From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mythology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Troll Project[edit]

I'm working on a Troll project, a sort of fantasy literature project but I'm having a very hard time visualizing the protagonist, who happens to be the Crown Prince of Trolls. Trolls appear drastically different in different legends. So for all you Troll experts out there, how do you visualize these little (or big) guys? I'd also like to question the usage of the term 'troll'; was it a general term used to refer to magical creatures in general? The article suggests that the etymology for the word is simply "magical", with an overtone of malicious, but that's about it. Also, are there troll-like beings in other cultures as well? Japanese Oni, for example? Thanks for the input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebeke1 (talkcontribs) 09:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia usage question, which is not generally what we discuss here. (Most of us don't even "imagine" the trolls, we just proofread). But I'll make a brief exception:
  • read the article and make short personal notes about the different "species" of trolls (choose one "species" of your liking), and also
  • survey the links provided: external links to control that wikipedia summarizes the provided external infomation correctly, and internal links to similar creatures of other cultures. If you find discrepancies, please give us a note on this talk page!
I'm doing approximately the same thing with star myths. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Scandinavian trolls evil?[edit]

In Scandinavian troll folklore the forest creatures are morally ambiguous, and don't constantly represent evil. Rather, they live according to different rules than men, and if you respect their rules, you can often maintain a peaceful relationship. (In fact, this is assumed to be the normal state of the world, that man through effort manages to sustain a tentative peace with nature.) They are however frequently depicted as morally weak, and susceptible to greed, envy, and laziness.

To illustrate, there is the tale of the troll mother whose neighbors move deeper into the woods when the human village nearby expands, but she lingers behind, because she is curious about the humans. In fact, she longs for their clean and ordered lives by warm kitchen fires, and she eventually decides that this is the right life for her son. For this purpose she makes herself up as a human and kidnaps the human princess to be his wife. Order is eventually restored when the princess is rescued by the prince. The story ends with the princess one night seeing the troll mother's ugly face peaking through her window into the warmly lit cottage, and she can't help feeling sorry for her.
[Source to be added presently.]

There is also a popular Swedish lullaby about a troll mother and her children, proving that trolls can be a comforting thought as well:

Troll Mother -- A Swedish Lullaby[edit]

When troll mother's tucked in her twelve little trolls
And tied them all to her tail
Softly she sings for her twelve little trolls
The prettiest words she knows:
Oh, ay-ay-ay-ay-buff
Oh, ay-ay-ay-ay-buff
Oh, ay-ay-ay-ay-buff-buff
Oh, ay-ay-ay-ay-buff
"Trollmor" by Margit Holmberg

(My translation. In the Swedish text there are eleven troll children, but that doesn't work well rhythmically.)

--Kronocide 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that trolls do not appear as impersonal evildoers like grey aliens or terrorists in modern folklore. Rather, I'd say they are a personification of the capricious wild nature, as well as an idea about a people living according to opposite norms than human (or at least Scandinavian) society—just like you mentioned. A very queer lot, those trolls.
One should take care to hold folklore apart from literary adaptions. The latter is commonly what has formed our modern perception. As an example, romanticism depicts älvor (elves) as joyous girls dancing in mist, while in genuine folklore their main role is to send disease onto people.--Salleman 11:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I came to think of the old Swedish Folk Song "Ett gammalt bergtroll" ("An old mountain-troll") by Gustaf Fröding in which a Troll sees a very pretty human woman, thinks that she's so sweet he wants to eat her up, but soon realizes how stupid she is, and that there won't be any more pretty woman to watch if he would. 17:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
One of my favorite little bits of Robert Asprin's humor is that trolls are the males of the species, the females being trollops. I've never quite been able to think of trolls the same way since. Christopher Ebert (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


"In J. R. R. Tolkien's world, trolls are very large (around 9 feet tall and 350lbs) humanoids of poor intellect."

- I can't believe I'm writing this :-), but a 9-foot humanoid would be expected to weigh a lot more than 350 lbs (square-cube law) even if not made of "stone". Polar bears weigh something like 1,000 lbs +, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps they were made of breeze blocks ;-) quercus robur
Well, I guess that imaginary worlds need not always comply with real-world phenomena (though I have difficult realizng why a figure of 500lbs or 800lbs couldn't have been given instead for greater consistency). However I do not recall anywhere in The Hobbit or LotR that would anyhow describe the Trolls' weights (or indeed any other physical property of these creatures), where does this figure come from, anyway? --Uriyan

It comes from me guessing.  :) change it. --TomCerul

Nevermind, what I had written. I checked the facts. Sorry.

This is as irrelevant as it can be but, where in LotR is it mentioned that orcs are corrupted elves? I remember Saruman saying it in the movie, but I do not have recollection of having read that in the book.--AN

Yes it is definatlely in the book. Don't ask me where, but I clearly remember reading it somewhere in LOTR quercus robur
Two towers chapter IV "TREEBEARD", about two pages from the end of the chapter.
"Will you really break the doors of Isengard?" asked Merry.
"Ho, hm, well, we could, you know! You do not know, perhaps, how strong we are. Maybe you have heard of Trolls? They are mighty strong. But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves. We are stronger than Trolls. We are made of the bones of the earth. We can split stone like the roots of trees, only quicker, far quicker, if our minds are roused! If we are not hewn down, or destroyed by fire or blast of sorcery, we could split Isengard into splinters and crack its walls to rubble."
not that it *really* matters for the article :-) // OlofE 16:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
It isn't in LOTR, but it is clearly stated in The Silmarillion. Since that is the pre-LOTR history of Middle-earth, it applies to LOTR also. However, since J. R. R. Tolkien didn't release Silmarillion while he was living, one could argue that he meant to take this out before it was released. Jketola

In the silmarillion page 50 it states that Orcs were believed to be bred from the demented and warped Elves caught by Morgoth in the first age.

Why "Olog-Hai"? Aren't they "Uruk-Hai"? -- SGBailey 23:16 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Uruk-Hai are the orcs

How do we know that Tolkien's trolls enjoy eating hobbits when they have caught only one, misidentified it as a "burrahobbit," and let it escape uneaten? And what's special about olog-hai speech--they don't talk like cockneys? --Alex Clark

Troll (mythology)[edit]

This article should be moved to Troll (mythology), and the disambiguation moved here. This would follow the policy in Wikipedia:disambiguation, since this mythological usage doesn't seem to be the "primary topic" these days: look at how many articles link to Internet troll). Goatherd 16:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Primary topic where? In Internet discourse yes. However, most people in the
Western world would think of the being Troll and wouldn't probably know the
meaning Internet Troll. Wiglaf
Yes, but Wikipedia is presumably used mostly by people familiar with Internet discourse? But it's no big deal. Goatherd 15:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wiglaf. It should definitely remain here. Ausir 21:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

the internet trolls are out there find them — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Time has gone by, and based on what I see here from ten years ago, since then the usage of Troll (Internet) has gone up significantly in the digital age and as the use of Troll (mythology) has gone down significantly when it comes to the mythological creature. People today almost never hear what a Norse troll and use the term to refer to the Internet meaning. As such it would only make sense that neither it nor the Internet term is a primary topic and thus I hereby make the following request: #Requested move 28 February 2015

<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


I have made some changes here. First and foremost, I have changed the "always" in the sentence "They are however always regarded as having poor intellect (especially the males, whereas the females, trollkonor, may be quite cunning), big noses, long arms, and as being hairy and not very beautiful" to an "often", because trolls are simply not that firmly defined so as to motivate an "always". I have read several tales depicting handsome and relatively intelligent trolls. (I also added the words "great strength" here).

To continue on the same theme, I changed the "generally" in "In Scandinavian fairy tales trolls generally turn to stone if exposed to sunlight" to a "sometimes". I, as a swede, has never read a tale where a troll has turned to stone, but a great many stories with trolls being out and about in broad daylight.

--Dnalor 01:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Troll: comment[edit]

Web troll:

Could someone define troll as used on the web? Is it someone trolling for valid e-mail addresses, or someone trying to get attention, or exactly what?

See Internet troll. If not defined there, ask *them* ;] --kooo 15:12, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

John Bauer image[edit]

I have to say I don't much like Image:The changeling, John Bauer, 1913.jpg - it's very murky and it's not at all clear what it shows (where's the changeling?). Is it really necessary to include this image? -- ChrisO 17:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LOL, first you add a picture of an ugly Norwegian stone troll, which you have the gall to put on the top, but you botch it so David Gerard has to invene, and then you complain about a famous painting by one of Sweden's most beloved artists. Go see an optician for crying out loud.Wiglaf
The issue isn't whether or not he's "one of Sweden's most beloved artists". The issue is whether the picture is clear, striking and informative. The first image (of the princess) certainly qualifies but I don't think the second qualifies on any of those grounds. I suppose we'll have to agree to differ... -- ChrisO 21:53, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's a good painting, but I shrunk it to 250px and that may have been too small. I've set it to 300px. Possibly we could just take the bottom half as detail and make it 350px wide - David Gerard 22:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good painting. ChrisO might consider clicking on Wikipedia images. This leads to enlarged versions which are much easier to discern.Wiglaf

0^) cyclops you mad brah — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

More on images[edit]

We have too many images for our own good. In particular, many of them don't fit into the sections they are right next to. The "Changeling" image is already used in the Changeling article, which is a good and exhaustive article, so I don't see any problems in dropping that one, especially since we already have a John Bauer image, well placed in the "literature" section. Instead we should have an image of an actual game troll, something like this or this one which must be considered promotional material and can be used if we note what game it is from (namely World of Warcraft). I don't know about the "Trolls in Trollhättan" and the "Norwegian_troll.jpg". Maybe we can move the Troll doll section away from the Fremont Bridge Troll and add an image of an actual troll doll, something like this, but free from copyright. Salleman 04:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Trolls in music[edit]

Tell me, David Gerard, why not "Trolls in music" huh ? Imo it's as relevant as "Trolls in games". It just gives one more image of what trolls are. Ukuk 16:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably could do with a one-liner pointing to the main article on troll metal - David Gerard 16:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See my compromise. Jaktens tid is a heck of an album, btw! Sam [Spade] 17:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's fine :-) - David Gerard 23:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thx guys (: Ukuk 06:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)[edit] made some trollish edits to Iraqi resistance and Lake Titicaca. Strangely enough all his/her edits to the troll article seem to be genuine. Except, I can't find the quote "The peculiar in life was what made me wild and mad...dwarf power and untamed wildness...audacious and bizarre fantasy" anywhere on the Internet. Maybe this quote should be removed until a credible cite is given. - pir 09:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have not made any "trollish edits". is one of many open proxies that I and others use, and the trollish entries in question were made by persons other than myself. I am the person who made the entries to the Trolls in Music section. To answer your question, the Grieg quote is from the liner notes for Naxos 6.110060, GRIEG: Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances written by Norwegian conuctor Bjarte Engeset and translated by Susan Askvik. Mr. Engeset doesn't list a citation for this quote, and I haven't been able to find one outside the liner notes. Would it be possible to contact either Naxos, Mr. Engeset, or a scholar of Norwegian studies? Sadly, I suspect that much of Mr. Grieg's personal notes remain in his native tongue.- Thomas Veil
Turns out the quote and the liner notes are online and linked to the main site above ("About this Recording") on the right side of the page. The quote is at the end of the ninth paragraph. "The peculiar in life was what made me wild and mad...dwarf power and untamed wildness...audacious and bizarre fantasy." And yes, that's on the internet.-Thomas Veil
OK, just a weird co-incidence then. Google didn't find the quote, but it exists. - pir 08:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


It says that Swedish children believe in tooth trolls. This reference should be put under Literature as it comes from Norwegian author Torbjørn Egner's story "Karius og Baktus". I'm a newbie to wikipedia so I don't want to edit the article (and my English isn't that good). This story is well known in the whole of Scandinavia and probably in several other countries too. Amazon reference: <>

You're free to change it into "Scandinavian children" if you wish to, and to add Torbjörn Egner under the litterature part as well. I don't think removing this text from "Scandinavian folklore" is alright, because the tooth trolls are very much part of it today.--Wiglaf 20:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am channging this because we need to clarify that swedish/scandinavian children do not believe in "tooth trolls". This is a pedagogic device to explain why we need to brush our teeth, a way of making bacteria understandabla for children too young to grasp the concept of micro-organisms in scientific terms. The book was converted into a puppet movie that used to be shown for all schoolchildren during their first years in school, but nobody belived that they saw a depiction of actual reality.--itpastorn 10:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Tooth-troll" (tandtroll) is just a modern alias for "caries bacteria", used by childrens' authors to bring out a moral message of the importance of tooth-brushing. If to be folklore culturally more correct, they should instead have been "Tooth-pukers" (tandkräk), since "pukers" ("kräk") were the original disease causing spirits... Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"Pukers" is a bad direct translation. In this context, kräk would be better translated as "creep", "scum" or akin. Checking out SAOB the noun "kräk" seems rather to be related to "creep" (Vb/N) and German "kriechen" (crawl), while the verb "kräkas" might be related to "crack" and "croak". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed from article[edit]

Recent status Sept. 2014, for Neanderthals are: 1) Findings of Neanderthals in a cave at Gibraltar has been dated to 15000 years old. 2) Modern europeans have a couple of% of Neanderthal DNA. Compare those few % remaining DNA after about 40000 years of coexistance and interbreeding, where Neanderthals still existed at least 15000 years ago (probably much later although not yet found), with i.e. the inhabitnats of the Canary Islands, where the spanish took over about 1500 AD, and the Guanches remaining DNA by now is 20-40%. If the Neanderthals were adopted to a cold climate, it does not seem very likely that their last resort would be in the very south of the eurasian continent, but rather in the northern part where, where the legends of Trolls are widespread. CMLSy (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "Hypotheses about trolls / There is a theory that the trolls are a distant memory of modern man's encounter with Neanderthals. Some also claim that the Neanderthals may well have lived into historical times, and may be remembered as trolls, while others believe that they just refer to neighboring tribes." This strikes me as a theory of utter wackiness, it's not referenced or explained any further, and it's weaselspeak. Not that Wikipedia could not cover wacky theories (indeed it does to a rather unpleasant extent), but our encyclopedic standards apply here just as anywhere else. Kosebamse 21:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added back in with names of alleged proponents. --Viriditas | Talk 22:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This Neandertal/Troll hypothesis may seem far-fetched at first. But, given that fossil evidence indicates anatomically modern humans (H) and Neandertals (N) co-existed in Europe there could be something to it. A few points: We know N were apparently cold-adapted and it seems from the fossil records that H arrived in the north relatively late. So, if relict populations of N existed later than we have assumed they would tend to survive in Europe's northernmost latitudes. Since DNA testing conducted in 1996 established pretty conclusively that we don't carry N genes within us, the H/N contact would have been one of competition and not intermixing, and given their unusual appearance the N population may have seemed some sort of mysterious "other" to H rather than merely a neighboring tribe. Such populations tend to have magical or malevolent characteristics (or both) assigned to them as we have seen in Troll fables which are uniquely Scandinavian. It would seem there could be a grain of truth at the heart of such fables, similar to the Indonesian fables regarding the recently discovered Homo floresiensis. We know H replaced N in Europe, but we don't know quite how or when or how long it all took. Given that we only have the remains of about 350 N spanning thousands of years it seems the notion they became extinct about 30,000 years ago presumes we have found the very last one. This is very unlikely. It's also possible Troll stories are much older than we ever imagined. At the very least there are some interesting similarities here, and once one removes the magical and fantastic elements from Troll fables the remaining parts sound an awful lot like N. I'm not sure this theory can be convincingly proven or disproven with current evidence, but it probably should not be completely dismissed.Skepticsteve 20:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems plausible that the basis of the troll legend is Neanderthals. In particular, although the current archeological record reveals the most recent Neanderthal specimens as being from about 30,000 years ago, who is to say that some Neanderthals did not survive past that date and, due to happenstance, simply have not contributed to the currently-known archeological record? Moreover, many of the physical features of trolls seem to match those of Neanderthals. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, this is all speculation, as I am not aware of any scholarly source that has specifically addressed the question of whether trolls are in fact a distant memory of Neanderthals. In the absence of evidence, it seems that this theory should be omitted from this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In games[edit]

The article is becoming "two-cented" in the "In games"-section. Currently it is has listed something in the sense of: "You can choose a troll as your character in <insert the game which some editor likes here>." I suggest that we remove all the two-centage, as was decided in The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. It should be fair for all to remove all such edits, and not leave an example or so. The section is likely to fill out of proportions if we let it grow. —kooo 11:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think we have yet to see that. This page isn't edited excessively often. The "games" section has essentially been the same since March. --Salleman 28 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)
I am also of the opinion, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If it does "fill out of proportions" THEN it will be time to decide what to do with extra stuff (which is likely not to be cut, just be reformatted). If a troll makes an appearance it should have a reference here (why not?). -Moocats 16:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Trolls in folklore VS. Trolls in fairytales[edit]

I'm going to edit the page (mostly the "Trolls in Scandinavian Folklore" section) to try and seperate the folklore (what people actually believed about trolls in their everyday life) from the more romantic fairytale (trolls as more legendary and beastly creatures). While one is based in the other, at least Swedish folklorists tend to see a point in keeping them apart, and in the case of trolls there's quite a difference. Currently the section mixes both somewhat strangely, but is downplaying the everyday folklore. I'll also add something about the difference, and the transition in the late 19th century towards the more fantastic fairytale trolls as portrayed by Bauer & Co, leading to the fairytale/fantasy trolls of today.

I will be referencing Ebbe Schön [1] (Link is in Swedish: He is a Swedish folklore researcher, associate professor at Stockholm University and caretaker of Sweden's largest folklore collection at Nordiska museet [2]), in particular the books "Folktro från Förr", "Troll och människa" and "Svensk Folktro A-Ö". I'll add a reference section to go with that.

I'll also add a picture to go with the folklore since right now all pics are of classic fairytale trolls... might need to rearrange the pictures now there since the side is becoming a bit cluttered. Amphis 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am myself currently half-way trough a major edit of this page, but attempting to write elegant English slows down the work awfully, and then I lose interest. I was planning to mention what you just wrote. However, the brutish troll of fairy tales is more in line with the Norwegian concept of troll, in Sweden we tend to use jätte of such creatures (Jätten Finn, for instance). Anyway, please make your edits, and then I'll see whatever I can add. --Salleman 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
PS. I presume you mean the image from Svenska Folksägner found at p. 72 in Folktro från förr. I was planning to find me a scanner and upload that picture as well :D
Oops! I hope there's enough left to add that that it wasn't a waste for you, especially if you know more about Norwegian trolls -- I know as much as that when you move to the west of Scandinavia the two becomes similar or the same, in Bohuslän too, but I have no good non-tertiary sources about Norwegian folklore. Or possibly the page on giants could be improved and linked to the troll page, it's rather meager right now...
My own English is... useable, I hope :) Amphis 17:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
And that's how Salleman learned never to respond at the talk page without first looking at what has been done at the article page. :\ Good work! I'll be adding some things. My only small problem with your edits is that I was going to separate between two main traditions: large and human-sized trolls, which works bad with your looks/behaviour sectionalizing. But, I'll work something out. --Salleman 17:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Simply deleting your headers wasn't the most sophisticated solution imaginable, but at least I made my additions. --Salleman 23:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Trolls and bridges[edit]

This is really never covered in the article except by inference. Perhaps it should be mentioned being a fairly common stereotype? --BHC 10:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

¶There is the Norwegian fairy tale of the Three Billy Goats Gruff, in which the goats try to cross a bridge controlled by a fearsome troll. The association of trolls with bridges by now seems so standardized that I am surprised that the article did not at least mention it. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I second that. I came here today looking for information about the connection between trolls and bridges. I was wondering if it was some sort of tale. --Pinnecco (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the myth[edit]

The problem with this theory is that neither Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons existed in this part of Europe during the ice-age. Most of Scandinavia was covered by a large glacier and the area was not occupied until much later.

Logically, this isn't actually a problem with the theory at all. It seems to argue that the ancestors of the Scandinavian people didn't exist during the ice age, but obviously they were somewhere, weren't they? Michael Z. 2006-08-14 16:28 Z

Japanese troll? Please.[edit]

The name Totoro does indeed come from a child's mispronounciation of the word troll, but that's about it. The title of that section is way too sensationalistic and makes it sound like the Japanese have trolls of their own. The mispronounced troll in question is, of course, a western troll, no more. I say move that info to the trivia section or remove it altogether. 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I would also love to know what exacty the western influences referenced to are. To my knowledge the only western thing in the whole deal is the said mispronounced troll. 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The film is founded on a contrast between the Japanese countryside and modernisation. The family visiting the house represent a professionalised, urbanised and, yes, partially Westernised existence that finds new possibilities in the old house. I think I am right in saying the Father works in the English literature department of what looks like Tokyo university. The older girl gives a western umbrella to the Totoro, something he has never used. She understands the spirit using a western name, which was the relevance of the reference to trolls in the first place, and of course they ride on a Cat Bus, an oddly modern traditional spirit. Finally, the house itself has a combined Western and Japanese design. It is not a traditional Japanese farmhouse but a classic Meiji/Taisho/early Showa combo of Western and Japanese influences.Buyo 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolls based on sorrounding[edit]

Mountain trolls: large, low thought pattern, eats full victem

Woodland (vally): taller then men, superstius/ higher thought patteren, mostly animal diet(humans are for vodoo) Darkland 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "trollkonor" snippets[edit]

1) The grammar is incorrect (singular of konor is kona), 2) kona is just an older Swedish word for "woman", not related to trolls in particular, and 3) trollkona, while having the literal meaning of "troll woman", was usually used when talking about a (human) witch in the same way that the current Swedish trollkarl (lit. "troll man") means "wizard". Amphis 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavia vs. Nordic[edit]

I propose that the word Scandinavia be changed to Nordic countries for disambiguation.

Internet and Wiki trolls[edit]

No mention here? Rumiton 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Internet_troll. Wikitrolls have no source of notability. Just because they happen within Wikipedia does not make them notable enough for mention in Wikipedia. SpigotMap 03:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I changed the importance to "top." The troll is one of the most-well known figures of Norse mythology, from America to Asia. LouisHesse 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


{{Trollshere}} (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Troll Geography[edit]

How come there is no reference to Slavic trolls and Bavarian people? The Nords, The Slaves, and The Baverians are brothers and the area constituted the whole northen Europe. So the Troll article needs some hard work. But I do understand that it will be difficult because of the political canotations with the geography. Please take your time in shedding light on the issue. Igor Berger (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Great I see the Finland reference. Thank you..:) Igor Berger (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

the differences of the races[edit]

could somebody tell me what are the differences between troll, orcs, and ogres?? they are so confusing. . . what i think is that ogres are the most stupid folks between them ; some trolls may be the second but some of them are not they have a little brothership with their clan and some of them are good in fighting and battle ; and orcs are not stupid at all, they are barbarian and monstrous(just like the three of them), and they have quite a humanity, they care about the world, and of course brotherhood in their families and clans . . how do ya think? most of them i really made up myself Jcupu (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are different races and have different atributes but at the end of the day they all grow up to be what we are today - humans. So what is your questiong? Which one do you wish to affiliate yourself with will depend on your own charachteristics and believes! But they are different races! Mythologically speaking..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about Trolls that might be relevant for article.[edit]

Hello, in many games, Including Dungeons and Dragons, Trolls are noted to be able to regenerate lost body parts, except that which was damaged by acid or fire. There is no reference to fire on the article, so perhaps someone knows where this regeneration ability and/or susceptibility to fire/acid was first noted? Pidey (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know that is something modern literature made up and got nothing to do with mythological trolls. Wolfenstein (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The D&D troll, with its regenerative abilities, was taken from a novel by Poul Anderson, Three Hearts and Three Lions. So that's where it was "first noted", so to speak. As Wolfenstein said, it has nothing really to do with mythology, and so doesn't really belong in an article about trolls in the mythical sense. (This is, however, mentioned in Troll (Dungeons & Dragons), where it does belong.) --Smeazel (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarity problems[edit]

I find the second half of the first paragraph under 'Origin of the Myth' to be quite unclear. I don't know anything about the subject beyond that there are postulations that cro-magnons may have come into contact with neanderthals. The article hear is worded in such a way as to be ambiguous as to whether or not this is supported. I would edit this article myself but I am completely unclear as to what the facts are.

"In the genre of paleofiction, the distinguished Swedish-speaking Finnish paleontologist Björn Kurtén has entertained the theory (e.g. in Dance of the Tiger) that trolls are a distant memory of an encounter with Neanderthals by our Cro-Magnon ancestors some 40,000 years ago during their migration into northern Europe. Spanish paleoanthropologist Juan Luis Arsuaga provides evidence for these types of encounters in his 1999 book El collar del Neandertal ('The Neanderthal's Necklace')."

There's a lot of extraneous information here, the fact that he speaks Swedish is certainly not obviously relevant. The premise that he is distinguished is vague and arguable, and I think requires support, given that the argument here is that since he is distinguished, his fiction has above average scientific merit, or some such thing.

"The theory that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons occupied the same area of Europe at the same time in history has been theorized based on fossil evidence."

The theory has been theorized... It sounds like what the writer(s) are trying to say is that the coexistence or parallel existence of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals has been suggested based on fossil evidence.

"Other researchers believe that they just refer to neighboring tribes."

The fossils from the previous sentence refer to neighbouring tribes? The researchers? I think what the writers are trying to say is that there are ancient references to trolls somewhere that may refer to any hominid group outside of the writer's extended family group. I am not sure what 'they' refers to here.

"The problem with this theory of Trolls is that there are theories and evidence underbuilding that bigger areas in Europe and the Middle East were inhabited by these two groups at the same time."

The problem with what theory? The one that they were neighbouring tribes or the one that they were Neandethals? What does underbuilding mean? Undermining? Building up a foundation?

"Encounters could have happened due to nomadic tribes and long distance hunting, etc."

I don't like this back and forth progression between sentences. It seems like the writer is writing for and against the supposition that Trolls may have been Neandethals alternately, and so there is little continuity throughout the paragraph. This confuses because he is / she is / they are constantly shifting gears and using vague pronouns.

"Nonetheless there is no coherent research showing a phenomenon or histories of "troll-like beings" in all these places reducing the post facto of Neanderthals preceding Trolls as nothing more than faintly plausible for the beholder of today."

Loads of incoherent research, though. Stylistically I think this is the weakest sentence in the whole paragraph. I think a stronger sum of the paragraph would be simply, "But the proposal that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man ever made contact is not supported by current research." which is a premise that I think needs support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I remove the paragraph om Kurtén. As far as I can remember, there is nothing in the two novels that claims our image of trolls have anything to do with neanderthals. In Kurténs books the Cro magnons have much more protruding brows than the Neanderthals. The latter are very polite and civilised. Trolls? How? // habj (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Main photo caption[edit]

The main photo caption doesn't explain the picture. What are they looking at? Is that a fairy or something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge Troll (Iceland)[edit]

Seems an extension of this article, but in a particular place. Separating them will just create unnecessary confusion, surely. Greggers (tc) 14:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The new article doesn't seem to contain any new or factual information, so one could simply delete it, but call it a merge. –Holt (TC) 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Random comment[edit]

This article should describe what magic powers trolls have--Myron Mumbles (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Troll Cross[edit]

How old is the Trollkors symbol?-- (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the article?[edit]

Most of the article has vanished. All that is left is the introduction. What the hell happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Old version could be found here: [3] You could see if there is any useful info. At least the etymology could be reinserted. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not bring anything over from the "old version" without first asking yourself the following questions: do I have a reference for this? Is this a quality reference? Does this reference blatantly say this? This article certainly needs to be expanded, but not with the problems so rampant in the old version. :bloodofox: (talk)

The old article was far more informative. Even withuot references, it's better to at least have sme starting points. If people suspect the validity of information, they can do additional research. The goal should certainly be to have references in articles. However, a poorly-referenced article on trolls (like the old version) is, I would think, superior to the new version, which appears to be little more than a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talkcontribs) 00:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

References are a requirement, and for good reason. For obvious reasons, a poor-quality, unreferenced article is no substitution for, well, anything else, stub or not, no matter how much of that poor-quality, unreferenced information there may be.. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that nearly an entire article was removed due to lack of references. If this were the case, then much of Wikipedia would be gone. References are clearly a strong preference, but if something is not seriously in doubt (like, in my view, much of the former article on trolls) in most cases in Wikipedia articles, this information has been left in, with the hope that someone will add references in the future. So no, I do not believe that "references are a requirement," and I believe that the former article on trolls was far superior than the current one. Moreover, I suspect that many people who read Wikipedia articles are sophisticated enought to take a "buyer beware" approach to unreferenced facts. That is, before using unreferenced information for a purpose requiring absolute certainty, they will make sure that they find a reference somewhere else. For this reason, in many cases, unreferenced facts are "better than nothing." Finallly, my recollection is that most traditional encyclopedias that were published long before the Internet age often included unreferenced statements. This is the nature of ancyclopedias. Again, if there is no substantial reason to believe that a statetment is false, I do not believe that it should be removed, and I believe that the Wikipedia community would be better served with the former article on trolls restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than repeat myself, I will simply point you here: WP:PROVEIT. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote from the page that you just pointed me to: "In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." This is exactly what I was saying. There's no need to cite everything with an inline citation, only the statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. Most of the material in the former article on trolls was not particularly controversial, in my opinion, and was not particularly likely to be challenged. I'm sure that a small percentage of it was, but most of it seemed pretty non-controversial. Most Wikipedia articles, and for that matter most articles in all encyclopedias, contain relatively non-controversial material that is not supported with an inline citation. This leaves me wondering if there was some other reason that the former article on trolls was removed, and if the lack of citations was pretext. I don't know this, but I'm at a loss as to why a reasonably decent and comprehensive article was removed, when the number of citations in it was not all that different from the number of citations in innumerable Wikipedia articles. Personally, I have no huge interest in trolls. I think they're a mildly interesting legend, but I don't read up on them to any significant degree. However, I am a fan of Wikipedia in general, and my preference would be that the former article, which is far more informative for the casual reader than is the current article, be restored. For someone doing scholarship or anything of the kind, obviously more rigorous sourcing would be required, and I think someone who has that type of need will easily realize that the Wikipedia troll article, and for that matter many of the Wikipedia articles, do not have the degree of rigor required. One final thought: if someone were in a library and opened a traditional hard-bound encyclopedia and turned to the article on trolls, I seriously doubt that the number of inline citations would exceed the number in the former Wikipedia troll article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talkcontribs) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the link above boils down to this: reference information to reliable sources or be prepared to do it when someone removes it for being without reference. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, thus we require everything to be referenced to a reliable source so that it may be checked at will. Other dictionaries, handbooks, and encyclopedias do not have thousands upon thousands of anonymous editors vandalizing and/or expanding it 24 hours a day, 365 days out of a year; they have scholars or someone reasonably competent that they can hold responsible. Further, original research is not supposed to occur here; we simply report what reliable sources say. Sure, this article does need to be expanded, but rather than complaining about the absence of the nigh-reference-less, problematic old version of the article, perhaps you can turn your attention to some reliable sources and try your hand at expanding it yourself. In the mean time, solid, referenced information, fortunately, remains far more valuable here than a lump of potential I-heard-this-somewhere-so-I'm-going-to-put-it-on-Wikipedia or look-what-I-made-up. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Just how many reliable written sources do you expect to find about something that is still almost entirely an oral tradition? Better instead to give some credit to people who clearly know what they're talking about, because you're not going to find a more reliable source than that as far as folklore is concerned. Everything written about folklore is nothing more than scattered examples of what someone else once heard somewhere. That's what folklore is. Something someone said and someone else heard. Not what someone wrote. Writing is completely foreign to it. As for other encyclopedias, the professional idea-clerks who write them rarely print more than what is widely accepted and available from many sources. This results in short articles and fewer of them, something wikipedia supposedly is proud to outperform. But it can't beat Brittanica on trolls if there's a librarian obsessing about the footnotes. (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Shall we make an appointment tomorrow so that I may record your orally-preserved Troll-lore and put it on Wikipedia to wisen the world? Please think before you type, 67. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Why bother, you'd just delete it again anyway for being original research on your part. Since you're such a dedicated scholar, you ought to add some text to the article explaining its embarrassing lack of content. Something like, "trolls are a legend both ancient and current, but little is known just what that legend is due to the rarity of verifiable sources of information." (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of written sources about oral traditions. Folklorists collect stories such as those about trolls and publish their research. What gets published is usually reliable, vetted, organized and, what's important for Wikipedia, it can be checked by anyone with access to the published source. That's much better than accepting the say-so of people who claim without evidence to "clearly know what they're talking about".Sjö (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated several months ago, the old troll article was far more informative than the current one, which is so barebones as to be virtually useless. I will now supplement my comment with something that one of the other commenters has said. How many reliable written sources do you expect to find about something that is, as far as I can tell, pure legend? To expand on that, it's much better to let people who know something about trolls add content, even if they can't perfectly cite everything. This is NOT a peer-reviewed journal. Rather, it's an encyclopedia, and I don't recall, for example, Brittanica citing many sources. What built Wikipedia up to its current strong presence on the Internet was the fact that it was essentially an open, self-correcting source of information. If someone starts adding totally-whacky and/or clearly-erroneous material, there are almost always enough eyes on the article to quickly remove the bad content and restore the status quo. Unfortunately, there seems to be a rather purist attitude, especially about the troll article (for some reason, not sure why) and an insistence on citations for every little detail, which has essentially made the article so sparse as to be irrelevant.

pgordon2 (talk · contribs), you will find that there is, in fact, quite a lot of material from the Germanic studies sphere focused on exactly this subject. Wikipedia articles require references, and references to solid (in this case plainly academic) sources. This goes for all Wikipedia articles, and many articles on the website are in need of a rewrite. Fortunately for the project (and the internet as a whole), efforts by knowledgeable editors on the Germanic mythology-related articles have meant that these articles largely adhere closely to Wikipedia policy, and, as a result, very little "look-what-I-made-up", "look-what-I-heard-somewhere", or "look-what-I-found-on-the-internet" makes its way to these pages nowadays. While this article is currently short, it is founded upon solid references, and is in fact far more informative than the previous version, as it can actually be verified. It can be expanded, and eventually will be, but it must be expanded upon by way of reliable sources and not with any of the "look-what-I" categories I outline above. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Any set of rules, no matter what the context or forum, can be interpreted strictly, loosely, or anywhere in between. It seems that, with the troll article, the rules for verifiability have been interpreted in a very strict way, to the detriment of the article. As I said several months ago, it's better to have more material in the article, because we're all big boys and girls, and we can sift through questionnable material to decide exactly what level of verifiability we need for whatever we're doing. Anyway, I realize that your mind is made up, so we'll have to agree to disagree, and since the article has already been shortened and padlocked, I'll have to assume that others, though apparently not everyone, take your side of this. Incidentally, it's crossed my mind to do some research and bolster the article myself, but I suspect that I wouldn't be able to meet the exacting standard that apply on this page, so I think I'll pass.

ETA on expansion?

It appears to me that this article has come under the spotlight of persons who want it to stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny, for better or worse. Personally I have no problem with that, even though I have no better faith in the qualifications of a given editor than many of the sources that have been stripped from this article for supposed inadequacy. However, I hope everyone who has decided to make this article his or her pet project can appreciate that many of us do not have the benefit of being able to read Old Norse, for example, and so if you're going to treat this article hawkishly, I would appreciate if you would do it at a time when you have the resources available to make meaningful contributions (that you believe can stand up to scrutiny) at the same time you're judging and eliminating the contributions of others. I came here today looking for a reference to do further research on the concept of vitterfolk for completely non-academic reasons, because I remember seeing mention in a previous version of this article, only to find that all reference to the term has been eliminated.

Those of you who have the benefit of specialized education in these areas, isn't this a pretty broad topic? I find it hard to believe that someone would take enough interest to strip this article down but not yet enough interest to try to expand it, at least to clarify misconceptions with respect to information that has been removed. If something is wrong and was pulled, judging from the previous versions, it would be worth mentioning why it's wrong as part of the article.

You may find it hard to believe, but there aren't a lot of resources out there that I can immediately turn to to start a research trail on this subject, and frankly, I was counting on wikipedia to give me a starting point. A previous version at least led me to the conclusion that a connection was possible between the vitterfolk, huldrefolk, jotun, etc. (and fortunately that version is still available), but the current section on Smaller Trolls is--while indeed rigorously sourced--largely aimless, so much so that I feel sorry for people looking for information without the benefit of knowing the previous version existed. Now don't get me wrong: I'm for sourcing as much as possible. After all, unsourced, it's entirely possible that whatever connection someone had established in the previous version was unwarranted or even completely fabricated (although there's nothing in the new version to explain why that error would be made). However, I'm unable to draw any conclusions at all from the new version. It's simply less informative, less beneficial, and less useful. I am very, very disappointed to see what was previously a robust, useful article in the public discourse reduced to something that currently looks more like a student's well-researched but poorly analyzed paper. Folklore is not an entirely historic discipline, and it's not entirely academic. Nevertheless, there is in fact a very, very strong possibility that information belongs in this article that is true, verifiable, and relevant even though a published source from an author a given editor might decide is credible enough might be obscure or even unavailable. You don't undertake a duty to devote time to research just because others make an error here, but I don't think it's too much to ask that if you're going to be heavy-handed with the scythe, you be heavy-handed with the sower. Xhieron (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Trolling on the internets[edit]

it should be noted on the article (linking to the trolling main article) that the term for trolling came from the folklore —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed for that. AFAIK the term comes from the fishing term Trolling (fishing).Sjö (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Transcendent28's Recent Additions[edit]

Recently user transcendent82 (talk · contribs) added some material to the article cited to four works. I recognized this addition as problematic to the point of requiring reversion (and rewriting if restored). Transcendent reverted my reversion and asked me to provide a more detailed explanation. Here is my analysis, broken down reference by reference:

Reference 1

  • "Peter Narváez (1997). "The Good People: New Fairylore Essays", page 118. University Press of Kentucky ISBN 9780813109398"."

Google Books preview: [4]

Page 118 of this work is in fact a paper by Alan Bruford titled "Terminology: Land Fairies". Here Bruford does not agree with material you straddle it with, but analyzes the dissection between huldre (which he repeatedly glosses as "fairy") and trolls. The jest of the argument is that while the two seem to be very distinct in Scandinavia, trow in Scotland and huldre seem to be related. The "fairy" business is an unfortunate distraction, as the term is a considerably later introduction (it entered English in the Middle English period by way of French influence) and using it as a gloss just creates confusion.

Whatever the case, slapping this on "these creatures appear as small human like beings or as tall as men and can appear gruesome and ugly or very beautiful when in disguise. They could also be seen with tails, although they try to hide these from the view of mortals while disguised" is entirely inappropriate as cited work says no such thing.

References 2

  • "Reidar Thorstein Christiansen (1964). "Folktales of Norway". University Of Chicago Press ISBN 9780226105109."

Google Books preview: [5]

No page numbers are provided here, and thus it is unclear where this information comes from. Is it culled from the original source material, or from a commentary by a scholar? Without a page number, this cannot be confirmed. A page number is required for use.

Reference 3

  • "Carol K. Mack, Dinah Mack (1999). "A field guide to demons, fairies, fallen angels, and other subversive spirits". Holt Paperbacks ISBN 9780805062700."

Google Books preview: [6]

This is a work squarely aimed at pop culture without any visible academic connection, and is thus a non-reliable source. Further, at no point in the book does the word "Troll" even appear.

Reference 4

  • "John Arnott MacCulloch (1930). "Eddic Mythology, The Mythology of All Races In Thirteen volumes, Vol. II". Cooper Square Publishers. ISBN B000KZD0BG."

There is no Google Books preview for this that I could find, but the editors notes that a PDF of the work is provided for download here, from which pages 219–232 and 270 are cited.

Among pages 219 to 232 the word "troll" only appears a single time, and even then solely in the context of MacCulloch's overview of Norse elves; MacCulloch simply says that "[Alfar] are not said to be dangerous or mischievous, nor are they yet confused with evil trolls through Christian enmity to the old paganism" (p. 219). The Danish term "trold" briefly mentioned on page 224, which says:

Danish legend connects the elfin race with the rebel angels, who, when cast out of Heaven, fell into mounds or barrows — the Trold-folk, Bjerg-trolds, or Bjerg-folk-or into the moors-the Elver-folk or Elle-folk.”24 These Trold-folk differ from the Icelandic Trolls, and resemble the dwarfs. Their mounds, which contain treasure, may be seen raised on red pillars on S. John’s Eve, but they also dwell under human habitations, coming up into these through a hole. They wear dark clothing, and are described as like boys in size, or, as in Jutland, four feet high, with clumsy heads, red hair, and a red cap. They love dancing, and are friendly to men, but old ballads tell of their stealing maidens, and of the seductive power of their females over men.

This must be handled in context, notably the "these trold-folk differ" part is simply glossed over in the current text and is not handled with any care.

Page 270 is part of an overview by MacCulloch of trolls. While this summary is from 1930, MacCulloch's conclusions may be useful here, but not as they are cited—deductions and comparisons made by MacCulloch need to be specifically attributed to him. Further, MacCulloch does not mention trolls in connection with changelings or huldrefolk (despite the employment as a reference) and only mildly compares them to the "fairies" and "elfins", stating that "the stories told of them resemble those told elsewhere of fairies and elfins", and mentioning that the Scottish trows appear to have been influenced by Scottish "fairy beliefs" (again that problematic gloss).

  • Conclusion

As a whole, checking all of these references results in what the red flags of the text led me to suspect; original research repeatedly attributed to a jumbled mess of mixed sources. This is inappropriate and must be removed from the article. If the reliable sources used here are returned, strictly what they say must be appropriately attributed, whether by paraphrasing or caveat. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Add? per Talk:Michigan[edit]

Upper Peninsula residents sometimes refer to those from the Lower Peninsula of Michigan as "trolls" (they live below the Mackinac Bridge). (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

the article is about mythological trolls so it doesn't seem very relevant IMO. HotshotCleaner (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This terminology is, in fact, already noted on the page Troll (disambiguation), which is where it belongs—as HotshotCleaner implies above, this page is about mythological trolls specifically, not about any other meaning the word might have in different contexts (that's what the disambiguation page is for). ----Smeazel (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 November 2011[edit]

I need to upload a image that will help the article thumb|Blonde troll

Belt19 (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, not appropriate or helpful--Jac16888 Talk 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is global[edit]

As much Norse mythology has an admirable beauty, the Troll character and its variations are seen in several European literature. The article is not restricted to Norse mythology or any mythology, and the origin of these is not a restrictive factor to content. The article must have a worldwide view, should regard all these and not only the Norse/Scandinavian mythologies. A fact as distinct from an opinion or conjecture, ‘see also section’ of any “chiefly Norse” article is not a section dedicated only to the article itself (or to Norse culture), but designated to any plain or peripheral Wikipedia articles associated with the topic (whatever be its culture, country, subject, etc.) per guidelines. This is an English encyclopedia, not a Norse encyclopedia. In the same way that non-Norse articles link here, this article can link non-Norse articles (as usual in most articles of Wikipedia). Lines of commentaries added to links in see also, must be succinct, if they are painfully extensive (as was done here) then they need refs or can be shortened for making them appropriate, or removed. As we can tell, this article has been watched and disruptively edited to remove non-Norse themes (even the See also section) when they are added, what breaks the wiki policy. As happened when recently was added the links Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar (poem with a troll character), Troll (Iceland), Huldufólk (Iceland folklore), Pukwudgie (Wampanoag folklore), Fairy tale, etc, and then disruptively removed. This is an English encyclopedia with global topics (for example are valid subjects the links of history, geography, religion, scientific criticism, etc), any topic can be linked in any article since there is some connection to it. Dream of Nyx (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a being specific to the North Germanic sphere and the influence thereof. As the article should make clear, trolls are abstractly defined and there is no clear "troll archetype"—you seem highly confused. Most of the links you've added are already covered in the article (Huldufólk, Scandinavian folklore) and/or beings you've simply designated as similar for unknown reasons (Pukwudgie, ogre). In the case of the Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar attestation, it's one of many and just needs to be brought into the appropriate portion of the article body. This is not what "see also" sections are for. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Not really! A covered link it is not the same as an objective link (a written link). Until now the pointed links are not an explicit part of this article. Please refrain your edit war and your highly proclivity for making personal interpretations of what you regard appropriate. As patiently explained above, there are not such rules/constraints such as linguistic, cultural relations, archetypes, Germanic sphere, etc for what can be linked in an article. Don’t waste your time trying to call personal pretexts to keep this article apart from other mythologies or related subjects. This page will remain watched until you abide the Wikipedia guidelines. Again, this is not a Norse, Scandinavian, or Germanic encyclopedia, this is Wikipedia, a global encyclopedia. Dream of Nyx (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Is English your second language? I'm having a hard time understanding your syntax. Trolls are specific to the North Germanic sphere; there's no room for debate for that, and it's pure nonsense to attempt to claim otherwise. This article was written to conform with WP:GA standards and abides entirely by policy. Your attempt to add a section of "stuff that you feel are kind of like trolls" and links that already exist in the article isn't helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

See Also additions[edit]

Dream of Nyx (talk · contribs) wants to add culturally and linguistically unrelated beings to the "see also" section, apparently as they deem them to somehow be related. Further, user insists that trolls are not simply "Norse, Scandinavian, or Germanic", but evidently some sort of universal archetype. Further eyes would be useful. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what he wants to add.Curb Chain (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the edit in question: [7]. Note that what examples are either already handled in the body of the article ("As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes" at WP:SEEALSO) or are just random stuff the editor found and thought had some commonalities for unknown reasons (apparently based on something other than our troll article...). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Some examples were listed by user Dream of Nyx in the previous section, which are all appropriate links in my opinion. And I think extremely inappropriate the idea of "Germanic sphere" within Wikipedia defended by user Bloodofox, it sounds pretty bad, to say the least. Urbanarcher (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Urban, what sounds bad? Are you not familiar with the academic field of Germanic philology, Northern European history beyond the last hundred years, or, well, linguistics in general? Perhaps you should read Germanic languages—and note that it includes English—and follow it with Germanic peoples, particularly North Germanic peoples. Trolls are only attested among the records of the North Germanic peoples, specifically in Old Norse; they're as specific to the North Germanic peoples up until the Viking Age (and perhaps upon the rest of the Germanic peoples during the pre-Christian period, but no records survive attesting this) as the kappa is to the Japanese. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
As long this discussion awaits consensus, I warn both editors to refrain your edits, in particular user "bloodofox" who just has reverted edits for the third time, which is illegal. The thing is: the edits by editor "Dream" seem pertinent, therefore should be kept. The editor "bloodofox" has made effective contributions, however apparently other editors are allowed edit articles of Norse topics only if in accordance with bloodofox’s POV. Fortunately Wikipedia doesn't support any POV, so any article's edition should be large in scope as much possible. Academictask (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"Illegal"? Have you read WP:3RR? I have violated no reversion policy. And these additions, I should not, are unreferenced, and thus can be removed without consensus: WP:PROVEIT. The edits are not pertinent nor helpful, and most of the links are already handled in the body of the article ("As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes"—WP:SEEALSO), and the other links are just random links with no relation to the subject whatsoever (do explain what Pukwudgies and Ogres have to do with trolls!). I frequently work with editors, have produced around 50 GA articles on related subject matter, and have rewritten hundreds. Please refrain from absurd accusations such as "apparently other editors are allowed edit articles of Norse topics only if in accordance with bloodofox's POV"—this is complete and total nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you have done 3 consecutive reversions in a little over 24 hours. Fine, I take back the term illegal because is not formally wrong, but it is obvious to realize here just a technical play with the rules. Though I have not seen all those edited articles by you, I wonder them as very valuable contributions. However as we can see here, this is a good opportunity to you regard the issues pointed out in this discussion, and improve those articles if necessary. For example, I ask you: do they have texts or links to similar mythical entities described in distinct mythologies around the world? Or are they an exclusive part of this “Germanic realm” mentioned by you? If so, then they lack acceptance of other mythologies, and therefore they lack harmony with Wikipedia. Sleep on that. Academictask (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, first, I think it's appropriate to thank Dream of Nyx for being bold and diving in, and to thank Bloodofox for attempting to preserve the integrity of this article, as well as all others who have attempted to help with this situation. Next, I would like to suggest to Bloodofox, that Academictask's suggestion to refrain from editing the article, is to preserve not just the article, but also your own integrity in this situation. It could be see as bad faith if you don't take a break and let others come in and give some third party consensus on this situation, as you have requested. It is a very good suggestion, being that your former and current conversation and actions can be seen as WP:OWN and/or WP:GAME. As I assume that is not your intention, you might consider ceasing any further edits or reverts of the article, and maybe even take a few days break from this talk page to allow others to add their two cents. It would also be a good idea to consider not belittling the people who came here in response to your request for comment. No one here is acting in bad faith, and everyone is trying to help improve the article. You can't expect that all comments, will fit in with your POV on how this article should be written, and if you give it time, you might find more people siding with your perspective on how this article should be written, which won't happen if people feel you are just trying to force them to submit to your way of thinking. Remember also that it's hard to judge the syntax behind someones response when we can't see or hear the emotion that came with what they said, so be careful about not taking a personal offense at any responses to your RfC. I'm not saying you are, I am suggesting just to be cautious of not taking things to personally. =)
I know what it's like to be in the position where you feel you are doing right, but the consensus doesn't agree. It's frustrating and hard to handle, but the best action is no action in some situations, at least until things cool down. Consider stepping back and considering how you might be contributing to the problem, and how you might better approach the situation, so that everyone can get back to the article and deescalate any heated emotions.
Now, I am no expert in the subject of trolls, nor am I a "seasoned" wikipedian. However, I have spent a lot of personal time studying folklore as a personal hobby. That being said, I feel that the troll article should not be limited only to the Norse Germanic sphere or perspective. While I agree that verifiability is a priority, in the case of folklore I feel that WP:BLUE applies in this situation in terms of WP:PROVEIT, and if an overall consensus agrees that WP:BLUE applies, then the basic pillar WP:IGNORE would easily back up the nature of the argument that the troll article is much more beneficial to readers with some information that might not be specifically verifiable because of the nature of the subject, which would suggest that Dream of Nyx's additions were relevant and helpful to the article as a whole and deserve to be included, though care should be taken not to repeat links in the main body, in the "see also" section. Clearly there needs to be as much sourcing as possible, and not everything should be included, but it cannot reasonably be expected that all information in a folklore topic, will be verifiable from reputable sources. Unless of course, all information can be disproved or proven, in that case we can clearly side with WP:PROVEIT, though until then, I feel that WP:BLUE and WP:IGNORE should clearly stand, and that Dream of Nyx's additions should added/kept. Being that I am newer, I am curious would other third party contributors to this RfC feel about this?
On a side note, I haven't found any specific essays, guidelines or policies that specifically relate to verifying folklore. Am I missing it? This is clearly a sensitive subject, and if there isn't already an essay, policy, guideline as a subtopic of verifiability for folklore, I feel it would be prudent to create one. --Bema Self (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You mean North Germanic, not Norse. A few notes: I deal with academic comparative mythology, particularly Indo-European and often Germanic, on a daily basis, yes. Others accusing me of ownership simply because I know the first thing about what I'm talking about here is unconstructive and will, yes, result in corrections. It's undeniably a fact that trolls have been limited to the North Germanic sphere (in folklore and mythology) up until very recently (with the introduction of Scandinavian folklore outside of Scandinavia into popular culture). Now, comparative material is welcome, but you'll find it trouble to bring in because, as the article makes quite clear, the concept of a troll was abstract and unclear even in our earliest Old Norse records (step 1: read the article); as a result, someone's apparently Dungeon and Dragons-infleunced concept of trolls as basis for bringing in figures that have no relationship whatsoever to the subject—either in subject matter, by way of linguistic relation, or cultural affiliation—is unwelcome, and the fact that this amount of digital ink has been wasted on the subject is flatly ridiculous. Observe WP:SEEALSO—pull the links already in the body, quite adding unrelated crap to the article and wasting my time and anyone else's time who wants to contribute to this article with it. I have other articles to write, and this is enough of a time sink as is without someone coming along without the slightest knowledge of the subject matter and turning it into an edit war. Seriously, how ridiculous is this? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support verifiable Content Trolls from all mythology should be included here provided they have a respectable source. It would be interesting to see sources on the modern interpretation of trolls.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the RfC Gsonnenf. I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're saying, so feel free to correct me if I interpret your comment incorrectly - I agree that we should include all trolls from mythology, though as I have taken the time to look into the subject recently, as of this moment in time, there are no creatures specifically called "trolls" outside of Norse and Scandinavian Mythology. The word "troll" has it's roots in old Germanic languages, and no one verifiable has uncovered it outside of that sphere. There are some creatures that seem very similar to trolls in other cultures, though we are debating about the relevance of those relations in the section down below and whether or not they are worthy of this articles "see also" section. Feel free to come and join the conversation about "proposed new sections", or to help us out and with some extra Troll research. Your contributions would be greatly appreciated. =) --Bema Self (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
On the comment "trolls are not simply "Norse, Scandinavian, or Germanic", but evidently some sort of universal archetype." I believe, for modern depictions, this is absolutely true. The "Norse, Scandinavian, or Germanic" interpretation is appropriate for an origins section, but other analogous archetypes from different cultures should exist in this article. Take a look at the article vampire. Interpretations come from many cultures even though its etymology is narrow. If this RFC is simply about the addition in the "see Also" link, i believe see also is the wrong section for it. Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr is "culturally and linguistically" related and could fit nicely into the Norse section with additional context.Gsonnenf (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yikes. Consider reading a few things about what you're talking about before commenting on it. It seems that request for comment is basically useless if one expects commentators to do the slightest bit of background research prior to commenting. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your accusation that i did not read the RFC, please remove it. Also, please read the guidelines for RFC. Questions should be spelled out very clearly in neutral language and should typically contain actionable content. I read this RFC, and find the question posed is extremely vague, I'm not sure if you objecting to a single line or the general premise that troll mythology exists beyond "Norse, Scandinavian, or Germanic". This RFC contains a great deal of argument about etiquette wiki rules like 3 revert, wp:own, etc. That sort of thing should be debated outside the RFC as it wastes outside editors time. Gsonnenf (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of not reading the RfC, I accused you of not reading the troll article itself. Which you clearly didn't. And your statements only further illustrate that you're entirely confused about the subject matter, and haven't bothered to do basic reading on it prior to commenting on what should and should not be in the article. Good luck finding those "trolls from all mythologies" and sorting out "Norse, Scandinavian, or Germanic". :bloodofox: (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I also read the troll article, which I clearly did. I'm sorry you feel the need to belittle me because i disagree with you and think your RFC was improperly phrased. Thank you for you wish of good luck with finding additional material. I'm glad there are active authors such as Dream of Nyx who will help us find them. Gsonnenf (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As an uninvolved editor, on reviewing the article and its edit history I see a pattern of the non-assumption of good faith and article ownership on the part of the requestor, whose edit summaries and comments (for example, here) are borderline-uncivil. There's plenty of room for other editors' contributions. Miniapolis (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I regret that you have confused WP:OWN with, due to the popular culture position of this particular article, a general pattern of editors adding nonsense to the article without doing research at all, and then when corrected realizing their errors and fluttering away. I have regularly collaborated with numerous other editors over the years on hundreds of articles and have produced numerous Good Articles over the years (around 50, which can only result from working with others). My edit summary above I stand behind—it represents an evidently very real risk that I was unaware of prior; the RfC here essentially only attracted more problems and ridiculous accusations until Bema Self (talk · contribs) analyzed exactly what was going on (below), and Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) replied in turn. Obviously, I welcome other editors to contribute, but adding patent nonsense to an article is not contributing. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I wasn't aware that this is a pop-culture article; it doesn't seem that way to me, and the edits to which you object are not patent nonsense. Miniapolis (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of "trolls from all mythologies" can only be described as patent nonsense. And I didn't say that "this is a pop culture article", I commented on the attention it gets due to the place of the subject in modern pop culture. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Please provide verifiable sources to cite this content, or provide more information about any verifiable sources that are already cited, that I may have missed, and how they fit into wiki-standards?:

"A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore."
"In origin, the term troll was a generally negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology."

Also, please cite any truly verifiable sources that everyone can access, that trolls undeniably belong only in the category of North Germanic mythology/folklore?

Thanks! =) --Bema Self (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the article are a summary of its contents; see WP:LEAD. The body contains the citations for it. See any of the references used in the article, all of which are scholarly. Or any decent etymology for the word "troll", for that matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I'm glad the body contains sources for everything.. I do see them.... Though I'm having trouble figuring out where those citations and resources verify the two paragraphs in the Lead section or my third question about being limited to a Norse or Scandinavian sphere. According to WP:LEADCITE, leads must conform to WP:V, especially if challenged, in order to provide the best possible content for Wikipedia readers, which I'm sure you're well versed with already. If it weren't challenged by anyone, it would be fine. Though I am challenging it to double check for accuracy.
Now, the first reference for "The Fantastic in Old Norse/Icelandic Literature" leads to a 404 NOT FOUND..
The reference to "Dictionary of Northern Mythology" has another link with 404 Error, and the ISBN doesn't show up to any books named "Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend". I did however, find a link to the book on amazon here with an ISBN of "ISBN-10: 0859915131". I would also like the challenge the verifiability of it in terms of the reliability, as the description of the book clearly says it "Should be established as the standard work on its subject.", not that it IS the established standard. It also says "the sources of our knowledge about these societies are relatively few, leaving the gods of the North shrouded in mystery.". And according to a well thought out review from a reader here, although it's a fantastic reference book, it's full of inaccuracies and isn't completely reliable.
The next link to "Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend", shows a 404 Error.
The last resource to "Northern Mythology, Compromising the Principal Traditions and Superstitions of Scandinavia, North Germany, and the Netherlands: Compiled from Original and Other Sources. In three Volumes. Scandinavian Popular Traditions and Superstitions, Volume 2. Lumley." Doesn't even contain an ISBN number or anything, just a link to "Benjamin Thorpe". Is it just supposed to be a reference to him as a notable author or folklorist?
Now, I'll have to go to the library and maybe a bookstore to check on some of the other references, though I did find a few of them online, which I will add to the resources listed so others can see it to, but I couldn't find anywhere in it where it said that trolls were only found in Norse and Scandinavian folklore. What they did say, was that the term "Troll" and most variations of similar germanic terms, have only been found in Norse and Scandinavian up to this point, in writings translated mostly using a comparative method. Which doesn't necessarily mean that trolls are limited to Old Norse, it simply means that largest reference of trolls we have currently, are from Norse sources. I've found several other descriptions of creatures that would be "trolls" under different names in various different cultures that are as of yet, unconnected to Norse cultures.
I've also found a couple of sources that suggest Jotunn might be of Akkadian origin, though I don't feel those sources are completely reliable, so I am checking for better ones. Still though, is there any definite verifiable research that says Jotunn/Jotun is only of Norse origin?
Sticking with the "norse" theme, on the issue of the etymology of the word "troll", and it coming from the word "jötunn", This article and this wiki says that the word translates to "glutton", "man-eater", "blood thirsty", "towering person" and "giant". There are even links to the word "nisse" which relates to dwarfs and ogres (the danish call orges "trolls") as well, as I'm sure you already know. Shouldn't at least some of these beings be added to the "see also" section or incorporated into the article? They are clearly about or related to the topic of trolls. They are all available on wikipedia and most of them link to this troll page already.
And what about Ymir? He is notable as the "father" of the "jötunn", if I read everything correctly. Doesn't that kind of make him "father of the trolls"?
According to the resources already listed where James MacCulloch makes a connection between "trolls" and "spirits of the dead", couldn't that link the subject to "ethereal beings"?
On the note of "fairytales" being added to the see also section, a troll is written about by the brothers grimm in Three Bill Goats Gruff (among other fairy tales), which is a notable enough story to have it linked here, or at least to have "fairy tales" in the see also section. Also, the already listed reference for "The Good People: New Fairylore Essays" is a book about "fairy lore" which is essentially "fairy tales". It is in the Old Norse sphere, so there shouldn't be a problem there. I do see that "fairies" is in the main body, however, that link doesn't go to anything about fairy tales, and I don't see a link anywhere in the body that does go to "fairy tales".
I would also like to contest the phrase in the first paragraph where it says trolls are "rarely helpful to human beings", as many of the resources already listed, do not directly say this and some even say that they are helpful when pacified by one ritual or another. I cannot find any other sources that directly say that Trolls are "rarely" unhelpful (except after the christian era took over), though there are plenty of sources that would "suggest" that they "often" unhelpful. So if there is verifiable source that does, I'd love to see it cited there.
Thanks =) --Bema Self (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Jötunn, Thurs, Troll, and a few other terms are part of a complex of terms that appear to be related but are so abstract on record that it has thus far been historically very problematic for scholars to differ between them; some modern translators have even slipped into the poor practice of simply glossing all but "troll" as "giant" (which would be like glossing samurai as warrior dude). Troll used as a Danish gloss for ogre is simply bad glossing; English translators frequently gloss thurs as ogre. Any relation to Ymir is not stated in the source texts (I recently rewrote the Ymir article, actually—still working on it).
The Benjamin Thorpe reference is to a 19th century collection, thus no ISBN. This can be found online, probably through Google Books or I found a few of the volumes in PDF format that way. Keep sorting through the references here and it should be pretty clear where these beings are attested; i.e. Old Norse and Scandinavian folklore. Otherwise, just grab hold of an etymology dictionary if you want further confirmation (i.e. you won't find the word attested outside of Old Norse or its descendants). Please do not use other wikis or sites about cryptozoology as sources, they are too poor a reference to even discuss. Lindow's (including his medieval folklore handbook), Orchard's, and Simek's handbooks are the modern standard handbooks for this subject matter. See any of them for further confirmation. I fully agree with the review you've cited, but, as it says, it's indispensable as of now.
You are mistaken about "Three Billy Goats Gruff". This tale was collected from Norway and does not appear in the Grimms' Kinder- und Hausmärchen. And the "ethereal beings" article is currently about to see some major rewriting—if not deletion—as it's an absolute mess; MacCulloch's theory of "spirits of the dead" does not qualify listing a troll as "spirits of the dead", and they certainly do not appear as such in the Old Norse or Scandinavian folklore record. "Fairy tale" is a problematic term that isn't applicable here; "Scandinavian folklore" is more specific and perfectly accurate. If something is "rarely helpful" then it's "often unhelpful". Some wording is employed to avoid copyright infringement.
I'd consider this whole matter a waste of my time, but you seem to be picking up some information, so I'm glad to help. :bloodofox: (talk)
Thank you for your reply. I'm glad to learn and contribute, as well as to understand everyone's perspectives. Aside from a few errors I've made (like asking for an ISBN from a book from the 19th century, lol), most of these questions might seem redundant, but they are relevant in terms of helping other contributors (and myself) understand why this troll article is so dramatically limited and how we can improve the content of the article in as factual a manner as possible for such a subjective topic. I understand that when you work with a subject on a regular basis, it gets frustrating trying to explain something to those without the same expertise, especially multiple times. Though I also know that we are all very reasonable and patient people, who understand that it's important for everyone involved with contributing with this article (currently or in the future), to have tactful and civil conversations that don't accuse or devalue anyone's contributions, and that get the root of the content problems without biting or turning away new contributors. That way we can stop going in circles with the content, and maybe try a spiral formation instead, lol, which would be preferably, wouldn't it?
Now, 4GM for not understanding and because I can't find any academic resources online that explain the major differences, but how is the Troll not related to cryptozoology (or vice versa)? I understand that Cryptozoology is mainly the study of mythical or myth-like creatures, and folkloristics is not nearly as limited because of all the social aspects of expressive culture. Though wouldn't cryptozoology in essence be a smaller part of a folkloristic "big picture"?
I also understand that there are historical texts and documented cultures with oral traditions passed on about Trolls, though I wonder why those are not considered anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings (which is what is says that cryptozoology and Folklore are both based off of)? Are there some key differences I'm missing here? I know that there are definitely creatures which don't match up with all evidence from past records or traditions that have no relevance to trolls, though that doesn't discount all creatures, does it? Just to be clear, I'm not standing up for any cryptozological sites or wikis, as I agree that many are unreliable, I'm just questioning the differences between Cryptozoology and the Folkloristic study of mythical creatures, for a better understanding to avoid any future mistakes on my part.
I agree that we don't want to link to every silly thing that might be related to trolls, though IMHO, this article could utilize more connections rather then exclude them, especially since there is such controversy surrounding the etymology of the word "troll" and of the connections to other troll-like creatures from other cultures. An example might be the Pukwugie, which while obviously not the same exact creature as the Trolls cited from Norse myths, it certainly carries undeniable similarities that could easily be noted in this article. Maybe there's a potential the myth carried over in earlier continental times?
On the issue of the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" being written by the Brothers Grimm, I offer my apologies, I attributed that story to the wrong lore-collectors, which in this case are actually Asbjørnsen and Moe. I found several sites that said they were Grimm fairy tales, which clearly isn't correct. Though with that correction in mind, it's still a very notable story that relates to trolls, isn't it? I found this site that seems to have translated the poem from the original source, though I don't know if it fits WP:V enough to be used... what do you think? Can that information be added to this article? And what about other poems by these lore-collectors that include trolls? Maybe just a link to the authors?
About Ymir, I'm curious as to how he can't relate to trolls, being that he is the father of all Jotunn, according to this encyclopedic article and the Ymir article here on wikipedia. If the word "Troll" originates from the word "Jotunn", and "Ymir" is the big-daddy of all "Jotunn", isn't he the father of all trolls? Is that comparative?
On the other issues, thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions/challenges. I will squelch the "ethereal being" or "spirits of the dead" issue until I can get a better understanding of the problem with the wiki pages and/or find any definite historical links/texts to back up the troll/ethereal being connection.
Thank you to everyone who can supply answers to my questions, and to anyone contributing to this conversation. I appreciate everyone's patience with me, and in the matter of ever growing this great wikipedia article. Just think of it as Henry Glassie does in "The Moral Lore of Folklore" when he says "Arguments over the definition of folklore are not like arguments over the boiling point of water. No instrument can test their accuracy, no artificial rules can silence them. Each generation must state the definition anew, debate it afresh, because folklore's definition is not factual and free of value. Its virtue is that it is charged with values, saturated with opinions about how one ought to live in the world." --Bema Self (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Cryptozoology is an pseudo-science with nothing to do with academia. Folkloristics is the academic study of folklore. As a result, cryptozoology is useless for our purposes here, whereas scholars working in the realm of folklore are a vital element. What are these "undeniable similarities" between the pukwudgie and trolls? The article you mention is just a Wikipedia mirror. Regarding Ymir, we can cite scholars making a connection, but a connection made on our own falls into the category of WP:OR. Regarding "Three Billy Goats Gruff"-like tales, tales not containing trolls are beyond the scope of this article. Like all folklore mentioning trolls, it can be integrated into the article, but we need published, solid sources, not websites. Checkout, if you aren't aware of it already. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the specs between Cryptozoology and Folkloristics. On Pukwudgie, from the pictures and descriptions I've seen, they look very similar to trolls and seem to be like them. I'm still trying to figure out how to put pictures up, so I could show one of the pukwugie, though I can't find any reliable sources for those myths, so that's obviously not going to work until someone publishes or writes about them in a more folkloristics way.
On the bill goats gruff issue, I can totally understand no tales not about trolls. That's definitely beyond the scope of this article. Though the three billy goats gruff could be included right? And if I find any other stories that are relevant, they could also exist in this article, right?
As for the issue with Ymir, I apologize, because I found a better source (which I've posted below in the "new sections proposal", that actually links a different figure as the "father of trolls", and IMHO shows that Ymir would actually be more like the "grandfather" to trolls....
Thanks again for everyones patience and great answers. =) --Bema Self (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. As for the "Pukwudgie" comparison, this isn't valid. For one, as the article states, trolls are sometimes said to look exactly like everyone else, simply not being Christian or somehow supernatural. Modern depictions of squat creatures with colorful hair do not mesh with the historical record. Regarding folklore featuring trolls, a section concisely covering this issue would be very difficult. At the moment what we're doing is treating them on general terms, as quite a lot of such tales likely sit untranslated in folk archives. It's not as easy a task as with, say, figures in Norse mythology. But, sure, I don't see how we can't mention Three Billy Goats Gruff somehow, as famous as it is in some English-speaking regions. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed New Sections - Seeking Consensus[edit]

Okay, I am going to lay out these proposals as smoothly as possible. I've done a ton of research, and have tried to stay as "academic" as one can in terms of myth and lore. Not all of these ideas are gonna work, but I've narrowed them down to the ones I feel would logically fit this article this best, and which ones would benefit the article the most. I think these sections would all benefit the comprehensiveness of this troll article, while still staying within the intended "main" topic. Though I'd like to gain a consensus on these additions, to see what will work and what won't. Just to warn ya, there is a fair bit of reading, because I've included many of the resources where I found this information.

  • If you don't feel these exact sections would be good, please consider what ways we might incorporate this information in other ways into this article, instead of just tossing it all aside. I've been having fun learning and I hope that maybe these ideas can give everyone in this conversation something to do that will help expand on Trolls. Thanks!
  • If I've brought up issues that have already been gone over, I apologize, I tried to refrain from bringing up any former issues that I couldn't find references for, though I haven't been through all the archives, so I might have brought up some things that some have taken the time to explain why they aren't relevant. Please just let me know! =)

New Section Proposals[edit]


So that 'everyone' can be clear about the true root meaning of trolls - and there's no "glossing" - an etymology section would be terrific, so that readers will know where the word troll originally came from and how to find distinctions in other words that are not "trolls" but may include the word (like trollcraft).

  • This seems straightforward - I often drop an "Etymology" section in - see for instance Sihuanaba. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


A list of terms commonly confused like the ones we get from "jotunn" (by experts and newbies alike) and a brief explanation as to why those terms are not valid for trolls.

An example might be the "Nisse", Hudlrefolk or Vitterfolk, which seem to fit more clearly to elves, dwarfs, gnomes, bogles or brownies (at least from what I've seen). Another example might be the association with trolls as a term for witches and witchcraft, I think the word is Trolldom or Trollcraft?

Other terms that could be added are the danish reference to ogres as trolls or The Draugen or Sea-Draug (Sea Trolls) could be here as well, as they are clearly more like mermaids, but there are references to them being "trolls".

"Tusser" looks more to be goblins according to this, should that term also be in this glossary?

  • I don't think a glossary of "things that aren't trolls" is particularly encyclopedic, this information if it is included should be wrapped up in a paragraph of text, or as a footnote. If these things aren't specifically likened to trolls in reliable sources, they shouldn't be included at all, except perhaps in the "See also" section if obvious similarity exists. If troll is used as a term for witches then it should be included in a subsection of its own. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Types of Trolls[edit]

I've found several references to various types of trolls - here and here. They all seem to have good references to non-fictional books or information.

Some examples would be:

  • Jætte (Giant Trolls)
  • Gammeltrollet (Elder Trolls)
  • Subterranean Mountain Trolls
  • Tomte's and The Tusselader(Tiny Trolls)
  • Risse-Gubben (Forest Trolls) (looks like these could be better know as elves...)
  • Fire Trolls? (of ragnarok)
  • The "Fossegrimen" (Waterfall Troll)
  • Tomte-Gubben (Dancing Trolls)
  • Nokken (lake and well trolls) *also the "Brun-Nokken" (who lived only in wells, *maybe as a disambig?)
  • Hauge-Bokken & Bjerg-Trolde (Hill Trolls)
  • Fjell-Trollet, Jutuls & Bergtroll (Mountain Trolls)
  • Haugtrold (mound-trolls)
  • Ysätters-Kajsa (Wind Trolls)
  • Skovtrolde (Wood Trolls)
  • Gygr or Gygr - Troll-Wife
  • "She-Trolls"

If any of these "types" would better belong in a glossary because they are more or less "noxious" terms for any 'supernatural being', with a brief explanation as to why they are there instead, I can understand that. I'm curious to learn as to why they'd be there.

  • Try not to let your own opinion of what constitutes a troll influence your decision to include it - if a reliable (preferably academic) source refers to something as a troll (even though you think it might be an elf instead) then it should be included if the article is to be comprehensive. Although referencing a folktale is better than nothing, referencing a study of a folktale is much better. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Famous Trolls[edit]

Some famous troll names I've found. Obviously not all are going to be a match, and some could use to be in a glossary section instead.

  • Grendel
  • Dunker
  • Ymer
  • Bøygen
  • Hrungne
  • Gryla
  • Trym
  • Geirrød
  • Æge
  • "Troll-Kjerring" was a Troll woman who carried her head around under her arm and liked to be around people full of hatred.
  • Tobi-tre-fot, or Tobi Wooden Leg was the meanest Troll. He would sneak up behind people and kick them with his knobby wooden leg.
  • Vesle-tomten caused trouble with the farm animals by whispering in horses ears telling them to be disobedient.
  • "Lange-Nesen" or Long Nose had a very long nose and was forever putting it where it did not belong.
  • Thorgerd or Thorgerdr - A Finnish Goddess later called a Troll. (maybe she is better in the glossary under "trollcraft" or "witches"?)
  • Huldar Saga ("Saga of a great Troll woman")
  • "Thusser" or Troll Decendants (sp?) or Half-Trolls
  • Jutulen was a troll-like figure who could take on the appearance of a human being and ride his sledge through the skies.
  • Again, if you want to avoid this article degenerating into a mere series of lists avoid a glossary and wrap up all this information in paragraphs of text. If you really want all this listed somewhere, it can either be summarised in a table or in a separate List of trolls in folklore or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I hear you. I wasn't necessarily trying to suggest sections full of lists. In the case of "famous trolls" and "types of trolls", I was thinking it could be more comprehensive in the details and explanation where the information can be found. Though I do love your idea for a list of trolls in folklore. =) --Bema Self (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll Legends[edit]

Such as legends about Olaf and Mountain Trolls, legends about Odin and Trolls - including Geirroed ("go where the trolls may get you!") or Loki and Trolls. What about Helgi and Hedin and Trolls?

  • Certainly include brief summaries of these legends, these really are the core subject and should be somewhere near the beginning. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll Associated Geography[edit]

What about geographic locations name for or associated with Mythical Trolls?

The troll under the fremont bridge is already listed, it could lead a section like this very easily. Others might be:

  • The "troll ladder" in Romsdal, Norway
  • Jotunheimen National Park (sometimes called "Trollebotten") which is "home of the giants" in Norway.
  • Trollveggen "The Troll Wall", which is a part of the mountain Massif Trolltindene or "Troll Peaks" in Romsdal Valley, Norway.
  • Trollstigen Road.
  • Trollkyrka (trolls church) mountain in Sweden.
  • Jarnvior, where troll women bore giantesses and giant wolves
  • the White Sea or Gandvik (the Bay of Trolls)
  • The Antarctic "Trolltunga ice tongue"
  • This could be wrapped up into a paragraph under the etymology section, preferably with a breakdown of the meaning of the placename, maybe even a sentence or two about why it is associated with trolls, if anything is known from folklore. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern Troll Lore[edit]

In here we could include more recent lore about trolls, and depending on what you consider to be recent, we could include some of the demonization from abrahamic religions, such as the Troll turning into the Incubus in Christianized myths, or stories about the people who have been spirited away by trolls known as the "Bergtagna", which is already in the wiki and could just be added to this new section. There are already some other good "modern lore" passages about trolls and "church bells" in this wikipage among other things, so it would fit to give modern troll lore its own section, and help to make a distinction between origins and modern lore.

We might also consider adding "tooth trolls" or a few words about people who believe they've encountered mythical trolls in our current age, or maybe at that to the glossary?. There are also similar modern stories that talk of "hidden folk" including trolls, such as this construction incident in iceland. I'm looking for more and better "modern troll lore". Anyone else know of any?

There are also some amusing passages here about trolls from a more modern era (1920's). Are they relevant?

  • All this is certainly relevant. The changing concept of how a troll is perceived is of great interest, I think, and certainly shouldn't be downplayed just because it's from the past couple of hundred years. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll in Art[edit]

Ancient and modern, if we're talking about "folk" lore, art is very relevant. We could include such things as "Trold der vejrer kristenblod" by Niels Hansen Jacobsen (1861-1941)

This section might also include poetry, I'm not sure if the two poems already place in the wiki would go here, or if they are not considered "poems", though I feel this one from the Danish Ballad of Eline of Villenskov, where a description of the physical aspects of trolls within Scandinavian mythology, and it would fit nicely within an art category:

"There were seven and a hundred Trolls,
They were both ugly and grim,
A visit they would the farmer make,
Both eat and drink with him.
Out then spake the tinyest Troll,
No bigger than an emmet was he,
Hither is come a Christian man,
And manage him will I surelie."
Also, are there any thoughts about adding old songs to this section? Or what about composers famous for troll songs, such as Edvard Grieg?
  • A paragraph would not be amiss, but I suspect this is deserving of an article in its own right... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll-Like Creatures from Other Cultures[edit]

Some might be:

  • Hmmm. I think these should just be in the See also section - I think they are outside the scope of an article of trolls, unless there is a comparitive study available which you could use to produce a paragraph or two upon similarities with other cultures. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll Artifacts/Magic[edit]

This section is kind of a leap in the dark. I've found references to old legends that include things like "Troll-Iron" (used by Thor against Loki), as well as the "Troll-Rune" - Thurisaz.

A reference to Troll-Made Armor is seen is several places as well.

Could we consider adding Thor's Hammer here as well? Since it was made to "never to miss a troll"

  • A paragraph summarising this information should be fine. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No:
  • The Troll-iron (Swedish: "trolljärn") in that story denotes iron that is hexed or magical, not iron made by trolls.
  • The so called "Troll-Made Armor" they describe in the article you linked was made by dwarves (in the linked article called "duergar", same word as Swedish "dvärgar" = dwarves), not trolls.
  • When that same fanciful site says that Thor's hammer would never miss a troll, that is an embellishment. The hammer never missed what it was thrown at. It was not designed to be thrown specifically at trolls, even if that's what Thor is said to throw his hammer at most often.
  • As for the rune called Thurs or Thurisaz, it's not clear what specific rune or symbol is meant, and we can't just straight up assume that thursar and trolls are the same creatures (I think it's fairly likely that they are, but I have never seen proof of it.)
  • For these reasons I can't agree that a paragraph summarising that information would be any good. It would be full of errors and it would lead people to the site you quoted which is even more full of errors. That site may well have some religious value, since it seems to be written by mystics or poets devoted to the old gods, but it's not scientific. (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Troll Origins[edit]

This is another section I'm not sure if we can do the right way... But I think the idea is worth debating. I will go back and apologize in my former challenge about "Ymir being father of trolls", as I have found passages suggesting that he might actually be the "Great-Gran-Daddy" of trolls, as Berlmir seems to be the one who survived and had a race of giants, one race of which were known as "trolls". Any thoughts? Has anyone seen a "family tree" of sorts that might explain how it was thought that trolls were first "born" or "made", and how other "trolls" (that we now know as dwarfs, elves, gnones, mermaides, etc...) became separate beings?

I've also seen some references to Trolls being created during the age of Druids in the 10th and 11th centuries... I can't figure out which reference uses this though, and I've only found it here.

  • A discussion of the origin of trolls is certainly relevant and could be broken into two subsections - how trolls were believed to have originated (ie. troll origins from within the body of folklore) and an analysis of the development and origins of troll belief (ie. troll development in culture). Simon Burchell (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


References for these proposed new sections include the ones already on this wiki, and these:

  • Not this one - it does not look like a reliable source. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is fine. Just be sure to cite the original work (not, although providing the url is fine). Simon Burchell (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This doesn't seem to be a reliable source to me, but might be worth getting a second opinion. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should not use other wikipedia pages as references. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is fine. The book would be even better. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This one doesn't even mention trolls, so is irrelevant. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Oni" from Japanese folklore
  • This is a wikipedia page, and shouldn't be used as a reference. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The Wendingo (this one could be considered a gloss-over... it does say "ogre or troll-like"....)
Comment Take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to get a better idea of what consitutes a decent source for your article. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Myths, Legends and Heroes edited by Daniel Anlezark
  • Norse Mythology - Legends of Gods and Heroes
  • Faye s Norske Folke-Sagn. Cliristiania, 1844
  • The Scottish Historical Review > # Vol. 7, No. 28, Jul., 1910 > The Origin of the Fairies
  • A Time for Trolls, Fairy Tales from Norway, by Asbjornsen and Moe, translated by Joan Roll-Hansen, Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag, Oslo, Norway, 1974, ISBN 82-518-0081-1
  • Great Swedish Fairy Tales, by various authors, translated by Holger Lundbergh, Illustrated by John Bauer (1882-1918) , Delacorte Press, 1973
  • Huff and Puff and the Troll Hole (The Gnomes of Pepper Tree Forest), by Don Arthur Torgersen, Childrens Press, Chicago, 1984, ISBN 0-516-03744-7
  • In the Days of Giants, A Book of Norse Tales, by Abbie Farwell Brown, Illustrated by E. Boyd Smith, Houghton Mifflin, 1902
  • Norse Gods and Giants, by Ingri and Edgar Parin DíAulaire, Doubleday,1967, ISBN 0-385-04908-0
  • The Nisse from Timsgaard, Retold by Virginia Allen Jensen from Vilhelm Bergsoe, Illustrated by Ib Spang Olsen, Coward,McCann & Geoghegan, Inc NY, 1972, LOCCC # 72-76690
  • The Search for Trollhaven, by Odd Bjerke and Meredith Motson, R.O. Beatty Press, Boise, Idaho, 1977
  • The Tomten and also The Tomten and the Fox, by Astrid Lindgen, Illustrated by Harald Wiberg, Putnum and Grosset NY, 1997, ISBN 0-698-11592-9
  • Troll, Theodor Kittleson (1857-1914) Illustrator and author, edited by Erik Borge. SFG Oslo, Norway , ISBN 82-04-06641-4
  • Trolls of Norway, by Arthur (Grandpa) Stavig, Ellis Robinson Publishing Company, South Dakota, 1972, ISBN 0-912488-03-4
  • The Scandinavian Troll, Its Life and History by Frid Ingulstad, illustrated by Svein Solem
  • Deutsche Mythologie, p. 413
  • Mythology of Greece and Italy, p. 248, second edition
  • Tales and Popular Fictions, p. 274
  • Bartholin, de Contempt. a Dan. Morte, p. 275
  • "Huldar Saga" Sturlunga Saga - Kålund's edition, II, 325
  • M. Olsen, Om troldruner (Fordomtima II, Uppsala 1917) p. 19 ff. (=Edda V, p. 235 ff.) — On procession days, cf. Joh. Th. Storaker, Tiden i den norske Folketro (Norsk Folkeminnelag II), Christiania 1921, p. 97
  • Saint Olaf. Cf. K. Liestøl, Norske trollvisor og norrøne sogor (Christiania 1915), p. 45 ff.
  • Comp. Thorsdrapa, pp. 1G-22
  • Thiodolf hin Hvinerske s poem Hostlanga
  • Geijer s Svea Hikes Iliifder, p 276.
  • Thor Helgeson: Schoolmaster and Raconteur by Einar Haugen (Volume 24: Page 3)
  • Folktro från förr , Ebbe Schön (2001), ISBN 91-7203-420-3
  • Troll och människa , Ebbe Schön (1999), ISBN 91-27-06873-0
  • Svensk folktro A-Ö , Ebbe Schön (1998), ISBN 91-518-2892-8
  • Trollmakter og godvette , Olav Bø (1987), ISBN 82-521-2923-4
  • Camilla Asplund Ingemark's - The Genre of Trolls. (The Case of a Finland-Swedish Folk Belief Tradition - the first doctoral dissertation in Finland on traditional forest trolls. Her research describes trolls according to the folklore of Swedish-speaking Finns. Ingemark compares the style and content of troll tales in folklore with biblical stories.)
  • The Mighty She-Trolls of Icelandic Saga and Folktale by Martin Puhvel, Vol. 98 ii,1987
  • A Promise is a Promise (Classic Munsch) by Robert Munsch ISBN-10: 1550370081
  • Myths and Mysteries of Washington

If I have added any sites or references from any gaming sites, or sites that wouldn't conform with WP:V in terms of folklore or mythology, I didn't do so knowingly. Everything looks good as far as I can tell, but I listed everything so that the "experts" in this convo can help everyone decide what's verifiable and whats not, and because it will take me FOREVER to try and track down some of these books. Many I have found through Google Scholar though, and look fine. =)

I hope if nothing else, that this drawn out proposal, can help us create a broad and comprehensive article that we can all be proud of. One that any researcher can be proud of stumbling upon. =)

Thank you for everyone whose taken the time to help mold these sections and the information I've found, to fit in this troll article, if I've suggested anything that an expert would consider "redundant", please forgive me. I'm trying to fill in the blanks of my "troll knowledge", and this info might also help new comers trying to contribute to this page, whom also don't have this knowledge. --Bema Self (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't gone through the book list but have dropped comments everywhere else. As far as books go, aim for studies on folklore and mythology rather than children's fiction. It looks like there are some great sources on your list (such as "The Genre of Trolls. (The Case of a Finland-Swedish Folk Belief Tradition") and some terrible ones (such as "Huff and Puff and the Troll Hole (The Gnomes of Pepper Tree Forest)"). All the best on your article, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Media Depictions[edit]

There should be a section with media depictions on Trolls. Many video games, books and movies depict trolls (not necessarily Jotunar). One addition should be The_Troll_Hunter which is a great film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a modern fiction section would be compliment this article greatly.Gsonnenf (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 :33 < How could you pawssibly furget to mention Homestuck? (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


What on earth is a negative synonym? "one of the meanings of the term troll was a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not an antonym, if that's what you are thinking. It's a derogatory synonym. Sparkie82 (tc) 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


In the reader feedback, I noticed that a number of readers came here looking for Internet trolls and apparently it didn't occur to them to use the hatnote to go to the disambiguation page. Since it was a pretty common complaint on the feedback page I took the liberty of putting direct links to both Troll (Internet) and Troll (disambiguation) on the top of the page. I think it works better that way, even if it really should be unnecessary. Sjö (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

is there any etymology between troll and thrall?[edit]

Are they cognate? (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if they are cognate. A good line of investigation might be to see whether Old Norse references to trolls use a TH symbol (e.g. a thorn) to spell the word: in modern Norwegian (and Swedish, Danish) the old TH sound has long been replaced by a T sound (e.g. "tri" for "three"). However, from what I can gather about trolls, they are reputed to have magical powers - as described by the English verb "enthrall" (cause somebody to become spellbound). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No th in Old Norse. Enthrall originally meant "enslave". The sense of magic is a more recent development. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Faulkes vs. Lindow Translation[edit]

In my opinion Lindow is wrong with his Translation. What we know from Old Languages is that it was very narrow. We say: He is eating a fish. While in those Old languages it would be Narrowed to only important words: He eat Fish.

If I then only look to the first sentence, Lindow is wrong as otherwise the Old Norse would be: Kalla mik Troll (Call me Troll -> They call me a Troll). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversions by Greedo8[edit]

So recently a bunch of unreferenced stuff involving tales, etc, in Norwegian folklore was added to the introduction, a bunch of pop culture stuff without reference was added, and the ever-inappropriate "fairies" category was thrown on to the article. I've removed these changes but they keep getting reverted by Greedo8 (talk · contribs)—what's the deal? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a good revert, but for somewhat different reasons. The popular culture section had to go not because it was unsourced. It had to go because because it was only a list of examples without any comment, which is discouraged per WP:POPCULTURE. That said, I think that the article could benefit from a section describing the cultural impact of the old stories. Sjö (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You should have discussed the changes after I reverted the first time as per WP:BRD. Your removal of content was not limited to only unsourced "pop culture stuff", but also spelling corrections and links. Greedo8 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you have BRD backwards -- you were bold and your edit was reverted -- you should have begun discussion before attempting to re-instate your edit. olderwiser 02:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
My "bold edit" was to link Denmark to the wiki page. Bloodofox reverted numerous edits by users dating back months. Greedo8 02:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. In that case BRD really doesn't apply. Bloodofox should have been more selective in what she/he was reverting and you didn't have to revert removal of the garbage to restore the link to Denmark. Trout all around. olderwiser 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Text Wall[edit]

I do agree with the assumptions of Neanderthal origins of the terms ' troll ' and ' little people '. It has been recently proven that current humans carry a small portion of Neanderthal genes and that the interbreeding stopped a long time ago. The physical description of Neanderthals is that they were about half the current human height and much more heavily built, with bones and muscles about twice the width of current humans. It is suspected that they had red hair, a trait commonly found in the areas invaded by the Vikings. The Neanderthals ate mainly animal meats and used herbs and wild plants. This reliance on their environment would partly explain their physical size differences, as well as being partly due to their genetic differences. If some remnants changed to current european diets their size would likely change and they would become taller upon eating dairy foods as asian people do. The Neanderthals were known to have used caves and tools for woodcrafting so they probably also built simple wooden shelters which have not survived time. They are known to have lived in wooded areas as their skills were in hunting at close range. These wooded areas receded to the north and Scandinavia with the Roman invasions. The Romans carried as a part of their culture the removal of large forests and the creation of fields and crop lands. It was probably also a military tactic as recorded history shows their opponents sheltered in the woods. With a distant human memory of the Neanderthals, recorded as we do in tales and folklore, it is likely that there were remnants of the Neanderthals on the outskirts of the Roman empire where caves and forests remained. It has been stated elsewhere that attitudes to the little people varied from place to place, so some humans may have sheltered them from the Romans and kept their actual existence secret. Hence ' the fairies at the bottom of the garden '. Their knowledge of herbal use and woodcrafting skills would have been valuable in/to a friendly neighbour. The Romans and the Roman Catholic Church outlawed many things and many people, and particularly ' the old ways ' and herbal use. The ones who were not killed would have lived on the outskirts of society and been wary of strangers. It is likely that the existing terms ' troll ' and ' little people ' a long time ago passed from being used to refer to the Neanderthals to being used to refer to any outcast people who avoided or were shunned by society. Findings of Neanderthal skeletal remains in Scandinavia would add an element of scientific proof to these theories. Other legends are regarded as as close to proof as we are likely to get after such a passage of time. In the absence of common written languages in those areas at the times these legends were created, and the hostility and remoteness of Roman historians from them, it is not surprising that no Roman recordings are made of them. Science, material facts and Roman writings do not encompass all known things and Wikipedia would be acting as an arm of the Catholic Church if it continued the denial of the existence of all things outside the Catholic and Science cultures. Why is a landscape beautiful ? Why is one landscape beautiful to one person and disliked by another ?Cderfvbgt (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but we would need a reliable source that presents that idea before we can put it in the article. Sjö (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

troll and possible neanderthal connections[edit]

Thanks for your " possibly " comment. This is the source based on a variety of reading, heritage and observation. Some further research along these lines by the esteemed reliable sources would be helpful. For example what is the distribution in current populations of the chromosome marker for red hair, or actual red haired people. Does that distribution coincide with the distribution of the chromosome marking the distribution of the early Scandinavian tribes ? This is nicely mapped showing their continued heritage both in their traditional lands and in the lands of their Viking raids, and shown in Wikipedia's north Germanic tribes articles.Cderfvbgt (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with Trolls. And you must cite the sources you are gathering this information from as per WP:NOR. Greedo8 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, by consensus, not unanimous but IMO clear. Andrewa (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

– I ask that the pages above be moved appropriately to avoid this confusion. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose mythological trolls frequently appear in fiction, in the modern day, just waltz into a book store, or look at fantasy television/movies. -- (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but I like the idea that people would be confused Face-smile.svg Red Slash 00:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see any reason for this. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, at first glance, I didn't see the point, either. But Some Gadget Geek offers the proposal, and stated evidence for it, originally discussed almost exactly eleven years ago in his section reference. While not compelling, when I looked at the disam page, I realized how wide a scope the term has, and why the simple term needs to point straight to the disam page: The software just can't (or shouldn't) read my mind. I support this.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds of long-term significance. The creatures of myth and legend would be familiar to readers of fairy tales to fantasy novels like the Discworld series. As to the statement in the above section People today almost never hear what a Norse troll, as they play a significant role in the fifth highest-grossing film and highest-grossing animated film of all time, a film which came out only fifteen months ago, I would have to disagree. The coming generation is well aware of what a troll is. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:RECENTISM. Other meanings may come and go, but a troll will still be a mythological creature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is a clear primary meaning. The other uses are derivative.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.