Talk:Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar

Native Belief

Neither Rudolf Simek, nor any other scholar uses the phrase "native belief" in discussing the ancestor/fertility-cult theory to explain the Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar. It doesn't add any clarity or depth to the readers understanding of the theories, and the idea that there is a dichotomy between 'imported christian' verses 'native belief' argument in scholarship isn't verifiable. Is there any reason supportable by reliable sources why this editorial imposition should remain? --Davémon (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, it should be obvious enough that "native belief" refers to native (Norse) paganism as opposed to imported Christianity (or the notion of editorializing on the part of Snorri), which is implicit in Simek's entry (and throughout his, Lindow's, and Orchard's handbooks, for that matter). You're evidently confused by the source material, and here I will help you. There are three fundamental questions when handling the Prose Edda; the question of what is authentically reported pre-Christian belief (common), what is outright imported from or somehow influenced by Christian belief (generally obvious), and the questions of what is potentially systemization on the part of Snorri (not obvious). To varying extents, the three issues have been the subject of much debate and there are various approaches to answering them, including employment of linguistics and comparative (particularly Indo-European) mythology.

Of course, when handling concepts of "angels", any such appearance or influence would not be a part of pagan "native belief", but rather a result of importation with Christianization, which is not in the slightest bit controversial. Indeed, a dichotomy of "pagan" and "Christian" certainly exists here, and is unquestioned; elements are to be identified as "pagan" or "Christian", and this is how we (including Simek, or any other modern scholar) reconstruct pre-Christianization beliefs.

Further, you would do well to beware of speaking for "any other scholar[s]" when someone is explaining something as fundamental as these issues with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of scholarship regarding the Eddas. Unsuprisingly, that isn't the point. The problem is that your wording "Scholars arguing in favor... whereas supporters of the notion of native belief" implies there are 2 groups of scholars who exclusively hold one or the other theory. This is not the case, most scholars accept that they do not know the answer as to which theory is correct, and instead reflect on both as possibilities, as Simek does. The second problem is that the words 'native belief' are used nowhere in scholarship (neither Simek, Lidw, nor Orchard) to discuss pre-christian beliefs held by the people of Nordic countries and so are introducing the idea of a dichotomy between views of native/imported that isn't supported.

You'll notice that my wording does not undo, or confuse the differences between the theories of pre/post christian influences on Snorri, but simply reports those theories in a more neutral way. You would do well to actually find scholars who use your rather loaded phrase 'native belief' rather than arguing the toss with me. As it is, until these sources emerge, we can safely assume it's just your interpretation. Davémon (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, first of all, there is nothing remotely "loaded" about referring to paganism as "native belief" in comparison to Christianity—that is exactly what it was, and there is no controversy about that. That is seriously one of the most ridiculous things I've seen you attempt to argue, which is saying a lot.

Secondly, have you read Simek's entry? Well, let's have a look, shall we? Per Simek (2007:56):

Presumably, the awareness that traditionally various mythological beings were grouped together under the term elves led Snorri to to attempt to systemize them according to categories of Christian folklore. Grimm therefore may have been wrong when he thought that Snorri had identified the dark elves with devils and the light elves with angels. In fact, the dark elves and light elves are two aspects of the same concept of demons of death which were closely related, in a similar way to that in which death and fertility cults were related.

While this entry is certainly tangled to the point of confusion (another translation issue in the English edition?), it is clear that there are three strains of thought here that fall along the lines of typical Eddaic scholarship (which you claim to be "fully aware of"…), which I outline above. And, indeed, Simek's entry does reflect scholars arguing in favor of their opinions. Simek refers to Grimm's theory of outright Christian influence, but Simek is also hardly neutral (i.e. "in fact"). Wikipedia, however, must be; therefore we simply state the strains of arguments as they stand, which I have done.

Further, I notice your usage of the term "Nordic countries" (which you swapped out for "Scandinavia"), and I again note that you seem to be having some geographic issues here; we're talking about the beliefs of the the Germanic peoples (specifically North or otherwise) here, Davemon, who were by no means limited to the "Nordic countries". :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, again you provide no sources. There is no evidence that anyone other than Snorri thought about Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar, so I'm not sure what geography has to do with anything anyway - the idea that all Germanic peoples believed in Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar is entirely wp:or and simply laughable. I understand the scholarship, I understand the differentiation between pre/post Christian theories. I disagree with the wording of the article. My edit does not remove the distinction between post/pre Christian theories at all. it simply removes biased phrases like "perceived similarities", "native belief", "not unlikely", none of which is actually attributable to Simek. I am sure we can find more neutral wording = or even wording that is just more accurately reflecting Simek that we both agree with. --Davémon (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources? All the sources we're talking about I've provided. You can harp over and over about wanting quotes for specific phrases that you have no reason to pick a bone with and that are perfectly acceptable and supported by the sources (I've written an article or two), but it will get you nowhere.

Immediately: your "simply laughable" comment does nothing more than illustrate your ignorance of the subject. In other words, a little more knowledge in the area on your part would point you to the direction of evidently remarkably uniform pan-Germanic tendencies, including the fact that the scant few attestations of continental Germanic pre-Christian beliefs oft agree closely with Snorri's accounts (allow me to introduce you to the Merseburg Incantations). This is, of course, no result of original research on my part, but rather a result of basic familiarity with the subject matter, and something you'd have found on your own had you working knowledgeable of even Simek's handbook (which I've clearly just introduced you to). Of course, we don't know if there was a pan-Germanic belief in the split between "dark" and "light" among the non-North Germanic peoples, nor if among the North Germanic peoples it was definitely a, yes, native belief or imported along with Christianity by way of the quill of Snorri or otherwise, but a pan-Germanic belief is a possibility that always lurks in the background, particularly when scholars such as Simek find the evidence convincing in favor of native belief (well, he does in this entry...). Of course, we are not quoting Simek directly here but laying out the arguments that Simek's entry also outlines.

In the end, I think you're simply guilty here of attempting to find arguments where they don't exist, Davemon. Maybe you should step back for a while and ask yourself exactly what good you are doing here? I get the distinct impression that your goal is to simply waste my time. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your wp:or regarding the existence of pan-Germanic belief systems, but it all rather misses the point. As you seem incapable of supporting your claims about the division in scholarship rather than the existence of multiple theories, I see no reason to keep your biased language in the article. Davémon (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, just try reading my edit and explain what you think is wrong about it. Davémon (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Germanic religion as original research? You're an unintentionally funny guy, Davemon, but after your last summary ([1]), communication between you and has reached the stage of me simply reverting your Snorri-dropping version as the trolling that it is. I'm not going in circles with you, and you're apparently just too poorly read and immature to get anywhere with. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are either irrelevant to the edits taking place or totally unsupported by reliable sources. Find a source that uses the phrase "native belief" or a source that says there are 2 different groups of scholars arguing for pre/post christian influence, because Simek certainly does not say what you claim. Perhaps if you spent less time proclaiming yourself the expert and more time actually doing the research required... Davémon (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Simek entry does talk about Snorri's attempt to systemize old lore and it seems natural to include that in our entry. Haukur (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for the removal of snorri's systemisation. It's the specific (unsourced, biased) phrasing that's causing the problem. Davémon (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to propose a phrasing with the word 'systemisation' or something to that effect? Haukur (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the version here: [[2]] is my preferred version. --Davémon (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, you've revealed yourself to be what I suspected: a simple troll. You've repeatedly removed the "Snorri as systemizer" element from the article, and here you are claiming that "nobody is arguing for removal of snorri's systemisation". If there was any doubt about your intentions here, your fondness for saying one thing on this talk page while doing the complete opposite on the article itself (all the while attempting to lawyer policies as a smokescreen) leaves no question as to your goals. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A scholarly dispute or neutral statement of competing theories

Is it correct to state that groups of scholars support one position or another, when the source being cited does not discuss the theories in question in terms of a scholarly dispute (specifics on talkpage)?Davémon (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The source in question states (Simek (2007:56)):

Presumably, the awareness that traditionally various mythological beings were grouped together under the term elves led Snorri to to attempt to systemize them according to categories of Christian folklore. Grimm therefore may have been wrong when he thought that Snorri had identified the dark elves with devils and the light elves with angels. In fact, the dark elves and light elves are two aspects of the same concept of demons of death which were closely related, in a similar way to that in which death and fertility cults were related.

The article content I dispute is a neutral presentation is:

As the concept is only recorded in Gylfaginning, scholars have debated whether or not the distinction between the two types of elves was a creation of Snorri, and/or whether or not the distinction is a result of Christian influence by way of importation of the concept of angels. Scholars arguing in favor of Christian influence or systemization on the part of Snorri point to perceived similarities between the concept in support, whereas supporters of the notion of native belief in the the Dökkálfar and the Ljósálfar propose that "dark" and "light" aspects of the same beings is not unlikely, pointing to close relation between death and fertility cults in support

My contention is that the article text frames the theories as a dispute between scholars arguing for one or the other, wheras in fact the source just states the theories, thus making the idea of a dispute or 'debate' unverifiable. My preferred (neutral) version can be seen in edit.

Thanks! --Davémon (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Debate" terminology is not supported - The "scholars have debated" wording is not supported by the source. Until additional sources are found, the article should reflect precisely what Simek says. However, the wording proposed by Davemon is also not a very precise summary of Simek (I have not read Simek: Im just basing it on the quote provided above). My recommendation: delete the "scholars have debated" paragraph, and replace it with a nearly-verbatim summary (without violating copyright) of Simek. Or, just quote Simke directly. There is no need for editors to extrapolate and provide their own verbs and adjectives: just use the wording of the sources. If there is, indeed, a debate, you'll need to find a scholarly source that uses that term (or one close to it, e.g. "conflicting interpretations" etc) to include it in the article. --21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you about Davemon's own problematic version, I need to point out that Simek makes it clear that there are different ideas here being presented and supported by different scholars (including Grimm and himself); there is thus a scholarly debate going on. Simek's entry is also in no way neutral, and thus paraphrasing isn't the solution. We'd just be parroting his theories as fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that says that Simek is not neutral? If not, the article should not disparage his opinion. As for "stating a theory as a fact" - you are correct, but the best way to approach that would be to write that "Simeks theory is blah, blah, blah, contrasted with scholar A's theory which is blah, blah". You may be correct that there is a debate, but you need to find a source that says so. If no source says there is a debate, then the article should not fabricate a debate where there is none. Better is to just present the various theories using the terminology that the sources use. Anything beyond that is synthesis. --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

These handbooks (Lindow's, Orchard's, and Simek's) are summaries of scholarship in this area, and each entry breaks down a variety of theories proposed by a variety of scholars. They often do not necessarily name scholars at all but rather give a general overview followed by suggested reading. They do not go down the list of scholars who support or reject various theories. If they did, their entries would be immense.

However, some of the entries, particularly those by Simek, are most clearly bent in favor of what the author prefers for whatever reason (in this case Simek seems to come to a hard conclusion where it's impossible to do so). Sometimes Simek's entries even contradict; some entries favor one theory, while another connected entry will go the exact opposite route, as if they were written by different authors. This is an infamous element of Simek's handbook for which I can easily give examples.

Rudolf Simek is a scholar. You are not going to find a citation that says "such-and-such scholar is not neutral"; scholars produce scholarship, original research, which is, in an area such as this where certainty cannot be ascertained, obviously not "neutral" by Wikipedia terms. All theories and opinions must be stated as exactly that; opinions and theories.

Obviously, there's a debate going on in Simek's oddly-worded (oddly translated?) entry—scholars have raised competing points. This can be nothing but a debate, and Simek makes it most obvious that there are scholars with differing opinions on this issue; thus the debate continues. Certainly, the section can and eventually should be expanded with examples of scholars arguing in favor of this and that. These articles can always be expanded further.

Again, I strongly suggest you consider the pettiness of Davemon's attempts here; it seems clear to me that he's just trolling and looking for any little thing to nitpick and attempt to make an issue of, and then shift his position whenever things aren't looking up for his latest time-wasting plot. In this case, the history of his edits and his comments here make it obvious that he has been newly introduced to this subject matter (apparently by me referencing Simek elsewhere) but is still trying his hardest to waste everyone's time. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While, to be honest, I feel like Davémon is making rather trivial complaints, I just tried rewriting the paragraph in question to omit explicit mention of debating scholars. Beyond that, I think the article isn't going to be improved further without bringing in more sources. Haukur (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with these changes as a stopgap, but I again feel the need to point out that I think that there was no issue in the first place and that the "controversy" around the original version was manufactured nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

in this edit: [3] and this edit [4] you have replaced "alternative to" with "an argument". We've already established that "Debate" terminology is not supported. Your insistence on characterising these theories as being in conflict is unsupported by the source you are using. --Davémon (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Were you not trolling, you'd have stated that Haukur's version contains "argument", and I was reverting your change. Of course there's an argument here, these theories are in conflict. It's either native or non-native. Of course, attempting to reason with a troll is about as logical as talking to a wall. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest you re-read the comments by Noleander above regards "Debate" terminology is not supported. It matters not whose version first contained which word, it's your insistence on keeping the debate terminology that is the problem. Also, the repeated ad-hominem attacks are only useful to illustrate your inability to remain [wp:civil]. "Alternative" is much more neutral and accurate reflection of the source. Davémon (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, I indeed define your behavior here (and likely elsewhere) as very simple trolling. Noleander has not responded, and Haukur's version is what you're now railing against, a version I agree with. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote Noleander If no source says there is a debate, then the article should not fabricate a debate where there is none. Better is to just present the various theories using the terminology that the sources use. Anything beyond that is synthesis.. Let's just keep the language neutral and not put our own 'spin' on the facts. Davémon (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Look who's back. Sorry Davemen, the Entry being cited is pretty clear in the fact that there's an issue of importation vs. native by way of Snorri's hand. As apparently your exposure to the subject matter in question hasn't increased during your time away, I'm afraid we're exactly where we were before you left. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Simek does not employ the concepts of "native" vs. "importation" in his discussion of the subject. Nor does he suggest a debate or argument. Without sourcing these notions, the article is relying on your say-so that these debates exist. Wikipedia does not work like that. Try finding the sources which back-up your position and then add these opinions to the article. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've held your hand through this several times now. Your trolling will flatly be reverted. I refer readers to my previous comments. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The passage in Snorri's Edda about the dark and light elves occurs in Gylfaginning 17 (not 18), at least according to my edition of Faulkes's translation. It is also chapter 17 in Brodeur's translation, based on Finnur Jónsson's 1907 Reykjavík edition (which is off by 1 or 2 chapters from FJ's previous Danish edition).

The article makes the glaring omission failing to mention the paragraph later in the chapter that discusses three heavens, with the 3rd heaven Vídbláin being inhabited by light dwarfs. This three heavens concept was something Snorri adopted from the Old Icelandic version of the Elucidarium, a compendium of Christian thought, according to the work of Anne Holtsmark (1964), cited by Alaric Hall's 2004 dissertation [5] p.32-33. The second heaven Andlang was apparently inspired by the "spiritual heaven" (andlegr). Adding this citation will help the article since currently this "angel theory" stuff reads like it is pulled out of thin air.
Also in my estimation, the article gives a 180-degree flipped spin on John Lindow's position, making him sound like he is very hospitable to the distinct possibility that dökkálfar and svartálfar may very well have been distinguished by Snorri and his other contemporaries, when in fact he is very skeptical. Lindow's words, excerpted, runs: "Snorri introduces.. a distinction between light-elves and dark-elves... Insofar as they live in the earth, the dark-elves would appear to be similar, or more likely identical to, the dwarfs... and whether he intended a distinction between the dark-elves and black-elves is unknown, as in fact is any distinction among the elves outside of Snorri." --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "chapter 18"? The article says "chapter 17".

As for the stuff about the light-elves and the three heavens, I've added it per the Faulkes translation as well. I apparently forgot it.

Lindow isn't quoted, so it isn't a "misquote". We have to avoid repeatedly quoting the three big handbooks due to copyright reasons. Anyway, threads of thought are separated in the "theories" section, but the section can certainly be developed further and Hall is a good source to do this with. I am far away from most of my books at the moment, but I'll be back to them fairly soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the chapter numbering, I must have been zoned out -- and tricked Bloodofox into citing Chapter 18 for the portion about the light elves in the three heavens, but that's still contiguously Chapter 17. Chapter 18 is the "Where does the wind come from chapter". I double checked this with Edda Snorra Sturlusonar (1848), which Faulkes in his forward says is where he takes the chapter numberings from. So I'll fix that. On the Lindow comment part, I guess I'm not articulating my point well so I'll tweak it, and others can rework it if they object. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Grimm's trinity

The Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar#Grimm's trinity section I started off by moving from the mother Elf article the following paragraph by User:Dbachman:

The etymology connecting *alboz with albus "white" suggests an original dichotomy of "white" vs. "black" genii, corresponding to the elves vs. the dwarves which was subsequently confused.¹ Thus the elves proper were named ljósálfar "light elves", contrasting with døckálfar "dark elves".²

which has now been modified here to

Jacob Grimm¹ surmised that the proto-elf (ursprünglich) was probably a "light-colored, white, good spirit" while the dwarfs may have been conceived as "black spirits" by relative comparison (presumably as the elves were becoming increasingly demonized due to Christianization). But the "two classes of creatures were getting confounded," and there arose a need to coin the term "light-elf" (ljósálfar) to refer to the "elves proper". This was counterpart to the "dark-elf" (dokkálfar).^2a

The parenthesized text could not be left in, because it looks to be a wrong assumption on my part, and unattributable from anywhere. By corollary I assumed the coining of "light-elf" (liosálfar) was after Christian influence, after a time gap as a flip-side to 'döckálfar (which was extant in the Elder Edda era). But that would not fit with Grimm saying the Norse elves consist of the three kinds, liosálfar etc.. I suspect it is not all consistent (Shippey says "vague and indecisive."). --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

User:Bloodofox made these edits, with large reverts within an hour+.

At issue is this editor's inability to accept the very late (17th century) dating of the poem Hrafnagaldr Óðins as the "general opinion". I will table this quarrel on the talk over there. Modern scholars on elves ignore the poem, and I even few were quoted to say Snorri is the sole source. So the appropriate balance of the article would be to be close to ignore it: give it only passing mention, and say that in elf studies, the attention paid to it in the past is now a relic.

In a sense Bloodofox is right in saying to me "This is additionally not a place to go on a rant about Hrafnagaldr Óðins", I perhaps need to be careful in striving to strike balance, the article doesn't wind up like a hurrah Hrafnagaldr vs. muckraking. However this is a common enough pitfall when you are gathering material and striking a balance, and if there are monsters in the intermediate stage that is a process in the making.

But do people think I went way overboard it when I wrote:

Modern commentators on elves have stated time after time that Snorri is the sole source for these sub-classification of elves (Anne Holtsmark, Lindow,, Alaric Hall,, Peter Wilkin, etc.) though one late poem (#Odin's Raven-Song) had been given weight in the past.

footnotes

--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not have a particular opinion about the age of this poem. For example, the text itself is clearly younger than older, but its ultimate basis may be older than the form it came down to us in. Or maybe not. But none of that matters, as this isn't a place to post original research.

The problem here is that you're assuming that all the scholars you've mentioned have spent any time with the poem and that because they haven't said anything about it that they're intentionally ignoring it. It happens that people, scholars included, can miss attestations in their summaries, especially in handbooks. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not asking Bloodofox to keep waxing philosophic. Demonstrate, by citing RS, until the mountains of opinion stack up evenly, if you want to challenge my portrayal of what CURRENT scholarly consensus is. If you don't see that this is what you need to do, you obviously don't understand what the NPOV (WP:BALANCE) policy is.

Further reading such as (Tom Shippey's 2004 article "Light-elves, Dark-elves, and Others: Tolkien's Elvish Problem", Terry Gunnell's article "How Elvish Were The Álfar?") only reinforces the stance I reached.

Your suggestion that all these slews of scholars cited just kept making the same blundering oversight one after another is patently absurd. If that isn't the most flagrant form of pushing your own POV, I don't know what is. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about scholars making "blundering oversight[s]". Yeah, obscure stuff gets missed. I would not be surprised if this was one such example. But the problem is this: this is not the place for you to invent consensus (again, you're basically saying 'they didn't mention it, so they MUST have been against it...') and then editorialize around that invented consensus. We don't do original research (WP:OR). Report who said what, when they said, and where they said it and let it go. If you want to editorialize, get a blog. Otherwise you can just expect to be bogged down with discussions like this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Grimm and Hrafnagaldur

As to Grimm vs. the poem in the above thread, I wanted to make the point that Grimm was constrained by his belief that Hrafnagadur Óðins was genuine Elder Edda (Vol. 1, p. 443 and 445), which would help illuminate things to the reader. Treading carefully so I'm not accused of synthesizing, I propose something like the following:

Grimm thought the word dökkálfar datable to an Elder Edda poem. This was in 1844. Reattribution shifted the poem's dating, making Snorri's Prose Edda older than the poem. (This still does not preclude the word being older, but) Modern commentator Anne Holtsmark for instance, dates dökkálfar and ljósálfar to the Prose Edda, as she calls them "ad hoc" words in the work.

I think this is the way to go. I don't even have to go all that precisely into the dating range here. It suffices to establish that HG is post-Snorri. So it is reasonable enough for scholars to think HG not independent of Snorri right there, and no reason for Bloodofox to think they all screwed up. If you actually read Lassen's edition, you might have been persuaded the poem borrows phrases heavily from SnE. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, we must avoid WP:SYNTH. To do this, we simply report who said what and where in a chronological order and we refrain from taking sides. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't impose your own rules. Your report in "chronological order and.. refrain from taking sides" is not prescribed policy and blatant recipe for WP:UNDUE. There is no rule that says you have to begin by stating the earliest theory FIRST, especially if that has become marginalized in the present age. In fact if you read WP:GEVAL it says "even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship" and the prescription is "merely omit them" or "otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world" (WP:VALID). It is the last sentence, the properly contextualizing part that I've been trying to achieve, which you cannot seem to condone, because in your own mind it constitutes "taking sides". Based on a number of academic papers I have read on elves or the poem, I feel that marginalizing Grimm's theory is the proper context with respect to current established scholarship. The two papers, by Shippey and by Gunnell that I have now posted above are openly critical of Grimm's theories, methods, etc., quite harshly, so I'm not making this Grimm-bashing stuff up. If you can dig up any outspoken apologists for Grimm's theory on elves as of late, feel free to use it, or post it for me to find, but don't think your say-so counts for anything. --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Objectively report who said what, where, when, and be done with. Your preferred theory or stance just sits next to the others. If you can list various scholars who support this or that, do that. However, continue to editorialize and you're going to just get reverted for WP:OR. Have a nice day. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bloodofox is correct. The criticisms of Grimms theories by Gunnel, Shippey et al. belong here - that places Grimms views in the proper context of contemporary scholarship on the matter. Show that Grimm is marginalised rather than editorialise his views out of the article. We have a tiny handful of scholarship in this area, it is worth keeping it all in, even the rejected interpretations WP:Fringe. Davémon (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Älvalek.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)