chose to edit, in the form in which they were left after you edited them. When you choose to edit a sentence, it's your corresponding duty to make sure that you don't change a sentence expressing a mathematical truth into a sentence expressing a mathematical falsehood (or expressing no clear meaning at all). If you find that "fascistic", then maybe you should rethink your participation in Wikipedia. AnonMoos 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no falsehoods, mathematical or otherwise, presented in my edit of the article. I challenge you to give details on the posited "falsehoods" Nagelfar 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In your very latest version, you still have the Valknut as topologically equivalent to a Triskelion, which is gibberish. AnonMoos 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That version of the Valknut is topologically equivalent to a triskelion. Isn't the triskelion known, as with everything else, by mathematical factors? Nagelfar 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I already explained elsewhere, Triskelions are (partially!) defined by symmetries, but not defined by topology. AnonMoos 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Knots are mathematics

I hate to break it to you, but as soon as you start comparing two sets of closed knotted and/or interlinked loops to each other, in order to decide whether they are the "same" or "different", then you're automatically entering into the realm of mathematics. In some of the simplest cases, common-sense and superficial visual inspection can tell you whether two knots or links are the "same" or "different" (without writing down any equations) -- but as soon as you encounter more complex knotted configurations, or someone asks you to prove that two knots or links are the "same" or "different", or someone asks you what is a general procedure (that will in apply in all cases) to determine whether two knots or links are the "same" or "different", then you'll need mathematics pretty quickly. AnonMoos 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mathematics are in everything. What is your point about how the artucle is wrong again? I don't see it. Nagelfar 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In your very latest version, you still have the Valknut as topologically equivalent to a Triskelion, which is gibberish. AnonMoos 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Triskelion Valknut"

An example of proper interlacing

First off, Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg is not a triskelion, rather it includes a triskelion. And if you were intending to make statements about that image in article Valknut, but without actually adding the image to article Valknut, then that was extremely confusing and unclear (it certainly managed to confuse me). And no, what is shown in File:TriskelionValknut.jpg is not a knot -- that depiction doesn't properly interlace, for one thing. With proper interlacing, it's always clear that what goes under on one side comes back up on the opposite side, with no ambiguity about how things join up. In Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg , it's quite unclear how things are intended to be joined up in the center. AnonMoos 00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems a triskelion to me, if one considers it not to connect in the back, it is a triskelion that bends in on itself, I say it is definitely a triskelion two dimensionally (which is all it actually is). It doesn't have to literally be a "knot" to be the symbol it is associated with anyone, whether or not it has the word "knot" in it (the symbol clearly goes by other names and this example of the symbol has been used by certain organizations) It would be pointless to bifurcate the article into "hrungnirs heart" or etc just to post the other attested example of the valknut. Traditional name doesn't have to relate to particular classifications. (Let alone, "knut", is used from its Old Norse name, and doesn't conform with English name classifications technically) Nagelfar 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If one considers it not to connect in the back, then it seems to be topologically equivalent to three line segments joined at a point, which is topologically equivalent to a zero-dimensional point. If one considers it to connect in back, then it seems to be topologically equivalent to three semicircles in three-dimensional space which all share the same endpoints (which is not a knot). "Topologically equivalent to a Triskelion" is meaningless, because a triskelion is partly defined in terms of visual symmetry (i.e. having a three-fold rotational symmetry without any reflection symmetries), but not in terms of topology.

Furthermore, Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg would seem to be definitely modern-only (with no question-mark about it), since it violates the basic visual grammar of proper interlacing, which ancient artists generally must have been well-aware of. And also, if Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg is your own personal individual invention, then there's the question of whether it has any place on the Valknut article at all, according to Wikipedia policies. It would have been nice if you had been able to consider some of these matters before you started taking up my time and your own with these discussions. AnonMoos 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was my creation based on a near exact duplicate of a symbol used by a neo-Odinist organization (I believe it was something like the WOT). It is not original work or original research, but an original rendering on an attested example of such work. I believe the webpage where I saw it originally does not exist anymore. Nagelfar 01:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg would seem to be definitely modern-only (with no question-mark about it), since it violates the basic visual grammar of proper interlacing, which ancient artists generally must have been well-aware of.

That may be so, but it is POV. Even in the way you state it; "...seem to be..." / "...generally must have been..." & "...definitely.../..no question-mark about it..." are mutually exclusive. Nagelfar 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Topology

Dude, topology is by no means confined to knots. Examples involving Toruses, Moebius strips and Klein bottles often figure prominently. AnonMoos 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I assume it makes sense in regard to a Triskelion, and why I left the wording as is. How can something that is visual not exist in terms of topology? Nagelfar 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Valknut argument from user talk page

the word Borromean is always capitalized (being the adjective form of the name of the Borromeo family of italy)

Fair enough.

the word "Triquetra" has a highly-specific meaning in modern usage (and is not merely a vague equivalent of "Triskelion")

No where did I claim such, I was indicating the difference. The line Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent to Borromean rings, a closed 3-link chain, a triquetra or a triskelion Is not saying they are all equivalent, rather that they are all different in how they are made. It isn't grammatically proper to write "or" after each line but rather put a comma & only add "or" after the last instance, am I wrong? Also, you're argument is moot, because the revert you went to had the exactly same wording only ending in a closed 3-link chain, or the triquetra, so if you're using that argument, your revert needs to go back further.

If you made that image yourself, then it would have been nice if you had made it larger and clearer

I made it a long time ago with on a different computer and have had it on my harddrive for ages. I don't have the means to make another at the time, maybe someone else could upload it and replace it, but as it stands, it is the only available image example of a valknut symbol that I've seen used in this capacity elsewhere.

the three horns symbol on the Snoldelev stone is not equivalent to any form of a Valknut

"See also" isn't required to only link to something equivalent, is it?; The Snoldelev stone is a Nordic tri-part symbol found on ancient runestones, what more is needed to require a "see also" link? That seems enough association to me.

Nagelfar 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "either" is that better? Or would you prefer a full rewrite? I personally can see what is meant, though, as I said, I did not write that nor is it my wording. Nagelfar 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it was the part "depending on" that allowed me to understand what was meant. Nagelfar 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

.. That sentence, as it left your keyboard (and therefore your responsibility, since you freely chose to edit the sentence) ..

Please cite the wikipedia policy in which that is the case, I thought there was a 'be bold' policy, in terms of anyone being able to edit it to whatever extent they feel they can contribute. I didn't know there was a feudalistic policy where the last one to edit is held accountable for the entire content of the article. Nagelfar 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. You appear to have a large vocabulary of vague abstract conceptual terminology (though you don't always spell it correctly), but you appear to be rather deficient in knowledge of very basic facts of knot theory (a branch of mathematical topology), and in being able to understand or to decide when and why a sentence says something which is either mathematically true or mathematically false. That being the case, it might have behooved you to take a less "bold" approach to the article.

Furthermore, you are responsible for the particular parts of an article you chose to edit, in the form in which they were left after you edited them. when you choose to edit a sentence, it's your corresponding duty to make sure that you don't change a sentence expressing a mathematical truth into a sentence expressing a mathematical falsehood (or expressing no clear meaning at all). If you find that "fascistic", then maybe you should rethink your participation in Wikipedia. AnonMoos 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says nothing about how the knots relate to mathematical concepts, and for a very good reason; it isn't a mathematics article. However, though the first three items pictured may be Valknuts as they relate to knots that are mathematically defined; the fourth is still "geometrically" and topographically a triskelion; regardless of whether or not it falls into a particular category which is mathematically a knot; this is an article on Valknuts and the section is on categories of Valknuts. Not on mathematical kinds of knots; but a traditional kind of knot which does not require a rigid classiciation; It is not a science article, but a symbolistic / historic / neo-pagan one. Nagelfar 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But I don't even know if that was your argument. Are you arguing that the forth item added, the so labeled "triskelion valknut" is not a knot? It is still used as a Valknut, so it still is completely viable article addition. Nagelfar 00:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent to either Borromean rings, a closed 3-link chain, a triquetra or a triskelion, depending on the particular artistic depiction

Would a change of the above to something like;

Geometrically, it is topologically equivalent to either Borromean rings, a closed 3-link chain or a triquetra. It is also found as a triskelion, depending on the particular artistic depiction:

...Be of your approval? I can only assume that a triskelion doesn't somehow fit traditional topology. (Though I assume topology encompassing anything with form) Nagelfar 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...

Ok, I added external links to the L6a4 knot, L6n1 knot & 3_1 knot from your knot wiki in accord to how they relate to the valknut symbols given in the article.

Maybe you have the knowhow to say how exactly this image I added is classed in terms of being a knot;

File:TriskelionValknut.jpg

Two dimensionally, it doesn't connect; though theoretically it could be connected in three dimensions behind the back of the central "triskelion", does that qualify it as a knot? Let's work on this together; wikipedia would benefit as a whole because of it. You seem to be knowledgable on the technical aspect of knots. Nagelfar 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "technically" a knot, I hold fast to the fact that it is a triskelion (it has one more arm bend than is commonly found, but this doesn't exclude it from the definition. Are all triskelions defined as having only two arm bends rather than three or four?) Nagelfar 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

...

Starting over with a clean slate

I reverted to the previous condition of the article, and hopefully we can make slow incremental improvements to it (if necessary), which will not change mathematically correct sentences into meaningless gibberish, or introduce one person's own floundering improvised ad-hoc terminology ("with gaps between the knot links" etc. etc.) instead of standard accepted conventional terminology. Why don't you start by answering the following questions? --

1) Is the version of the symbol in Image:TriskelionValknut.jpg (which includes a Triskelion, but is not itself a Triskelion) your own personal individual invention? (The fact that it doesn't follow the standard artistic conventions or "grammar" of proper unambiguous interlacing means that it almost certainly isn't ancient.)

2) Is it used by any noteworthy individuals or groups (other than by you personally)?

3) If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no", then why should it be included on Wikipedia at all? AnonMoos 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If you had taken the time to read my responses on my own talk page I had answered all of these questions. I have been at wikipedia since Jan '04, I know all of this, I know all of the rules and regs. etc. etc. I contend that none of the lines written were "gibberish" at all whatsoever, and I will continue to contend so. This was NOT MY CREATION. I re-edited the image from a webpage logo as to not include wording from scratch maybe even as many as ten years ago. I also saw it reused in this style online around that time. If I am not mistaken, it was from the webpage of the WOT, which is now defunct. I cannot even find the image on archive.org, as I've looked for about an hour, but I remember it clearly as I took the time to retrace & save it; it existed, it was used on a highly trafficked website. I said as such in my talk page. So NO it is "NOT my own personal creation. As for 2; yes, it was used by the WOT & more. Secondly, you're past your three reverts on this issue, which you too quickly go to before proper editing. The wording was perfectly viable, not gibberish at all, any third party could read and understand such. Nagelfar 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you're wrong, the image given is clearly a triskelion. The number of bends and length of them, are not defined to any degree; only that there are three bending arms from an outward point in a single direction; this is all that 'Valknut' variant consists of. Nagelfar 04:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You certainly talk a lot, but you don't appear to excel in the ability to give clear answers to simple questions. What website was it that you saw this symbol on? Furthermore, having three-fold rotational symmetry without reflectional symmetries is certainly a necessary condition for being a Triskelion, but it's by no means a sufficient condition for being a Triskelion -- otherwise many things (such as the Borromean rings and the Diana de Poitiers crescents emblem) which are not in fact usually called "triskelions" would then qualify. And pretty much by your own admission, you don't have enough understanding of the relevant mathematical concepts to understand when you're writing a mathematically-true sentence and when you're writing mathematical gibberish. AnonMoos 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The website is defunct, probably offline for nearly 10 years [2] [3] (& I know some other pages). About the "definition" of a triskelion, this is POV on your part. Three part rotational symmetry, and a center emanating point (axis) is all that is quite logically by anyone standards needed for something to be a triskelion; this disqualifies true knots of any kind; and anything without a center axis (Borromean rings, emblem of Diane de Poitiers). Because I asked you for different technical terminology regarding knot variants does not mean I lack the common sense to understand what qualifies any other designs to be categorized by definitional standards. There is no reason for the Valknut article to be linked to "triskelion", only that there was a symbol variant used that forms a triskelion, and then that is covered in the article. About supposedly not "writing a mathematically-true sentence" (as if literariness or philology had anything to do with math structure), this page has nothing to do with needing to conform to mathematical terminology; just dictionary terminology; I don't see a "mathematics" category tagged to it; where it links and references mathematics it has always been true to them; always, on every edit of this page. Maybe it gave you the wrong taxonomical assumptions, but the structuring posed no actual logistically fallacious content. Nagelfar 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore...

What is "In terms not of true knots" even supposed to mean??? The individual words are certainly English, but it really doesn't add up to a meaningful clause. AnonMoos 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Why not confine yourself to what you know

You obviously know something about Scandinavian placenames etc., so why not concentrate your efforts in areas where you can make a useful contribution (as opposed to geometry, which does not seem to be one of those areas)? AnonMoos 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

And please; "or introduce one person's own floundering improvised ad-hoc terminology ("with gaps between the knot links" etc. etc.) instead of standard accepted conventional terminology." This is wikipedia reword it to conform to whichever way you think is best, rather than simply remove a truism about the topology & historic difference between instances of the image that the article is about. Reverting rather than editing comes across as lazy and it can quite frankly be destructive. Here is the line Besides these differences between variants of Valknuts, each of these can further be separated into Valknuts with gaps between the knot links (or just in the center), and closed contiguous Valknuts (c.f. for the former the Tängelgarda stone & c.f. for the latter the Lärbro stone.) I challenge you to better it, and add it to the article. Otherwise state your extact reasoning for continuing to remove it Nagelfar 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the dichotomy of our different approach to this article, AnonMoos, may be summed in you reverting the Snoldelev Stone internal link with that of the triskelion. You see the page from a purely symbolistic/mathematical angle, whereas I see it from a cultural importance angle. It's occurrence in popular culture, the meanings imbued to it etc. How it actually relates and our difference in vision for article has to be resolved on those terms. Nagelfar 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Images wrong?

I think the image for the Borromean rings and the image for the 3-chain should be switched. The gray and blue triangle in the present "Borromean rings" image are disconnected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.184.31 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the three loops in any Borromean rings configuration is ever "connected" in the sense of a Hopf link. See Borromean rings article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ASCII art Valknut

          /\
         /  \
        / /\ \  /\
       / /  \ \/  \
      / / /\ \ \/\ \
     / / /  \/\ \ \ \
    / / / /\/ /\ \ \ \
   / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \
  / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \
 / /_/ /_/_/__\ \_\ \ \ \
/___/ /________\ \___\ \ \
   / / / /______\_\_____\ \
  / / /____________________\
 / /______________\ \
/____________________\

Just because I saved this from some time ago and thought it should live on in some form to someone or several (potentially) who perhaps maybe a use for it. Nagelfar (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern use.

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

Does it exist or not?

Can somebody please put informations from this source to the article? Dominikmatus (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything in that post has been covered here for around half a decade now The article's title is pure sensationalism and nothing in the post is news. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As the author of the article in question I would like to just make a few points: This was not common knowledge in the general (English speaking) populace prior to my article (which has since become quite influential). I base it on the groundwork on Tom Hellers, and I was the first person as far as I know to present some of his points in English to a wider audience, though they were widely known in scholarly circles. So I can live with the fact that I am not cited (even though I do present things that have not been, as you say covered for "half a decade now"). What is inexcusable however is that Heller's work is not, and that the inaccuracies still standing in this article are corrected.

As for the title of the article: Obviously the symbol itself exists, but the name is purely a modern projection based on weak judgement by early scholarship who had no reason to believe their off-hand terminology would spawn entire interpretational paradigms reproduced here. Brutenorse (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Berserkz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Berserkz (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 25 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adigiacomo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Adigiacomo (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)