Talk:Nordic folklore

Irrelevant Subsections

A number of new subsections were added by the user ShaveKongo earlier this year. The note on this user's first edit reads, in part, "The article right now is primarily only about notable folklore figures but should include foods, dances, songs, traditions, architecture, etc." This is clearly incorrect; the article is about folklore, not Nordic culture generally. Food, dance, architecture, etc are irrelevant to this topic. These subsections should be removed.

I will leave this up for discussion for a few days just in case, but this is clear enough that if there aren't any objections in that time frame I will go ahead and remove the offending subsections. 198.160.139.1 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I decided it was about time I created an account; since I will be continuing to work on this article, I want to disclose that the comments on it from the IP above (198.160.139.1) are mine, but now that I have an account I will be operating under this name (Arhtech) instead of the anonymous IP from now on. Arhtech (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes proposed above. The article is still downright bad, but at least it no longer contains material having nothing at all to do with the topic. I will try to come back later this month or early in January to make more significant improvements. Arhtech (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That is what happens when articles are left without quality assurance for years, now that poor content has been removed hopefully fitting and reliably sourced content can be added in its place. TylerBurden (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I full heartedly disagree with what you have done here. Per the main Folklore article "Folklore includes customary lore, taking actions for folk beliefs, and the forms and rituals of celebrations such as Christmas, weddings, folk dances, and initiation rites". You should WP:wait for a response, or better yet ping the person you're talking about like this @Arhtech. ShaveKongo (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShaveKongo I apologize, I didn't know how to ping. I do stand by my changes - from the first paragraph of the same article you're referencing: "Folklore is the whole of oral traditions shared by a particular group of people, culture or subculture. This includes tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions."

Clearly, the emphasis in folklore is on the word, especially oral tradition and especially stories.

The part you referenced follows the quotation above, and is intended as a subcategory of the things it enumerates. Thus folklore only covers these ceremonial elements to the extent that they are part of the culture's oral/literary tradition, not in every case. The material I removed was not connected to any such tradition, so I don't believe it is relevant to folklore. Instead, I think that material is more appropriate to the Nordic countries article, or perhaps to a new on on Nordic culture generally. But it does not seem to fit the rubric of "Folklore."

Given TylerBurden's comment above it seems like, at least for now, the majority opinion also supports this edit. Arhtech (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arhtech, thank you for your input on the changes made to this Folklore article. While I respect your perspective, I would like to offer a counterpoint...The definition of folklore on Wikipedia does indeed encompass a wide range of oral traditions, including tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions. However, the emphasis on celebrations such as Christmas, weddings, folk dances, architecture, and initiation rites is explicitly mentioned in the lead of the main Folklore article...Your interpretation that these ceremonial elements are relevant to folklore only to the extent that they are part of a culture's oral tradition seems restrictive. The inclusive nature of folklore, as stated in the main article, suggests that these celebrations are integral to understanding the cultural heritage of a group of people. The material you removed might provide valuable insights into the cultural significance of celebrations within the broader context of folklore. I would also suggest that the information I spent time researching isn't completely worthless and you could have found a new "home" or "homes" for it even if you personally didn't consider it relevant to folklore.ShaveKongo (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShaveKongo Please do not make snap edits; you are currently in the minority on this, and it is important to seek consensus before making changes. I have reverted your changes from yesterday. Please do not engage in revision warring.

In my opinion, the word "Folklore" in English relates to words; oral and written tradition. I believe this is supported by the definitions given in the main folklore article. It doesn't seem like we are going to agree on this, so I'm going to ping @TylerBurden, as they have commented on this before. Tyler, do you find ShaveKongo's thoughts persuasive? Arhtech (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arhtech Per WP:Good editing practices it is encouraged to make smaller edits (snap edits?) with clear edit summaries instead of one large hard to read change. It's not really about my thoughts, it's about the indisputable fact that Folklore does in fact encompass song, dance, architecture, etc. etc. If you really want to help improve the article (as you indicated) please do so, but don't attempt to hinder me based on your own personal interpretation of Folklore. I welcome you to discuss this vary topic with the Folkore project. ShaveKongo (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShaveKongo Sorry I should have clarified what I meant by snap edits; you made that change pretty quickly after posting, even though there is an ongoing discussion about whether it is an appropriate change. It's important to wait for consensus, or at least until the conversation has halted and you are in the majority, before making changes. Arhtech (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There cannot be an ongoing discussion regarding what Folklore encompasses, scholarly sources clearly state folklore extends to these topics and Wikipedia is written based on sources, not Arhtechs personally opinion about what folklore encompasses. You're in the minority here. I recommend you take this to dispute resolution if you feel so strongly. If you have a problem with an edit then you edit the article, but removing sourced material clearly describing how these relate to folklore is not acceptable. You're violating numerous Wikipedia policies with your actions here. ShaveKongo (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShaveKongo Respectfully, the subject of our disagreement is whether scholarly sources say what you're saying or not. Currently, two users in this talk page (myself and TylerBurden) have approved my revision, which makes it the majority; for this reason, I think that revision should remain current. I have posted on Project Folklore asking for dispute resolution. Arhtech (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

WP: CIR here and everywhere else you're editing on Wikipedia. I cannot believe we are arguing about if Folklore encompasses these things or not. Its right there in the name. Folk-Lore. The lore of the folk. If they historically defecate in a unique way, that's also folklore. It seems to me that you're confusing mythology and folklore. ShaveKongo (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShaveKongo My impression is that this has not been a very productive conversation, so I'm going to hold off on any further back-and-forth and wait for dispute resolution instead. Arhtech (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Take care @Arhtech. I'm going to work on the article some more mostly focusing on finding more sources until we can get some discussion going. ShaveKongo (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShaveKongo I have posted on talk:WikiProject_Folklore page asking for some third opinions. Please stop edit warring in the meantime, it is not helpful and you are currently the minority opinion. Arhtech (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arhtech I responded to your other comment. You should await a response there before you continue YOUR edit warring. In the meantime I will attempt to rewrite these sections again and clearly layout how they relate to folklore, again. You're also welcome to try improving the article as well... ShaveKongo (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Gjenganger / skrømt

In Scandinavian folklore, the terms 'gjenganger' and 'skrømt' are often both used to name the gjenganger-phenomenon, while 'skrømt' is also used as a name for supernatural happenings in general. On this page 'skrømt' redirects to 'ghost', which I think is wrong as the ghost-article mostly refers to modern day perception of ghosts, which differs from the "scandinavian folklore perception" of them (see the gjenganger article). Should the 'gjenganger' and 'skrømt' articles be merged, or remain as they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvitorm (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why here again is mixing Nordic and Scandinavian especially in context of excluding or including present day Finland. Norse/Scandianavia historywriting has strong interlinks with movements that lead to/were part of german national socialist movement. And these ideological undercurrents of etnic supremacy are easily visible for keen eye in these discussions. If you don't want to be assosiated with such a garbage, please keep that in mind. To begin to understand the complexicity one should maybe start with the not-so-early 1800-ethnographic maps and observe, that much of the present day northern Sweden and Norway were in fact populated, not only by Sami but actual Finns. This has been in still is not in bublic avareness even though fact is easily verifiable for anyone with basic academic skilla. And on the other hand Scandinavia in it's orginal form reallly only and strictly only refers to present day Skåne (southern tip of present day Sweden). Thank you. 213.28.224.223 (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Problematic article from a folkloristic point of view

This article has multiple issues, and may need to be completely rewritten. First of all, the presentation of roots in Norse mythology is speculative at best. Furthermore, the list of beings seem rather arbitrary (and written from a popular cultural / non-native point of view?). I will start to rewrite parts, but will need help. Best, (Norwegian folklorist) Ida Tolgensbakk (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has been tagged as requiring a rewrite for over two years. Many articles in this area are not so great unfortunately. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article badly needs a rewrite. If you're interested in working in these corners, I also invite you to join WikiProject Folkore, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of folklore and folklore studies-related topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Other candidates

Hi, what about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draugr ? Fossegrimen, deildegasten ... and probably more. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)