Talk:Dwarf (Norse mythology)

"Artefact"

Actually, the spelling "artefact" is also correct - it's just more British. Ausir 20:27, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Move to "Norse dwarfs"?

The correct plural of "dwarf" in any non-Tolkien context is "dwarfs". I'll move it when I have time, but there are too many links to this page for me to handle right now. If someone can run the renamebot, then please do. PhilHibbs 15:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, currently both forms are considered correct, not only in Tolkien context. My Longman dictionary even gives "dwarves" first - it might have been incorrect earlier, but due to Tolkien's influence, it no longer is. Of course, it does matter which version is used by a particular writer (Tolkien uses dwarves, Pratchett uses dwarfs, some other fantasy works use one or the other), but when it comes to non-English works, like the Norse dwarves, the form used is irrelevant. Ausir 18:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but from what I know, Elves and Dwarves seem quite correct compared to similar word forms like leaf->leaves loaf->loaves. It looks like a valid rule in English to do that, and Tolkien was a philologist after all, so I guess he should have known :) --Arny 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Even a professor may make mistakes, and as I remember the story Tolkien later admitted that he had little basis for this change (indeed based on th e leaf->leaves form). In younger days he was pretty insistent though. jax (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there are few if any rules in English, especially UK English, and those there are, have exceptions and limits and riders and amiguities. Alex Law 05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you're a chav --Kurtle (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no such thing as "dwarfs", or "elfs". Could be more correct, but the traditional is dwarves.--Midasminus 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. The plural form "dwarves" was invented by Tolkien.— JyriL ^talk 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

'Dwarfs' is earlier [Etymology Dictionary] and 'dwarves' was invented by Tolkien. 'Dwarfs' is listed first in the [[1]. I, personally, think 'dwarfs' is preferable in non-Tolkien contexts, but both appear to be correct nowadays.--Jcvamp (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing Durinn link

At the begining, there is a link from Durinn (norse Dwarf) to Durin (Tolkien's dwarf). I'm removing the connection because even though one inspired the other, they're not the same dwarf. Compare that Dvalinn doesn't link to Dwalin (Tolkien) but rather the actual Dvalinn who pertains to Norse mythology.

"spontaneously generated"

I believe that sentence should be rephrased into something as "...like maggots were thought to...", since this way it looks as a fact that maggots actually get to being via spontaneous generation, which is of course incorrect. --Arny 14:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I read they were maggots given human shape.-- Nitron_Ninja_Apple 12:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging Duergar into Norse dwarves

The two articles are duplicates. I think Norse dwarves is a better name than Dvergar (even if we have Jotun and not Norse giant, but dwarf is the literal translation of dverg, which is not the case of jötunn / giant). By the way, I wonder why we have Norse dwarves in plural and Jotun in singular. Sigo 16:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no real reason for Duergar and Norse Dwarves to be in the same article. Dvergar are the Dwarves of Norse Mythology and Duergar/Dwergar are the Dwarves of Northumbrian folklore predominately (though the name has been used to anglicise the Norse version). They are obviously both from the same root (the common Germanic Mythology) but are different 'tribes' of dwarf. Just as the Anglo-Saxons are not Swedes. I do think they should be mentioned in this article however. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Redundant links

I've just repaired a couple of the broken links to particular dwarves, and removed some that were pointing to inappropriate pages (mostly to Middle-earth Dwarves or disambiguation pages). This was done with assumption that separate articles about these dwarves are unnecessary or non-notable; if they are to be created, links can be readded, but with disambiguating ending in most cases ("(dwarf)", "(Norse mythology)" or smth). Súrendil 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

height

How do we know how tall the Norse thought Dwarves were? If they were human sized, how comes so many related words such as modern English "dwarf" mean small or stunted? --86.135.216.24 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that Norse "elves" were originally fully human sized, but ended up like Shakespearean little people, because of the influence of the concept of diminutive fairy.--Haldrik 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, how do we know? Do any of the Eddas or similar sources directly say so? or is it just being assumed? Basically I'm kinda skeptical about the idea that "dwarf" meaning small really comes from the mythological meaning rather than the two meanings having always existed side by side. It seems like an unlikely semantic shift, "regular sized mythological creature" > "small sized mythological creature" > "small sized anything". --86.135.216.24 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the assertion that Norse dwarves were imagined as human sized seems very unlikely. My Old Norse dictionary says that the word "dvergr" could refer to either the mythological dwarves, or to a human of unusually low stature. So, the connection "dwarf" <-> "small" was already made in old Norse times. If this article is going to argue that Norse dwarves were imagined to be of the same height as humans, there should be some very good references for this, otherwise that sentence should be removed immediately.--Barend 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly opinion seems to be somewhere in between what I wrote above and what Haldrik wrote, and I've edited the article accordingly. Rudolf Simek (Lexikon der Germanischen Mythologie) writes Dass man sich die Zwerge ursprünglich als besonders klein vorstellte, ist nicht belegt, erst die Sagas beschreiben sie als kurz und oft hässlich. My tenuous translation: There is no evidence that the dwares were originally envisaged as particularly small, not before the sagas are they described as short and often ugly. However, the sagas were also written in the old Norse culture, only at a later stage than the eddas. So in a description of "Norse dwarves", this development should be mentioned. An example of a short dwarf, off the top of my head, is to be found in Þiðrekssaga (mid-13th century), where the heroes encounter, and capture, the dwarf Alfrik. He diverts them by informing them of a large treasure they may find, "and to seek this treasure with your companion is a greater deed than capturing my small body and short legs."--Barend 14:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. The point about the later Fornaldarsaga and height, is a nice clarification. --Haldrik 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Why were they even called dwarf in the first place if they weren't originally short? Regardless of whether the semantic change occured during the Old Norse culture or afterwards, we're left with the same problem. --86.142.170.168 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the etymological reconstruction of Proto-Indoeuro *dhwergwhos to mean 'small' is correct, perhaps the Norse described human-sized Dvergar to be 'small' relative to the giant Jötnar, who also personify earth and stones in the form of entire mountains and landscapes. --Haldrik (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

About accolades in citations

In the section "Dvergatal: the list of the Dvergar", accolades ("{" and "}") are used, presumable to indicate an absence of the indicated parts in original or reconstructed originial material, but this is never explained. Shinobu (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the explanation. The names in the accolades are missing from the earlier manuscript.--Haldrik (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

I think using primary sources is a good thing for many reasons but I also think that they need to be used in the light of the best secondary sources. I.e. I'm happy with our articles quoting (and showing) the primary sources but the conclusions we draw from them should be cited to published scholarly works. For example I'm not sure we should make the point about the relative sizes of Reginn and Sigurðr in the Norwegian artwork unless we can cite the observation to a published source.

I think we should use previously published translations as much as we can. When a specific point needs to be made about a specific word or phrase in the original text then it can be cited to scholarly discussion (and, in some cases, dictionaries). See Four stags of Yggdrasill for a recent (uncompleted and currently mired in the 19th century) example of the methodology I'm currently applying. I don't claim to have all the answers but I've been struggling with this problem for some time. Haukur 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using these translators. They are dated, inaccurate, and useless. Theirs are not scholarly translations. Similarly, I would not use unsuitable translators for biblical texts. --Haldrik (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It would, of course, be nice if there were better English translations of the Poetic Edda out there. Dronke's translation is the only one which I would call scholarly and reliable and unfortunately it only covers half the poems. Haukur (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

An ad hoc 'Wiki translation' is an acceptable solution. (Translations of other texts of antiquity are sometimes ad hoc for similar reasons. The difficult texts are precisely the ones that the popular translations tend to smooth over, making the translations less suitable for scholarly discussion.) Editors can verify the accuracy of the translations. Translations are usually obvious and indisputable. Texts that are genuinely ambiguous or obscure, need the commentary anyway, and editors naturally emphasize difficult texts as they cite sources to clarify their meaning. --Haldrik (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The equality of Dvergar with Svartalfar and Dokkalfar

The article seems to take for granted the fact that these three names refer to the same race, but the only reasoning that it offers is that both Dvergar and Svartalfar live underground. Statements such as "even tho[ugh] the Prose Edda is the only early source to use these terms and by them clearly mean Dvergar" seem to be extremely adamant to this. In fact, the given state of Dokkalfar and Svartalfar as being dwarves or elves seems to be neutral: on one hand, they live underground, while on the other, they are called, with a prefix modification, Alfar, the same as the guys that apparently hold council with the gods and are mentioned a grand total of four or five times. I'm pretty tired at the moment and may be missing a detail, but otherwise it seems a rule is used in the discussions of the article while not justified at any point, so the best thing would be to add such a justification from the sources or to simply say that scholars believe the three names to be equated. Does anyone else feel this need? Found Missing (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good move, feel free. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does have some fairly substantial evidence to equate the races that I missed due to them being a quote box with just the right formula for my eyes to skip, though still some statements seem completely unsourced, and this evidence is still not absolute. I'm generally changing the tone of the matter throughout the article to reflect this and remove its absolute attitude; feel free to revert it or further change the article to something in-between the old and new versions. Found Missing (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

It's impossible (at least difficult) to tell how much of the article is original research as most of the sources are books, though its highly analytical tone would suggest that it at least synthesizes statements from sources to come to new conclusions. There is one statement, though, that seems to almost certainly be original research: that that Dvergar only have black hair. The two justifications given for this do not seem to logically hold up. The first, that a dwarf would have to have a nose surround by a dark beard/moustache to be "pale about the nose" seems to be largely an assumption; there are numerous other possible explanations given the little information. Being "pale about the nose" would also imply that the nose is paler than any other part of the body, unlike it simply being contrasted from the surrounding area as the explanation given states. The other explanation is found in the statement (referring to 'svartr' in 'Svartalfar', a name for Dvergar): "(It is analogous to the English term 'brunette', which always refers to brown hair and never brown skin.)". According to Dictionary.com, the definition of "brunette" is:

–adjective

1. (of hair, eyes, skin, etc.) of a dark color or tone.

2. (of a person) having dark hair and, often, dark eyes and darkish or olive skin.

–noun

3. a person, esp. a female, with such coloration.

The article states that this word only refers to hair color, while in fact it can also refer to skin and eye color. Logically, 'svartr' could be applied to all or one of these attributes, rather than only hair. Note that this analysis should never be used in the article as it -is- original research; it is only an attempt to cast doubt on the plausibility of the statement and its source from a scholarly publication. Being a very new member and not knowing the statement's author here's use of source or research (as of yet) from her or his own words, I won't even attempt to edit or re-arrange the section in which this statement is found, though I will place the Original Research tag there, which of course should be removed once the idea in question is attributed to a source. To the person that added the statement: none of the statements above are meant to demean or antagonize you or your contribution. I fully expect to be corrected rather than supported on the issue; this is only my attempt to possibly improve the article and to hold a subject that I am personally passionate about to the same standard as other, more popular areas on Wikipedia. If you are offended by either this talk page entry or the tag for whatever duration it remains up, you have my sincere apology. Found Missing (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If brunette can be used to describe skin colour, that doesn't mean svartr can (it may have been a bad comparison). So long as the author's Norse is correct, blár is the correct term for black skin, rather than svartr. To all my knowledge (which, in the case of Old Norse, is next to none), the author is right (although I'd like to know how this relates to svartr, as in svartálfar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.199.159 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Found Missing that there is too much original research in the article. As for "svartr", my Norse-Norwegian dictionary gives the meaning as "svart, mørk", which in English would be "black, dark", and gives no indication that this only applies to hair.--Barend (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Paolini?

Christopher Paolini may be a talanted novelist, but he is a contemporary author and thus referencing him as an equal to Tolkien, as done in "In popular culture" section, is not appropriate. I guess we should refer to founders of fantasy tradition there. That's why I suggest replaing Christopher Paolini with someone like C. S. Lewis, Ursula Le Guin or Robert E. Howard. I believe books by every one of them featured dwarves as seen in Norse myths. Netrat_msk (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Any support for 'Dark Elves Hypothesis?'

I have deleted the section that began with the following paragraph, since no scholarly support for this theory is given, and I know of none:

Dark elves hypothesis

One scholar, William P. Reaves,[8] hypothesized 'dark elves' were understood even in the Viking Era to be a malevolent faction of 'elves', distinct from 'dwarves'. While conceding the lateness of the poem Hrafnagaldr Óðins (see above), he argues it may preserve an oral tradition deriving from the Viking Era that was almost lost. He equates 'dark elves' with 'black elves' and must then accuse the Prose Edda of having wrongly confused them with Dvergar – even though the Prose Edda is the only early source to use these terms and by them almost certainly mean Dvergar. Thereby, Reeves reinterprets certain stories preserved in the Prose Edda as referring to early Norse myths that involve 'dark elves'.

This passage is apparently based on an essay that has been posted on various websites and elists for at least a decade, but seems to consist entirely of one layman's personal speculations. The author is not himself a scholar, his essay cites to no scholarly support for his theory, and the essay itself has never been published. Consequently, unless someone can point to any published scholarship that supports this section, I don't believe it belongs in this article. Rsradford (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

The section on the height of the dwarves has very little in the way of references and cites and seems to be based on original research.

This paragraph for instance:

"None of the early Norse sources describe dwarves as particularly small beings. In artwork made during the Viking Age and even later, both dwarves and humans are the same height. (See image.) Several images survive that depict scenes from the saga of the Norse hero Sigurðr, where Sigurðr is a human, but his foster father Reginn is a Dvergr, a Norse dwarf."

There is no source for it, and I cannot find any reference to the image depicting Reginn as a dwarf. Reginn was depicted as either a man or a dwarf depending on the source, even in the 'Reginsmál' it says "At that time Regin, the son of Hreithmar, was come to Hjalprek's home; he was more ingenious than all other men, and a dwarf in stature; he was wise, fierce and skilled in magic." note that it seems to imply that he is a man in the first part but then says he is a dwarf in stature, and thus we can only claim that in the source he looks like a dwarf, such as in height or in build (see stature), this can be contrasted with "Andvari was a dwarf, who had dwelt long in the waterfall in the shape of a pike, and there he got his food." from which we know that Andvari is a dwarf by "race" or "species" and not just in stature. Voluspá on the other had has a Reginn under its list of dwarves. In other sources it is not mention whether Reginn is a dwarf, and in Thidrekssaga he is the wyrm (taking Fafnir's usual role) and Mimir is the foster-father of Sigurd (hence Richard Wagner's Mime in his Ring Cycle.

Also, we cannot be sure that the figure depicted on the Sigurd Portal is actually Reginn and not the aforementioned Mimir, who took the role in the Norwegian Thidrekssaga as aforementioned. The Hylestad Church of Setesdal is for one thing in Norway.

Which leads me on to the image and it's caption:

Both the Norse dwarf (right) and the human (left) are same height.
Figure of a scene from 12th-century Norway, on the Sigurd Portal, a carved wood entrance at the stave church in Hylestad, Setesdal.

Again, it depicts the killing of Reginn (or Mimir) however whether Reginn is a dwarf in this depiction can be debated. The main problem with this caption is that the Hylestad stave church is not 12th Century but 13th Century [2] [3] [4] [5] thus calling it one of the earliest depictions of a Norse dwarf and using it as evidence of their human-like stature is suspect, especially since it is from the same time as Thidrekssaga. Thidrekssaga does infact depict a dwarf as being of short stature (Alfrek, whose German form is Alberich), and is in fact one of (if not the) earliest to mention height in regards to the dwarves (their height was generally not mentioned rather than them being described as the same height as man).

In short the section needs to be re-written and verified. At the moment it is just helping to spread speculation and disinformation on the Internet. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As SigurdDragonSlayer unintentionally points out, the concept of the Dvergar as 'short' is alien to native Norse lore, and was imported from *Germany* with other Pan-Euro literature in the wake of Christiandom. The 13th-century Thidrekssaga itself describes *German legends* about Dietrich von Bern, as well as the *German* dwarf Alberich that *German folklore* conceived as short. This Icelandic saga combines several sources to tell the 'stories of German men', including traditions from Germany. Germans and Scandinavians had non-identical traditions about the Dvergar and similar nature-spirits. Haldrik (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, SigurdDragonSlayer has the audacity to link false and misleading notes. (These are source notes he supplies: [6] [7] [8] [9].) The third and fourth links refer to the *same* document twice thus falsely inflating his sources: "The Folklore of the Wild Hunt and the Furious Host" - and even this document lacks the necessary date for the Hylestad Stavchurch! The source merely notes in passing, "All the German and Norse legends in which Sigurd appear show him as a youthful hero, doomed to an untimely death. In fact, the depiction of this hero on the Hylestad stave-church portals shows him as beardless". Thats it! Nothing about the stavchurch itself, much less about its date. Finally, SigurdDragonSlayer must knowingly ignore all the internet sites that indeed confirm the Hylestad Church was built in the 12th-century "circa 1175". For example, "Wooden carving from Hylestad stave church, Norway, 12th century" [10], "The photo is taken from the famous 12th-century carved doorway of Hylestad Church (ca. 1175)" [11], and so on. Haldrik (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

POV-violations and rampant original research throughout

OK, Haldrik (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been reverting this article to the POV violation-riddled pile of original research you can see here: [12]. This is a clear attempt by Haldrik to push his own research, which seems to conclude that dwarves are human-sized vampire-like creatures. If this is a theory produced by someone of note, then it needs to be cited appropriately. Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing personal research or opinion. I've reverted the article back to a few solid paragraphs until someone puts the time into producing a quality article. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The common scholarly knowledge cites the sources. You CANT delete the cited references. If you attempt to delete the data a third time, YOU will be guilty of wikipedia violations. The main dispute, concerning height, now has the cited references. The connection between the dvergar and the dead is common knowledge. Sources for that are easy to find - you could even find them yourself, you know. That would help wikipedia. The section about skin color and hair color contains references to Icelandic linguistic studies, I will try find something in English. Haldrik (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloodfox, YOUR POV doesnt entitle you to do massive deletions on sourced statements that YOU disagree with. Haldrik (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The referencing on this article was/is so poor that there's nothing worth preserving. It requires a total rewrite. Find the "violation" I'm guilty of, but in the mean time you clearly need to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and also take a look at what is acceptable referencing on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

There's no dispute about whether or not the dwarves have a connection to the dead (clearly), but all information must still be verifiable and correctly sourced. This business about pushing dwarves as human-sized vampires requires the same approach, and any such claim needs to be sectioned off and clearly labeled as the product of an individual—not presented to the public as fact. This is very basic Wikipedia editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloodfox, I gather you are Pagan, but your religious convictions dont give you permission to censor information you dont like. Desist. Haldrik (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholars beleive the Norse concept of dvergar presumed human height, this is now sourced in the wikipedia text. Vampires are irrelevant, and are a false accusation. The ancient concept of Dvergar contradicts the modern concept of the Lord of the Rings. Differences in height, affinity with the dead, and many other traits are necessary to point out to dispel these common modern misconceptions. Furthermore, as 'darkelves', these ancient dvergar have little to do with D&D drow, a surprisingly common confusion. Haldrik (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty desperate attack. One look at my editing history or user page will make it perfectly clear that any religious beliefs that I may harbor have no influence on my article-editing, and that this subject matter is very familiar territory for me. Rather than attempting to launch a half-baked personal attack, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the links I've provided for you above. Again, any theory about the size of dwarves needs to be in its own section, well referenced and appropriately cited, and stated as exactly that—a theory. The largely completely unreferenced version you keep reverting to is nothing more than an attempt to push your personal theory, and this is not OK on Wikipedia. I again direct you to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I undid the POV *mass deletion* vandalism by Bloodfox. Haldrik (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy, the POV tag or any other tag cannot be used to 'warn' readers about an article. Its purpose is to attract other editors who may contribute more information on a specific issue from other points of view. If informative discussions about the issues of concern go dormant, editors can remove the tag. In other words, it is incumbant on the disputer to add research from an alternative point of view. Haldrik (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to accusations of original research, all the information in the article comes from reliable publications, and is sourced. The presumption of the human height of the dvergar and the lack of any early references to small size despite their frequent mention in the earliest material, is already noted in reliable publications, including encyclopedias. This is well known, cited, and cannot count as OR. Haldrik (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you're well aware of what you're trying to get away with here. However, it's just a matter of time before the issue is defused. The vast majority of this article is unreferenced and it exists entirely to promote a theory that the elves are vampire-like creatures that are the size of humans. The vast majority of the article is completely unreferenced, and what few references exist point to scholars stating that it is a theory that dwarves may be the same size as humans - nor is it the only one, but you're revealingly keen on simply labeling this theory as fact all over the article. I'll give this horrendous article a proper rewrite to WP:GA standards when I can get back to my books, but in the mean time anyone else who wants to come by and do the subject matter a favor is more than welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The article doesnt even mention the word 'vampire'. You are simply lying. Haldrik (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 'warning' tags, as per wikipedia policy. Haldrik (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the tags must remain until the issues are addressed. I'd also like to point out that this is the third time you've removed the terms "original research" from the header of this talk page section, and I'll thank you to stop. Or I'll just keep putting it back. Either way... :bloodofox: (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You ignore the fact, your main dispute is against an established academic view, documented by scholars and encyclopedias, concerning height. Haldrik (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You're presenting a theory as fact. Isolate the theory, attribute it properly, or continue to deal with having it pointed out until it's fixed. You certainly won't solve the issue by attempting to censor my talk page header. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I and others cited sources that note this problem of presuming small size. Haldrik (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

'Blue skin'

I found a source (in English) that refers to the linguistic studies on the Old Norse terms for 'blue-black skin' versus 'black hair', and noted it in the article. Hel the goddess of death is half 'pale' and half 'blue-black' - like a corpse. This is common knowledge, but Il try find a source that explains the reference to her corpse-like appearance. Haldrik (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about dwarves or Scandinavian mythology. However, to a simple outsider looking this kind of thing up here, it could appear to be an article based much on either original research and/or point of view - two sources which I believe are not allowed in the Wikipedia. I would therefore expect to have seen a lot more inline references to reliable, verifiable external sources. It's an interesting article, so I wonder if the experts on the subject matter could look into this before someone goes through the article and makes it look untidy by adding a lot of silly tags where sources are needed or where unsourced sentences might be unitentionally looking like OR or POV. As it stands at the moment, I can't quite see how it can be justified as being 'B' class.--Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are completely correct. See the conversations above. This article is an utter mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and is easily one of the worst articles Wikipedia currently has on Germanic matters. I've since brought it down to 'start' class, where it should be. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just restored the cleanup/rewrite template, this is still a mess. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think both Bloodfox and Haldrik need to BOTH calm down - Bloodfox seems to be just saying "NO!" rather than helping the matter, and Haldrik's merely exasserbating the problem by rubbing Bloodfox the wrong way. It doesn't help that Wikipedia's rules seem to be interepreted in many ways (especially since many citations have their own racist & political agendas <- Not suggesting that bit about this article btw)--Kurtle (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of "rubbing me the wrong way". This is an issue of POV-pushing by presenting theory as fact, which Wikipedia's policies blatantly reject (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH). There is nothing remotely neutral about the version Haldrik (talk · contribs) is trying to push. The neutral method is very simple: state exactly who said what and where, and keep the theories separate from the attestations. Of course, that doesn't leave room for synthesis or POV-pushing... :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New Article

For some time now dwarf (Germanic mythology) has existed. While currently relatively short, dwarf (Germanic mythology) does not suffer from the WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SNYTH that plagues this article. It was created to replace this one. If anyone here has a reason why this shouldn't simply be a redirect to another article that handles the material built on a foundation of Wikipedia:Good article criteria, then this is the place to air it. Currently there's an anonymous IP willing to revert redirecting on sight with the less than convincing reasoning of "vandalism", otherwise this would be a considerably simpler matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You perhaps should nominate this article for deletion in order to receive some outside opinions on whether it needs to be kept, deleted or merged. Probably the best course of action at this point. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 13:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's really nothing to "delete", "merge", or "keep". It's simply a redirect we're discussing here to an article that has been built to replace it. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But the two articles seem to be on two different topics. -- Dianna (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the North Germanic tradition but should be handled together with the rest of Germanic Europe. When covering this material, there's really no reason to handle them separately in two different articles; thus the creation of a more expansive article. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

dwarf (Germanic mythology) only discusses Norse sources. Would the Wið Dweorh, fall under your definition of Germanic Mythology? The Dweorh, is quite a different beast to the Dvergr, but they shouldn't be conflated nor needlessly excised. There is some well researched material in this article (on height for example) and I would prefer to see it integrated than lost. Maybe if all the unsourced OR and primary source quotes were cleanly removed, it would be easier to see what could be kept. Suggest a wp:Merge procedure to gather community input. Davémon (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you guys edit-warring over this, and not adding wp:merge template on and discussing properly? I'd add the template myself, but it needs adequate supporting rationale that I haven't seen. We have processes at Wikipedia, please respect them.Davémon (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they're not "different beasts", that's simply an extension of the concept in Old English. It is entirely unclear how different the Old English dwarf was from the North Germanic dwarf; they may or may not have been very much the same from the later North Germanic concept. The Old English attestations do not make this clear. Whatever the case, both came from the same Proto-Germanic source, and thus need to be handled together (as scholars such as Simek and Lindow do in their entries). So, yes, that would fall under "Germanic mythology" (and what's this business about my definition?), and no, the new article doesn't just cover "Norse sources", but certainly it needs to be expanded. Later folklore is also handled there in a pan-Germanic scope. This article has nothing salvageable and it's a waste of time to try to bother with this horrendous, already largely tagged and plucked article, spending hours looking at what references may have been used or abused, rather than simply working on the new one with academic sources in hand. Meanwhile, frozen with full protection, this article continues to push theory as fact. This article needs to be totally rewritten with academic sources in hand; Dwarf (Germanic mythology) is exactly the foundation for that. Our time would be far better spent working on that instead. If it weren't for some anonymous IP repeatedly reverting "vandalism" and someone haphazardly coming here and locking the entire page down, expansion would be happening there now.

And for who it may not be obvious, the various issues are as follows: This article is currently little more than someone's personal essay, primary sources in hand, arguing that Norse dwarfs were human-sized, black-haired people, not unlike a modern day pop culture vampire. Most of the current article is completely unreferenced. Where it is, it's relying on primary sources for its argument or dropping in a secondary source quote out of nowhere. There is indeed a scholarly argument regarding height to be made (as dwarf (Germanic mythology) makes clear), but it's not nearly as straightforward as this article makes it. Translations are not attributed. As it stands, this article violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. There is no reason to not scrape it and continue working on article that does not violate every policy on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought modern day pop culture vampires were sparkly? (j/k) OK, lets focus on one thing at a time. You are right, it is in a terrible state, but the article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD, so from my POV wp:merge, wp:delete, or heavily edit the article (deleting all uncited WP:OR and Primary sourced essay material) is the only way to improve this. There is salvageable material, good citations to Cassel, the material ascribed to Anatoly Liberman is well worth keeping, (albeit does need expanding), perhaps the colour notes of Kirsten Wolf, and much else, so I would suggest you put a wp:merge on it once the block is lifted. I would not go wp:delete, as I'm sure it will get voted "keep + cleanup" (which won't happen and we'll be back here in 3 months). What do you see as next steps? --Davémon (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One wonders if this article was written later whether a section arguing for sparkly-skinned dwarfs would have been produced... Anyway, I agree with your points and your proposal. I suppose we just need to wait for the block to be lifted. I don't know if we really need any OK from a merge vote to go any further though; we've established consensus and it doesn't seem like there's any argument to the contrary, just an anonymous IP willing to revert without explanation. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwarfs are well known for their association with gold and jewels, and those are shiny, so it must be true. I'll drop a note on the IP's talk page and encourage them to take part in the wp:merge discussion when it happens. I wouldn't want to pre-empt that discussion, as other community members may have different views, but I'd imagine it should be just a formality to ensure whatever good material here is salvaged. Perhaps if some of the better material were already at the new article it would be more cut-and-dry. Anatoly Libermans incredibly useful An Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology: An Introduction may be viewed here [13]. Davémon (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I also now fear a Twilight-Norse mythology crossover. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Need admin to add this merger template to the top of this fully protected page

{{Merge to|Dwarf (Germanic mythology)|discuss=Talk:Dwarf (Germanic mythology)#Merger proposal|date=January 2013}}

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by Bloodofox

Bloodofox has a history of nonscholarly POV extremism, and has been doing vandalism to wikipedia for years now.

Trying to figure out how to undo the damage he is doing this time.

It seems that - without any permission or consensus - Bloodofox has destroyed the extensive history and scholarly citations in the “Norse dwarves” article by “moving” it to his own new POV-extreme article “Dwarf (Norse mythology)”.

Again, this is after a history of Bloodofox dealing damage to the Norse dwarves article, and apparently failing recently to gain a consensus to “merge” - thus destroy the article - into Dwarf (Germanic mythology).

If someone knows how to repair the damage that Bloodofox has done, please, do so. To save the accumulation of academic citations.

Please restore the “Norse dwarves” article to before Bloodofox “moved” it. Haldrik (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that Haldrik appears to be the same as this IP: [14] And also just recently pulled this stunt: [15]. Meanwhile this talk page is full of complaints about his preferred version of this page (a personal essay he authored), which I break down in detail above. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now that Haldrik has been blocked for a grab bag of reasons ([16]), can someone revert his essay back to the sourced, objective version I was building on? Meanwhile this version continues to spread all sorts of problematic information. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bloodofox pushes a religiously intolerant POV that erases academic opinions that he disagrees with - such as the height of the Dvergr in Norse Eddas and Sagas. Bloodofox is non-neutral. Haldrik (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

These personal attacks are getting old ("religiously intolerant", whatever that means). Several independent editors have reverted your largely unreferenced mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. While your new tactic seems to be to accuse others of exactly what you've been accused of here but you don't seem to have learned a thing from your recent block. This has been going on for years now but only recently was it apparent that you were hiding behind an IP. This has to stop. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox does not understand "Anyone can edit, and every improvement helps."  This situation will be corrected one way or another.  I don't care if I have to go to Athens Georgia to do it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.15.80 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)