Talk:Hel (location)

"Helgardh"

What's the source for the use of "Helgardh" rather than "Hel" or "Helheim"? I've been unable to find any use of this form elsewhere and I've also never encounterd the spelling "gardh" for the Norse "garðr" postfix elsewhere.

Indeed, I don't think "Helgarðr" occurs anywhere in the sources (though if it did "Helgardh" would be as good an Anglicization of it as any other). I'm moving the page to Hel (realm) for now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Hel (realm) needs to be merged with Niflheim. I've read both the prose and poetic Eddas before, and never did I have the impression that Hel was refering to a place. I admit I could be wrong, but finding a source will satisfy me either way. --Trakon 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon edits w/o sources.

The recent edit makes the following statement: "Hel is not to be confused with Niflheim. They are completely different places." This edit is unsigned and not cited. I have already written about the ambiguity on the subject on the Talk:Niflheim page, dated 2007 January 8th. The reality is that Hel and Niflheim ARE confused with each other. For such a statement on the contrary to exist in an encyclopedic article, definitive evidence is needed. Please cite a professional/academic source AND state the reasons for your conclusion, or it will be reverted. At least this needs to show why the two places should not be confused with each other, even though there is so much confusion. --Trakon 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The series of edits around 2007-02-16T01:40:57 from 213.213.142.124 address the ambiguity between Nilfheim and Hel. The edits also speak of ways the realm of Hel has influenced, or been influenced by, analogous realms in other mythologies. I believe these are steps in the correct direction. However, it lacks references for some of the information and the article feels unorganized. I suggest rearranging the article into three sections:

• A description of Hel (realm) that only concerns what it is like compared to itself and, when needed, other realms, but saving comparisons to Niflheim for the next section.
• An analysis of Hel and Niflheim explaining shared qualities, differences, and the possibility of being one in the same.
• A list of similarities and suspected influences between Hel (realm) and other realms of the dead from other mythologies.

--Trakon 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

helheim

The Helheim page redirects here. Helheim is referenced in Finnish WP, French WP, and on various Internet sources, so I put it back in. If there's a source for the assertion that the term appears in no original sources, then let's see the reference. If there's no reference showing that Helheim is inauthentic, then it should remain. Jonathan Tweet 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no you've got that backwards :) If you want it in then you're the one who needs to find a reliable source for it. Haukur 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is true: A reference is needed for authentication. Jonathan Tweet has it backwards. If this were not the case, we could also write about how Elvis, Cobain, and Hendrix all live in my backyard as undead zombies, at least until someone provides a source stating otherwise. --Trakon 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Hel a hall or a realm, or are the terms synonymous?

I have since reread much of the texts (and multiple versions). Hel is equivocated as both a being/realm. I still maintain the belief that Hel (realm) needs to be merged with Niflheim. One thing that is even more troubling to me, however, is that in the current revision of the article, Hel is said to be a hall. This I do not remember. Citation is needed and while that's being taken care of at it, the solution to this analogy:

Hel/Niflheim is to Eliudnir as Asgard is to Valhalla and Fólkvangr.

Hel (being) lives in Eliudnir, does she not? It doesn't make sense that Hel (realm) would be a hall with another hall called Eliudnir inside of it. I add, and this may be a bit too slippery at the moment, that this hole is easily solved if either Hel (realm) is Eliudnir or Hel (realm) is Niflheim.

On the other hand, I can imagine situations where Hel (realm) is either a hall in or is a realm that is NOT Niflheim. In either case Hel (being) lives in Eliudnir. If both Hel (realm) and Niflheim are realms (one moment to specify, "realms" as in worlds, not just halls), then Eliudnir could exist in either. --Trakon 11:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction with Niflheim

In the article Niflheim, it says that Hel is located within Niflheim, but on the Hel (realm) article, it says that they are completely different places. This is contradictory information; please verify & fix. --Wykypydya 01:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is contradictory. Mythologies are full of contradictions. And even if the articles are "verif[ied] & fix[ed]" the reality is that the contradictions shall remain. It is human error/inconsistency as either authors, historians, or deus conduits. My suggestion remains that the two articles should be combined. See this and Niflheim's talk page as well to see what I have written previously. --Trakon 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Helheim is either a synonym for Niflheim (Hel home) or, more likely, a hall in Niflheim. It's probably a similar situation to the location of Valhalla in Asgard - Valhalla is a location within Asgard. :bloodofox: 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think this article should be merged with Hel (being), because we are dealing with a simple case of metonymy, and the references are usually ambiguous. I suggest a new article named Hel and her realm, instead.--Berig 15:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article can then discuss all references to Hel in the texts and then add notes to ambiguity when needed. I think we should keep Hel (realm) and Hel (being) so they can redirect to the new article. Also, the disambiguation page for Hel would be good to update. --Trakon 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Each article is more than long enough to stand on its own and the subject of each is inherantly encyclopedic; merging the two would only create an unnecessarily long article without producing any obvious benefit. Heather 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opposition to the merger, but your reasons seem troublesome to me. I'll explain: The need for an obvious benefit of the merging of the two articles is not dependent on the length of the two articles. Rather, the merger is dependent on the benefits gained by having a single article (or, practically, if such a wikipedia arbiter decides to merge them). Furthermore, the Hel (realm) page is only a stub, and should be expanded or incorporated.

Also, what does "inherently encyclopedic" mean to your opposition? To me it seems that if two articles that address sometimes very ambiguous references were to be inherently encyclopedic then they would often contain some of the same information. In such a case it seems like a merger would reduce the amount of repeated information while allowing for the local discussion of the ambiguities of the two concepts. And when I take into account that you seem to tend toward shorter (or at least sufficiently long) articles, it would makes sense that you might support the merger rather than oppose it. In short, to me it seems like you are supporting the merger rather than opposing it, so maybe you could elaborate. --Trakon 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not enthusiastic about a merge though I trust that if Berig does it it will be good. Haukur 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hel and Hel are two different subjects. They just happen to have the same name and Hel (the person) lives within Hel (the place). It's true that Hel (the place) is a stub, but adding/incorporating it into Hel (the person) may be confusing to a person new to the mythology. Besides, the name "Hel and her realm" doesn't seem right. If this merger does happen, I strongly suggest it simply be called "Hel". King Wagga 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose like King Wagga said Helios 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. My reasoning is along the same lines as Trakon. In the interest of clarity, conciseness and convenience I think having all the available information in one article would be helpful without having to switch back and forth between two separate ones when referencing, discussing or editing. I would suggest using the Hades article as an example and break it up into sections dealing with the being and the realm separately. As far as a title I would suggest "Hel" or perhaps "Hel (Norse mythology)". Cerdic 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I usually oppose mergers but this one is special. Why? The subject matter, etymology and sources are all extremely closely linked andchances are they are basically the same subject or at least extremely closely related to the point to where they may as well be. For this reason, I say merge the two together but, of course, keep blatantly distinct things like Niflheim separate. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After doing some significant editing to this article regarding Hel, the location, I've decided that it will simply pile up too much for the Hel article. I think we just need to continue adding sources since it is a location. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As said before, because Hel (location) and Hel (being) are two different things. They are not the same. Peter Maas\^talk 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The two terms are not interchangeable and both articles are substantially more than stubs. As this is a fairly old and stale merge request, I'm just going to be bold and close it out. EvilCouch (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Náströnd -inside- Hel, the location?

I have just removed some information relating to Náströnd and placed a link in the "See also" section. In relation to this, there is a conversation going on (hopefully) about why I did so here: Talk:Náströnd#Náströnd -inside- Hel, the location? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hel(l)

"unlike English hell, did not imply any sense of damnation or punishment." In Prose Edda it says "But evil men go to Hel" ( http://web.archive.org/web/20080518124955/www.northvegr.org/lore/prose/013016.php ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.73.35 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

In the etymology section it states "Hęl derives from Proto-Germanic *khalija*". Does anyone know if there's an etymological connection to the Hindu goddes Kali? Based on the word's Indo-European roots, it seems possible. With the similar chthonic natures of Hel's mistress & Kali, it would make an intersting not for the section ic it could be confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadScientist72 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The etymology section is currently poorly sourced and either needs to be appropriately sourced or rewritten with a better source employed. Comparative material is welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no etymological connection between Kali and Hel. kālī is a feminine derivative of either one, or both, of kāla-, meaning "time", "fate, death", and 'kāla- "dark", "black", for which see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.0.soas.1830275 . The proto-indo-european root *k^el- "to cover, to conceal" does appear in Indo-Aryan, but as śal-, which is the expected outcome, not kal-. Compare Sanskrit śālā "hut". - David Russell Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.17.185 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Heimr" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heimr. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)