Talk:Dwarf (folklore)

Dropas

Why are Dropas mentioned as if they were real. In another article, they are classified as "Cryptid". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.150.241 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you really going to try to claim that there were no genetic Asian dwarfs? Why do you object to the name Dropas for them? Do you have a better supported name? Dropas is a name and Cryptid is a classification, that is that are not substitutes for one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.134.102 (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Hey, I'm a different guy from the one who posted this message originally, but I erased the little paragraph about the "Known to Science" bit--I'm sorry, there are no subway Dwarfs known to science that live off the souls of anything, bleh. Let's be clear that these are about fictional thingies. If people want to write about them as if they are real, doesn't that merit it's own article or heading? I wouldn't want the rest of the article to be thrown out as rubbish because someone couldn't keep it about more general lore. 67.175.247.91 09:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf = thorp?

I'm wondering what the evidence is that "dwarf" is related to "thorp", etc. It seems odd, and the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't confirm it. --JerryFriedman 01:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neither does the NSOED or Eric Partridge's Origins. --207.188.128.246 22:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kröpel

The main article states that Dawves are called 'kröpel' (lit: Earth-men) in German. I sincerely doubt that, references would be welcome. The German 'Krüppel' refers to someone who is bent (hunchback).. Sejtam 13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RPG?

Why is there an entire paragraph dedicated to one specific role-playing game's view of dwarfs? This is Wikipedia, not a damned RPG manual.

---

Aspects of the rpg manual have bearing in the fantasy fiction literature that non gamers may not otherwise grasp. It was included as a way to help classify dwarven types. It may need editing.

While you may possibly (as your profanity implies) be bigoted towards RPGs, they are a relevant part of both American and world culture and references to them should not be censored.

___

Perhaps relevant to the American and world culture of over-privileged, suburban teens and young adults. However, I think this comment seriously over estimates RPGs relevance to society at-large. References to RPGs take up a disproportionate amount of space in this article, and while references should not be censored, they should be edited. Grasping for loaded terms (bigoted) to defend the relevance of RPGs may serve as an example of how isolated and self-absorbed the RPG "culture" is.

This article is about fantasy Dwarfs in general. One could make the same argument against J.R.R. Tolkien. You could even make that argument against contact lenses, computers and private schooling! P.S. Please sign your posts. Craobh sidhe (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If RPG info churns out pleanty of valid information then what's the problem? Dwarves are popular in RPGs, so it's only logical that they take up a lot of writing in this article. RPGs as well as fantasy books are the main modern output for Dwarves, so there will also be a lot of information concerning hwo they are depicted within them. If you think RPGs take up too much room compared to other forms of media then write about other media/historucal depictions, don't censor others simly because they're easier to research. --Kurtle (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC) PS. Does no-one sign anymore? --Kurtle (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

May be real

They may be real; I may have met one. In 1960s I worked in Florida. A co-worker was a former US soldier, who had been stationed in West Germany. He had married a German woman and brought her back to the States with him.

She was stunning... in the sense of when you first met her you were stunned. Good way to characterize her would be: "looks like a sister of the 7 Dwarfs." She was about 4 feet tall or less, of stocky build, with full pendulous breasts. She had a large head, and some warts on her face. She spoke basic English, with a strong German accent. And I remember her as not too bright... but that may have been because of her limited English, of not understanding much of what she heard. Was she a mutation? Were there more like her? I don't know. I never asked because I was too polite, did not want to embarrass her. Now, much older, I would unlease my curiousity.

Why do I remember her? She was a unique experience. And every little knome garden statue I see is a reminder.

Wow, that's beautiful. It deserves its own article. Um... have you read dwarfism? Just asking. Foday 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I added the section about how dwarves could be folk memories of neanderthals. Perhaps I should make a completely new article on the subject, but the majority of my observations are recorded (if briefly) in this section.

I don't know why it's necessary to bring up "folk memories" when Dwarfism is demonstrably a real condition. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. I've deleted the section on Vitus Dröscher (not Droesher), since the one-sentence comment on his theory either removed all his evidence that made the theory plausible or was an accurate statement of a theory based on pure speculation - in the former case it is to be hoped that someone able to read German (or who has access to the relevant English translation) could re-add it with more detail. I have added in the problems with long "folk memory" theories - the concept was invented by Freud, and depends on Lamarckism for its theoretical base, but, well, if it's citable, it's worth leaving in, even if it needs clear signs of doubt around it. But the question is: Is it citable? The comment above seems to indicate it as a personal theory of one person. If that is true, the whole paragraph about it should be deleted. Adam Cuerden 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as pet theory. Text follows of original Adam Cuerden 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is that dwarves are folk memories of the Neanderthals that populated Europe and Asia up to the end of the Neolithic era (dying out approximately 50,000 to 30,000 years ago), coexisting for part of this time with modern humans. This fits rather well into the picture of the dwarf, as Neanderthals were on average shorter but burlier than humans and possessed stronger features (broader noses, more pronounced brow ridges, and so forth), which could be seen by ancient humans as deformities (dwarves are commonly said to be "deformed"). It is also thought that Neanderthal culture revolved more around tool and weapon crafting, explaining why dwarves of legend were known as craftsmen. Finally, Neanderthals (like so many humans) used caves as shelters, thus making them "subterranean" beings. However, this theory depends on the belief that memories of events can become stuck in a culture's psyche and be passed down accurately for many thousands of years. Such things were proposed by Sigmund Freud, but depended upon Lamarckism as a scientific basis, which has been discredited. neanderthals could easily have lived on to now seeing as they were amazingly well made so trolls and dwarves could be decended from them. The slow process of blending would easily make this happen while their ansector's stories became folklore. ---

This neaderthal theory derives from a number of science fiction novels written in the 1960s by Philip Jose Farmer (they were pastiches on Tarzan and Doc Savage). One of their premises was that the world is run by a secret society of individuals who had discovered the secret of immortality in the stone age. One of these was a neaderthal and in connection with him the whole theory that dwarves were a racial memory of neaderthals was spelled out.

In general this articel is extremely confused and confusing. There is certainly a huge differnce between folk traditions and commerical products aimed at American teenagers. This article ought to be divided into three discrete articles or at least sections: Drawves in Folklore; Drawves in Tolkien (and any other serious literature in which they appear); and drawves in RPGs, comic books, mass market films, and other commerical products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.47.14 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Neanderthal

I to would like to see a section mentioning the possiblitiy that dwarves could be folk memories formed from a co-existence of living alongside Neanderthalls. Dwarves live under ground in caves and so did the Neanderthall. The Dwarf was supposed to be short but not nessessarily small which discribes the Neanderthall. Neanderthall was short in comparrison to Norse Mankind yet they were squat and muscular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

at the time neanderthals would have been on the tall side and probably would have stayed that way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 05:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, dwarves are a product of Germanic mythology. The ancient Germanics lived not in Central Europe but in Eastern Europe and eastern Scandinavia, arising only some 3000-2000 years ago (long after the extinction of Neanderthals). The Neanderthal-human interaction was mostly in central-western Europe around 40000-10000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.107.207 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That idea would be irrelivant. Ideas, as well as people, travel.--Kurtle (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean irrelevant. But I got a similar idea for several reasons. It's of low relevance as long as it isn't researched and put into writing. So where would there be sources. The timetables of payed officialdom I do take with a grain of salt, but nevertheless such stories may have been transposed by earlier inhabitants to the Indo-Europeans that started settling in that area. So I won't shoot the idea down, just because some academic nay sayer disagrees. They can be wrong, too. --197.228.125.98 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

oral traditions have been the bulk of human knowledge for 95% of our pre&history. 40ka is yesterday in human evolution. The coincidence of Mousterian tools during, and the 1-4% genetic residue from, the 10,000 year or so overlap of Neandertal and H.sapien.sapiens in Eurasia shows a basis for your hypotheses. Your idea probably represents re-myth-ing as science on pre-historic non-sapient species creates a new folklore. Equally, many h.heidlebergensis fossils indicate 7' heights plus. They became extinct <100ka. h.erectus were tall and slender and extinct <30ka. Giants and elves? h.flores our hobbit? How deeply JRR has touched our collective mind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.150.106.108 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Plural?

The preferred plural of dwarf is "dwarfs," not "dwarves," though that is what Tolkein used. Should we change it to "dwarfs?" Does wikipedia have a standard? DKK

The _Oxford American Dictionary_ lists both "dwarfs" and "dwarves" as accepted plurals. The _Oxford English Dictionary_ does not mention Tolkein, but traces the etymology of "dwarfs" (in the sense of diminuitively sized plants) to 1664; it traces "dwarves" to 1818. I would say both are acceptible, but perhaps someone should correct the original article so as not to imply that Tolkein was the inventor of the word "dwarves". --Dan

This is explained under Dwarves (Middle-earth). Tolkien did not invent the term. (If he had invented the term, he would probably have used dwarrows.) However, he is largely responsible for reintroducing and popularizing it. Both plurals are in fairly common use today. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A useful convention would be to use dwarf and dwarfs to refer to real world genetically defective humans and dwarve, dwarves and dwarven to refer to fictional fantasy mythological creatures of a completely different species.

Dwarve!!!! ...Let's try to avoid coining terms just to disambiguate here. Not really appropriate for an encyclopædia. Also, "Genetically defective"? Adam Cuerden 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Dwarves is the proper plural. Old English medial "f" has a "v" sound and as such is often spelled with a V. Dwarf comes from Old English Dweorh. Dwarves is not a made up word. That's the same reason the plural for elf is elves and the same reason you have elvish although elfish is an accepted variant.

having read tolkien's biography it says that they agreed for dwarfs when writing the dictionary, but he dissagreed so there are no "dwarfs" in LoTR...maybe write both?

Dwarves is the far more common spelling these days due to it falling in line with Leaf & Roof etc. There's no reason to standardise it to Dwarfs --Kurtle (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't argue that 'dwarves' is the proper plural based on Old English; the Old English plural was 'dweorgas', which became 'dwarrows' in Middle English and took the form 'dwarfs' later.--Jcvamp (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In Tyre, selon Hebrew scriptures?

Where in Hebrew scriptures are these dwarfs mentioned?

I don't think it is in Hebrew scriptures, per se, but in some other writings. That's how it seemed to me.

Changes as of today

Have removed the section on Eragon, since it was full of jargon and, with the exception of them living out in the open, fairly similar to Tolkien (as well, the character list for the Inheritance Trilogy only lists one dwarf). I dunno, feel free to grab it from the older versions and add it in if you know the books well enough to point out what makes Eragon dwarves noteworthy. )The Artemis Fowl section, a book I'm more familiar with, was missing the fact that Colfer's dwarves eat the dirt they tunnel through for food, so it's not unlikely that that section missed the key points as well) Have also removed an odd note at the end of the Artemis Fowl section that seemed to be a lost quote related to another series entirely, since it contradicted that which came before, for one thing. As the series was only given by the acronym RTS, I was unable to do anything with it.

I have expanded out a section on how Tolkien influenced those who came after, I hope without introducing POV. I adjusted the Artemis Fowl section, which managed to miss the key aspect of Eoin Colfer's dwarves that makes them unique. I also added a section for links to stories with Major roles for Dwarves. Linked Hobbit but not LotR, since I didn't think Gimli by himself made... ...I've forgotten Moria. I'll add LotR in to there as a link.

To do: Could use a section on Pratchett's dwarves, since Pratchett has numerious main-character dwarves, two books involving dwarven culture [Fifth elephant and Thud], and so on.

Query: Is the section on pretty female dwarves in an obscure video game worth keeping? Adam Cuerden 03:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The adjective?

Dwarven, dwarvish, dwarfish - do they mean different things? When to use what? Sippan 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

They don't have different meanings (that i'm aware of). They are just variant spellings. Again this is due to the phonetics associated with medial F in English/Old English phonetics.

Drinking habits and second liver?

Recently (Revision as of 01:14, 26 May 2006), a section was added by an anonymous user that stated "Because of there drinking habbits they developed a second liver. This is in direct relatoinship to the early beard growth ( Under age drinking WAS shuned Upon..."

This seems a bit unsubstantiated, and it's a little unclear to me how this fits into the rest of the discussion. Does this come from Swiss folklore, or from German folklore, or from Norse folklore? (These are subjects of the surrounding discussion.) It seems unlikely that the bit about the second liver comes from any folklore, since it's doubtful that the liver's role in metabolising alcohol was widely known until modern times, so that calls the whole passage into question.

Not to get ad hominem, but the fact that nearly all the other edits by this user (Special:Contributions/66.144.44.213) are blatant vandalism is not encouraging, either.

I'm new here so I'm not really familiar with the culture and mores of Wikipedia, and thus I'm not sure what the appropriate thing is to do here, but it seems to me like the section should be removed.

On the other hand, if anyone does have a reference for this, it would be of great help to me, as I'm trying to track down the origins of the 21st century image of dwarves as heavy drinkers. Delun 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. If we can find a citable source, let's readd it then. Adam Cuerden 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism???

I may be being unduly suspicious, but I have remioved the bolded line in the following:

The dwarves had first been created and had quickened in Ymir’s flesh, and were then maggots; but now, by the decision of the gods, they got the understanding and likeness of men, but still had to dwell in the earth and in rocks. Many of the dwarves were said to be 'filthy' living in their own excrement, and hence smelling awful. Modsogner was one dwarf and Durin another.

We've had so many one-line edits of this sort that have proven to be vandalism that I think we have to be cautious. I have, however, put a message for the user in his talk page, and hope I am mistaken. Adam Cuerden 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding dwarf in politics

I'm moving this because I see no connection between dwarf in politics and dwarf in fantasy fiction. If anyone cares to explain why these two should stay in the same title I'm more than willing to hear. Dwarfs in politics may belong to fantasy art, but not fantasy fiction, and further more it was a more of a political performance, than a work of art.Belphegor 666 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's all right to have it there, but I changed the title to the more specific "Dwarves and the Orange Alternative" and removed the last sentence, which should be re-inserted after it has been edited by someone who understands the topic better than I:

• Then, in the mid-nineteen eighties, the dwarves left the city walls and began actively participating in large scale happenings organized by the Orange Alternative in the major Polish cities, aimed at ridiculing the Jaruzelski regime and breaking up the fear barrier present in the population as result of the Martial Law instauration in December 1981.

This makes it sound like the dwarf iconography somehow sprung to life ("actively participating"?) which I strongly doubt. --Lenoxus 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

caption of the first picture

Could you translate the caption of the first picture? Doesn't look very English to me :-) ... --128.119.59.80 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The commons translation is "But how do I get into the mountain, the gnome boy asked". I think a better translation would be "But how do I get into the mountain?" the dwarven child asked. - "gnome" and "dwarf" evidently are near-synonymous in Dutch and related languages.

The artist is Swedish, of course. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dwarfs in Ancient Rome

This section seems to refer to historical dwarfs, while the article is clearly about mythical creatures.

"pop out of holes in the ground!" and C.S. Lewis

The paragraph that mentions C.S. Lewis and the quote from Gimli in the movie that dwarves "pop out of holes in the ground! which is of course ridiculous" should probably be edited for unfounded personal theorizing. It states the possibility that Tolkien was ribbing CSL on this point. However, Tolkien never penned those lines -- Peter Jackson and co. did, so there is really no foundation for such a theory. -- Erusse estelinya 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be mentioned in relation to the films, rather than Tolkien canon though... --Kurtle (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Duergar (in mythology and folklore)

In Northumbria, dwarves are oftened called Duergar or Dwergar. The most famous example of these Northumbrian dwarves are the The Dwarves of Simonside.([1]). The word 'Duergar is similar to the Norse word Dvergar, meaning dwarves.

I recommend deleting this, or at least heavily qualifying it--unless someone can find out more about Grice's sources and methodology. As far as I can see, duergar is not just similar to Old Norse dvergar; it is the Old Norse dvergar! In old manuscripts and early printed books, the letters u and v were used interchangeably. There is no way that duergar can have been an ancient borrowing from Old Norse, since it shows no sign of the regular sound changes which would have affected it over the course of English history. Compare the development of Old English dweorg to dwarf, and its plural dweorgas to the now obsolete dwarrows. An Old Norse borrowing from the Viking Age would be expected to have have developed identically to its native English cognate. Other grounds for suspicion include the arbitrary use of u (rather than w) which betrays the fact the word has either been introduced in the 19th or early 20th centuries from written Old Norse, or else transcribed by someone familiar with the Old Norse word with the intention of making it look similar to the Old Norse word. The preservation of an Old Norse plural and its reinterpretation as singular is highly improbable too, considering that the Old Norse masculine nominative plural was correctly interpreted and replaced by its Old English equivalent in every other instance that I'm aware of:

The Duergar

My guess is that Grice (1944), who seems to be the immediate source for the word, simply took it from Brewer. Note that the entry in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable referred to at the link above makes no mention of "Northumbria"; he takes his details from Norse mythology and Germanic folklore generally. The Morpeth Gazette story from 1889 has no mention of this duergar; it speaks only of dwarfs and bogles:

Stories and Folklore

These points apply also to the articles Duergar (folklore) and Simonside Hills.

Dependent Variable 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect?

When you search 'dwarf' on wikipedia, the first thing that should pop up is dwarfism. Their tiny little hearts would be broken when they find out they're being mistaken for ugly short people with massive beards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.24.120 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they prefer being called "little people". Dwarfism is more a clinical/medical term. --86.135.176.189 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would their hearts be broken? Dwarves rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.10.231 (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

maybe more people go to the mythological creatures than people the size of toddlers (NO OFFENCE MEANT!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dwarves were called Dwarfs/Dwarves first. --Kurtle (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

They're only really called "Little People" in America - I find that term more derogatory though. --Kurtle (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl

Why is there a whole paragraph on this serie's take on dwarves? It looks like advertisement more than anything as it is, somewhat reminiscent of the sneaky Stanek references.

ErrantB (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Markus Heitz

Do you know anything about Markus Heitz? I dont know that his books (in germany Die Zwerge, in englisk Dwarves) are translate to english. But its about dwarves so it will be here...193.179.148.214 (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (in czech wikipedia Gogasmen)

Possible Origins

The section on Possible Origins is almost wholly speculation. It has no evidence to back it up, and is comprised of theories not useful to the article. I have removed it. 172.189.199.159 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the obvious origins of dwarfs in history be based on real life humans suffering from Dwarfism? JayKeaton (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dwarves in role-playing games

The section on dwarves in role-playing games is just a list of dwarf appearances and their characteristics. This should be just a list of notable games, and it may be worth having it as its own page. This section in this article should make purely general statements about modern games, such as dwarf prominence, prevalence, and characteristics.172.189.199.159 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Female dwarves

Is it worth having an image for female dwarves? 172.189.199.159 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed "like in Nordic Mythology" because: Firstly I've never heard of it despite knowing a few things about it and secondly because there weren't provided any references. If someone re-adds it I suggest they find something that supports the statement so it doesn't look like pure conjecture.

Should Dragon Age: Origins be add to this since there. Since the PC can be a playable charter that is Female Dwarf?

Newsgirl

Yes (to the latter question) --Kurtle (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambigation

I think a search for the word "Dwarf" should lead to the Dwarf (disambiguation) page. This article could be renamed Dwarf (mythology), for example.

The reason I think so is as follows:

1. There are two meanings of the word "dwarf" that are more or less equal in importance: "someone with the condition of dwarfism" and "a creature from Germanic mythologies and fairy tales".
2. There are over 20 other links in the disambigation page.

From this I mean to argue that this article is not the "primary topic" as defined in Wikipedia guidline.

That the two abovementioned meanings of "dwarf" are more or less equal in importance we can also see from the three indications mentioned in this Wikipedia guideline:

1. The number of incoming Wikilinks is about 712 for "dwarf" and about 730 for "dwarfism"
2. According to Wikipedia article traffic statistics "dwarf" has been viewed 33115 times in 2009/02 and "dwarfism" 48399 times

These findings would rather point to "dwarfism" as the primary article.

The fact that Google turns up with 16,4 mln finds for "dwarf" and only 735,000 for "dwarfism" I find not so indicative.

Conclusion: "dwarf" should point to the disambigation page, and this page should be renamed. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Arcadian (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Support also. The condition is just as prevalent and important as any mythological discussion. Deusraijin (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. And moved --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link in disambigation page. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm late but I also support this. --Kurtle (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Plural

Isn't dwarves a modern (150 years is modern compared to 1100 years) occurence? Dwarfs. Mallerd (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes --Kurtle (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

capitalization

Is there a reason someone's capitalized so many occurrences of the word dwarf? I'm pretty sure it should be lowercase. You wouldn't capitalise human or dog, so why Dwarf? Aljo (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I've corrected the capitalizations but may have missed some so feel free to fix those. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

2011 rewrite

I have recently rewritten the article from scratch, relying solely on academic sources, and avoiding the numerous problems plaguing the previous version. However, the article should be, in time, much expanded. Here are a few English language works to employ in future edits:

• Liberman, Anatoly (2008). An Analytical Dictionary of English Etymology: an Introduction. University of Minnesota Press.

(Features an expansive mapping of etymological approaches towards dwarf)

• Shippey, T. A. (2006). The Shadow-Walkers: Jacob Grimm’s Mythology of the Monstrous. Brepols.

(Contains an in-depth examination of the evolution of dwarfs from Germanic paganism to folklore and beyond)

Of course, the popular culture stuff also needs to be handled but proper sourcing is a must. Simek's handbook has nothing, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hurry up then! --Kurtle (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the current version of the page rather sadly lacking. There is no mention at all of the fact that dwarves were probably inspired or influenced by the real medical condition. There is no discussion of dwarves outside Germanic literature, of their folkloric development, and not even a single mention of Tolkein--whose role in shaping modern conventions about dwarves is just as important as the Eddas. It would be wonderful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could help out. --Heather

I have done my best to expand and help the page along the lines of, say, the page on elves. I must confess that I am still dissatisfied with it (and not just because of the areas which need filling in.) I feel like it needs a more general introduction to the appearances of dwarves in Germanic mythology and later changes, since I have read that the dwarves in the Eddas should not be understood as short(?) Also, the connection to underworld creatures seems interesting and unexplored. 184.100.210.104 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.210.104 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently a brief overview. The elves page is a textbook example of a poorly written Wikipedia article and should not be used as a model until a proper rewrite comes along. If you want to add to this article, please familiarize yourself with the secondary sources on the subject and pay attention to the referencing system in place before doing so. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was, frankly, extremely lacking in both relevant cultural material and vastly over-emphasized the importance of the Eddas. I have corrected this, and yes, I am already familiar with secondary sources on dwarves. If you are more knowledgeable about Tolkien or the Ring Cycle, please feel free to add your own material. Forgive me for not being perfect, but this is not an excuse to be rude. 184.100.210.104 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Heather

Given your additions, you are clearly not. You're claiming connections by way of "little people" when it's not remotely clear if they were, indeed, "little" in the earliest source material, as the article clearly states (based on modern scholarship on the subject). The importance of the Eddas cannot be overemphasized when talking about Germanic mythology; they remain our most important sources. Most of your additions are unsourced, poorly cited, and misleading, and they cannot and will not stand as they are. You may be a Tolkien fan, but his work was part of a greater continuum in the Germanic world that hardly came to a head under his writings. Producing a large section on the subject is entirely misleading. Again, familiarize yourself with the modern relevant secondary sources on the subject, and then we can talk. In the mean time, edits such as these give your lack of familiarity with the area way and do not benefit readers of this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't like Tolkien. You shouldn't make assumptions about people--it just makes you look bad. But the idea that the Poetic Eddas are so much more important than Tolkien that the latter doesn't even warrant a mention--or that the author of the Poetic Eddas' ideas on dwarves constitute some sort of ultimate, original say on the matter--is absurd. If you want a page on the depiction of dwarves in the Poetic Eddas, you ought to make one.

Name Change

I propose that this page should be named Dwarf (mythology) rather than Dwarf (Germanic mythology), because dwarves feature prominently in works outside Germanic mythology, eg Tolkien, and there is no other, more general page on the subject.--Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.210.104 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please rephrase your request? It is not clear why you are proposing this. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Because dwarves are not exclusive to German mythology. They are quite popular in modern fantasy writing, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.210.104 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the mythological dwarfs. We could use a section on the influence the concept has had on modern popular culture since, but this is the primary subject of this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mythological dwarves are not limited to Germany. --Heather

The title of this article does not refer to Germany. Please see Germanic languages and Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Germanic": of or relating to GERMANY. Do you need a reference to a dictionary page explaining how adjectives function in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.93.143 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If your dictionary doesn't include an entry on the Germanic languages and/or Germanic peoples, it's time to upgrade it. Or you could click the either of the links I just provided for you. Or you could continue to post inane things on Wikipedia pages. Whatever your choice, I don't think I can help you any further. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

History of Dwarfes: Venezia and glass making

There is also a different important reason for dwarfes in european history: not only germanic mythology. The other important reason are the trading routes of Venezia. Venezian traders sent people through the Alps and german/siss/austrian regions to discover cobalt and other gems for glass making in middle ages. 188.96.187.36 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the mythological dwarf (which may or may not have been thought of as a small humanoid until some time after Christianization) with dwarfism. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The mythological German dwarf from the middle ages and legends has strong historical roots in the Walen oder Venedigermandln, which were actual people suffering from dwarfism who found employment in the secret service of the Venizian Republic. See the German version of this article as well as the seperate entry in German on the Walen Walen - this article needs to be translated into English and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.221.243 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the Norse dwarves article be merged into Dwarf (Germanic mythology). Norse Dwarves had been replaced with a redirect to this article, but this action had been reverted multiple times in an edit war. It has been pointed out in previous discussion that the current Norse dwarves article has many violations of wikipedia guidelines WP:SYNTH WP:OR WP:NPOV, and that this destination article should cover Nordic and Old English material under a wider pan-Germanic treatment of the topic. Given the identified problems only a limited amount of the remaining acceptable content may need to be merged. If need for this merger is agreed on, discussion should concern what if any content meets this standard and how to integrate that content into the existing article. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. The good content must be transfered here before any redirection is in place. Specifically the citations to Cassel, the material ascribed to Anatoly Liberman and Kirsten Wolf. This article should also have a section that specifically addresses the Anglo Saxon sources (the Wið Dweorh is notably absent), be added to avoid wp:coatrack, it says "germanic" so some attempt should be made to cover the entire Germanic sphere. --Davémon (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Merge whatever can be salvaged, per Davemon. It would be wise to double check the sources to be sure given the nature of the Norse dwarves article at the moment. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge The Norwegians and Icelanders are Germanic. So are the English. So are the Saxons. So are the Germans. So are the Franks. So are the Dutch. And so on. These cultures are very different from each other. They evolve differently. Not to mention, they are deeply influenced by different neighboring cultures. To suggest all Germanic cultures believe the same thing is ignorance at best, racism at worst. --User:108.132.19.215

I agree with your concerns, although I see them slightly differently. We need to be clear in the article that "Germanic" means a language-group, and that the different texts within that group express different ideas about Dwarfs. Lumping them together as a mass of wp:synth that (intentionally or not) promotes the idea of a universally shared conception of the dwarf - which nobody claims exists, would be misleading. That is one reason I suggest having separate sections for different branches, so, for example the Anglo-saxon Wið Dweorh has characteristics not found in other Germanic sources, and these should be dealt with in a separate subsections to the Dvergatal and the Völsunga saga. Perhaps organisation by attestation would be more helpful. Davémon (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This article in its well-developed form would look very much like valkyrie, where the Old Norse and Old English attestations are handled on their own, and interpretations are sectioned off at the end. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Start with many independent articles first. One for each dwarf or dwarf-like concept, in the context of its unique culture, respectively. Then later, maybe, think about summarizing their differences in a socalled “Pan-Germanic” article, while providing links to the respective articles per each culture for more detailed information. --User:184.33.96.208

• Do Not Merge The Norse texts about Dvergar are extensive and unique, and benefit from a separate in-depth article dedicated to their context in Norse culture, with Scandinavian archeology and attention to the Old Norse language and connotations. --User:184.33.96.208
• Merge. I think that all the different Germanic concepts of dwarves could be described on one page. That would be more clear and better than having a different page for every kind of dwarf.Taran0 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge If fairies/nymphs have separate articles for all the various kinds of fairies/nymphs, why wouldn't dwarves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.185.119 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where to begin with some of these comments, including this one? This is exactly why a vote like this should be restricted with individuals with backgrounds in folkloristics and philology. Most of these votes just need to be ignored due to lack of required background knowledge. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. The topic is better served by a broad-based article, since the issues and theories extend beyond Scandinavia. I've begun to implement the merge by working in some sources and points that used to be in the Dwarf (Norse mythology) article, to make this one better match the broader title. This should better show what's intended. (Plus I also had some additional sources, which I've added.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Plural again

The OED shows an appearance of "dwarves" in 1818. Scarf, calf, half, hoof, knife, wife, leaf, and so on, show a similar consonant change in their plurals. It seems both wharfs and wharves are used; not sure if one is preferred over the other. With what justification has "dwarves" been expunged from the article? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. However, the modern popular use of the plural is indeed a result of Tolkien. Judging by your response, you seem to be unaware of Tolkien's mildly famous stance on this issue. Just do a Google Books search for "Tolkien dwarfs dwarves". You'll find a variety of comments on this matter. Anyway, this really is a stupid thing to waste time on. When I rewrote this article to something remotely coherent, I went with the non-Tolkien plural. Someone has switched it around again. And now you are, for some reason, reverting it back to "dwarves". :bloodofox: (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it isn't earth-shaking enough to be worth spending a lot of time on, but the OED is a reliable source, and "go google it" is not. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "go google it". I said do a search on Google Books "Tolkien dwarfs dwarves". Presumably you would then look at the academic texts referencing the situation that these key words would pull up for you and you would then be informed on the matter. An 1818 OED isn't particularly useful in this situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an 1818 OED. However great Tolkien was, there's no reason to deify him and act like his "mildly famous stance" on this matter is anything more than one man's opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The 1971 printing of the OED lists an 1818 cite for "dwarves" as an alternate plural. Tolkien, unlike most Wikipedia editors, was in fact a lexicographer on the staff of the OED, as well as a linguist and philologist before becoming known for his fantasy fiction.

Links to search results are not used in Wikipedia citations. Citing the relevant pages of the relevant books would be a help to readers of this article, a greater help than one editor becoming more informed on this matter. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding an earlier comment, I was apparently missing a word in my quickly written response: An 1818 OED citation. Sorry about that.

I am aware that Tolkien was a philologist. He remains famous due to his fiction, monumentally so, but his academic output was not nearly as influential or prolific in academia. His usage of dwarves over dwarfs is entirely a result of his own aesthetic preferences. As with other elements of Tolkien's fiction, Tolkien's usage has since been picked up and popularized in some segments of popular culture, segments that are probably overrepresented on the internet. This isn't simply due to Tolkien's fiction but by way of that which he directly influenced such as, for example, roleplaying games.

I wasn't linking the reader to Google Books and I certainly wasn't suggesting to put some kind of Google Books search result in the article. Rather I was telling you to get familiar with the matter. As with your apparent misreading of "google search" over "Google Books" search, I'm going to have to ask you to pay closer attention to what I am writing. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary (2006) by Gilliver, Marshall, and Weiner has a section on Tolkien's usage of dwarves (pp. 104-108). This section is pretty clear: ""Before Tolkien, the standard plural of dwarf in modern English had strictly been dwarfs" (p. 104). As examined in this section, Tolkien's usage is apparently the result of an initial mistake that he stuck with. The section concludes that "The result is that the variant dwarves is now well established as a minority spelling, though dwarfs remains standard (for example) in astronomy, and evidence indicates that, even in the mythological or fantasy context, Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs keeps the dominant spelling in the public eyes" (p. 108). You can find it here.

As a result, I'll be enforcing the mainstream plural usage over the minority Tolkienism. I encourage other editors to do the same on articles not specifically about Tolkien or not handling topics wherein the Tolkien-preferred spelling is strictly appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, the lead says [plural "dwarfs" or "dwarfs"] which makes no sense. Given that the plural dispute has come up on this talk page several times over the last seven or eight years, why not mention it in the article, with cites?

I do pay close attention to what I read. You may frame your words as you choose, casting them any way you like. Do not expect me necessarily to hew to the same framing. Your use of the word "enforce" skates close to your claiming ownership of this article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like another editor just fixed the duplication. Sure, an "etymology and usage" section is a good idea. This article has been needing proper expansion for some time, but I haven't had a chance to get around to it (I think last I was going to expand it my time was eaten by the complexities of rewriting Ymir...). Meanwhile, confusion about this topic is very understandable. I'll go ahead and begin building a section handling it by way of Orel and the reference I've mentioned above. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks!

I would not be hasty to dismiss or disparage esthetic reasons for changes in language. I believe you may be aware of how poetry has played a part in preserving oral history. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a basic etymology section. It makes the rest of the article look small, but to do this article right, it's going to need to look something like the format of Loki or Thor.

As for aesthetics, I'm all for them. I certainly don't mean to come off as anti-aesthetics! It's just so easy get tangled up in matters of philology, mythology, and folklore—the sedimentary layers of semantic values in a case such as this are daunting—and thus, as I'm sure you'll agree, we need to be surgically precise whenever possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's stance, there needs to be specific citation if Tolkien's usage is being called a mistake, as he specifically addresses it in the forward to The Hobbit, 1937, as his intentional coinage in place of the archaic 'dwerrows.'KellennCP (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fairies

I reverted the addition of the Fairies template to the foot of the article because the primary focus of this article is on mythology, not on later folklore and therefore it does not seem to me to be a parallel case with, say, gnomes. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I have again removed the infobox. Infoboxes are not mandatory, and this one is not helpful to the reader. It is also inaccurate: it does not even include the Norse dwarfs. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is helpful to the readers to keep certain information upfront in an infobox, and to have consistent styling encyclopedia-wide.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't - it's misleading oversimplification (not to mention who it actually benefits is businesses reusing our content). There was an Arbcom case that affirmed that there is no encyclopedia-wide requirement for the things. Your preference may be to have one, but there is no advantage to it for the encyclopedia. The article already has three footers, plus categories. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yngvadottir. They're generally pointless in this area and this case is no exception. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dweomer?

Dweomer (Norse mythology) redirects to this page, to a non-existent #Dweomer label. The word "dweomer" does not appear on this page. -Antistone (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

On Tolkien's pluralization: intentional

As it stands, the article states Professor JRR Tolkien accidentally began to use 'dwarves' as a plural, a form of hypercorrection. While it may be the latter, it was no mistake, as the author clearly states in the forward to The Hobbit itself. He says it is a substitute for the older, obsolete correct plural of 'dwarrows' or 'dwerrows.' He acknowledges his usage may be technically incorrect by modern English standards, but it was expressly a creative coinage. The article should reflect this, unless there is a secondary source stating Tolkien did this initially by accident, which it currently does not cite. -KellennCP May 27 2021

The article cites a secondary source providing an analysis and a direct quote from Tolkien where he states otherwise. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I see it now. How curious. Standing corrected. Perhaps it still warrants inclusion of his ipso post facto explanation, though? KellennCP (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Female dwarf on Ribe fragment

This article says that the Ribe skull fragment references a female dwarf: "dvergynja", but according to the article on the fragment, it only says "dverg unninn" ("the dwarf (is) overcome"). Can we please get some more context from the source this article is using, if this is maybe an error, or a proposed different translation of the runes? 2600:8800:239F:A900:6846:91F3:D8B6:9914 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi :) So Mikučionis gives that one translation which is that you've given but also another on the page I've referenced which is as follows:

“Ulfr ok Óðinn ok Há-Týr, hjalp buri, es viðr/vinnr þeima verki ok *dvergynju Bóurr!”

“The Wolf and Óðinn and High-Týr, help [my] son, who is struggling against this abscess and against the female-dwarf, Bōurr”

If you look at the second reference I've cited here (Nordström 2021), she also reads the inscription as "dvergynju", which she notes is the female form. I hope this helps! Ingwina (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)