Talk:Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr

Kvideland & Sehmsdorf and "Folklore" section

Recently an editor has taken issue with the use of the Kvideland and Sehmsdorf reference (Scandinavian Folk Belief and Legend, 2010) in the "Folklore" section of the article. As a result, here's a little more information on it. Entry 37 (p. 170) reads:

"In Snorre Sturlusson's Prose Edda, the god Thor magically reconstitutes the flesh of the goats he has slaughtered for his evening meals. Therefore he forbids his retainers to break the bones of the animal that is eaten.

In later folk tradition, it is the witch who magically replenishes food—usually herring. But people feared they would become thinner and thinner if they were fed the same food over and over again. For this reason it was considered a good precaution to break the bone when eating herring.

See Bent G. Alver, Hesketro og trolddom (1971), 181-82."

As this is a work on folklore and references from Norse mythology are being made here, a clear connection or parallel is being noted here but the authors are choosing not to speculate. This lack of clarity is why "connection" is used. Further information may potentially be found in Alver's work, but I have yet to see it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The article states:

"The similarities between this folk belief and the Norse pagan belief in Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr have led scholars to point to a connection between the two".

This is simple miss-attribution: no connection is pointed to in the citation given. It is entirely WP:OR to assert that a connection between Myth and Folklore has been pointed to any scholar. Plainly the cited text does not make this claim. Either a citation should be found that does make this assertion, or the material removed. --Davémon (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So, after those other attempts didn't work out so well, we've found something new to time-waste and troll about, have we, Davemon? While your Google Books preview may not key you into the fact that what we're talking about here is a volume handling Scandinavian folklore (albeit the title is a little bit of a hint), I'll go ahead and clue you in; that paragraph placement about Thor's goats prior to the herring bone material isn't exactly random. As I've said before, and is as obvious as the sky is blue, a connection is being pointed to by the placement of one paragraph before the other. "Connection" is entirely appropriate for exactly the reasons I've outlined before. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The two paragraphs are simply held together under the title Food Magic. No actual connection between the two are highlighted, no similarity is pointed out. No further relationship between these things is being made by the authors other than that they are both food magic. Davémon (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As apparently you're not picking up on this (whether intentionally or otherwise), I will try to make this as simple as possible for you: this is a work on Scandinavian folklore, not Norse mythology. The mentioning of a Norse precursor before a similar, considerably later concept is not random. A connection is being pointed out by the authors, which is exactly what the article states, although they choose not to speculate on it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The authors do not point out any connection. The position that "these two things have been connected due to their similarity by scholars" does not appear in the text being cited. It's quite simple: the assertion in the article does not appear in the text being cited therefore it does not belong on wikipedia (see WP:OR Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources). The two things are brought together under the heading "Food Magic" but that is all, no 'similarities' no 'connections' no 'highlighting', suggesting they are goes far beyond the intentions of the authors. --Davémon (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

NB The text in it's original context can be seen here. --Davémon (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, the only question here is exactly how many articles I've written that you've sorted through before you found one you could attempt to pull something like this with. Thor's goats, from the Old Norse corpus (13th century), does not qualify as folklore. It is therefore not dropped into a book about 19th to 20th century Scandinavian folklore at random. This should be obvious to you, and it may well be. Please, return to your troll hole and quit wasting everyone's time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to pick up this 3O request if you'll have me. I'll be back shortly with my comments. --FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the source is sufficient to attribute anything therein to "scholars". Instead, it would be appropriate to say "According to folklore scholars Kvideland and Sehmsdorf..." or something similar.

The source does not support a claim, made in the article text in Wikipedia's voice, that there are "similarities" between any two beliefs. We can maybe say that Kvideland and Sehmsdorf have pointed to a similarity (singular). But I also think we can only do that at a push.

The source can be interpreted as making a link between Prose Edda and later folklore, but a much weaker one that is suggested by the text in the article. The link - which is not made very explicit - is that in one case the flesh of slaughtered animals is reconstituted and in the other food is replenished. This might properly be considered tenuous absent any further information. Can Prose Edda be linked to the story of feeding of the 5000 by the same token? Or to the fable of the Everlasting Gobstopper? Well, actually, maybe it can, but in any of the three cases I would want to see clear scholarly opinion on the matter.

I would suggest that text along the following lines might be acceptable:

"Folklore scholars Kvideland and Sehmsdorf suggest an echo between this folk story and the Norse pagan story in Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr".

I would add that there is a fair amount of secondary material regarding Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. Perhaps further digging could provide a clearer picture.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I like the use of the word "belief" in the text. Maybe there is scholarly opinion to the contrary, but I'm not sure we can be sure of the degree to which people in the past, in Scandinavia or elsewhere, "believed" in the implausible aspects of their folk tales. Do you believe that a doctor can travel through time in a police box? Or is it just an entertaining and somehow meaningful story? --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the sentence per your recommendations, and your point on "belief" is solid. I must, however, note that that link is bone-breaking resulting in termination of replenishment (and in the context of potential Scandinavian cultural continuum), and not just replenishment as you say, rendering the feeding of the 500 and Everlasting Gobstopper examples invalid. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where more digging might be useful. I don't think my point is invalid. Similar themes often recur in popular tales, but it doesn't necessarily mean any special link between them. The questions I would ask are: is it possible to discern an origin or spread of stories which involve bone-breaking? Is there anything in Scandinavian culture that makes this an indirect link? What should be appreciated is that Kvideland and Sehmsdorf haven't exactly "highlighted" a link. I think they have suggested one, but they have really only placed two stories side-by-side. --FormerIP (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Context is key here. What a Google Book search may not make evident is that this is a volume explicitly on folklore, and references to Norse mythology in it are sparse and are only made when a connection is being proposed. For some reason they've chosen not to comment here (and elsewhere they miss parallels they could comment on). However, the inclusion of this Norse tale before this much later bone-breaking taboo insinuates some kind of thematic connection. Further references would be nice, but this is the first one I've come across. Further "spelled out" comparisons may be found in their source material, as they've produced this volume from a variety of folklore collections. The bone-breaking mytheme may be or may not be entirely native (it could be widespread, for all I know, albeit I've never heard of it otherwise) but themes that appear much later in folklore are plentiful in Norse mythology (and in some incidents it's the earliest known example of the mytheme), so it's no surprise. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, the problem is that the "context" is only established by your interpretation of the text - it is not explicit in the text itself, and without additional sources to support your views, they should not be reported in the article voice. Kvideland and Sehmsdorf have not highlighted a link. Further, their Introduction (which I don't think you can read on Google books) makes it clear that folk tales are not a necessarily a matter of 'folk belief' - and they do stress the point that many of the tales are told for entertainment purposes so phrasing such as "folk belief dictates" is inappropriate. --Davémon (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cute, Dave, but I actually own a copy of this. This is trolling of the lowest order, and you won't be getting a break from me for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone proves you wrong, it doesn't make them a troll! If you actually read the introduction, then you'd see that assuming "belief" in regards to folk-tales is an tendentious interpretation - it is a POV that doesn't belong in the article voice. If you read the comment by FormerIP you'd see that the "suggest a connection" wording isn't supported. --Davémon (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Same old same old. Davemon appears after a few months, finds some minute wording to obsess over regarding material he's half-read and/or flatly can't be bothered to do any research on, gets reverted, finds another angle, cycle repeats. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're simply miss attributing to Kvideland, Sehmsdorf and Simek your own theories and I'm just trying to clear that up. I went to the trouble of asking for a 3rd Opinion (in this [1] back in November), and going down the dispute resolution route. FormerIP kindly responded and found that the source does not support your text. You've provided no sources that directly support your text, and you continue to refuse community input and write incivil comments when your edits are challenged. Davémon (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is neither what happened (anyone can read the thread) nor is it worth my time to respond to your pithy trolling. Continued trolling will be flatly reverted. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The text cited still doesn't support the assertions you're making in the article. Davémon (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Trolling ignored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh well. I'll take the issue to wp:RfC in a while and get some more views, unless you want to do that as a gesture of [wp:faith]? Davémon (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)