Talk:Nordic folklore

Irrelevant Subsections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gjenganger / skrømt

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

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

Problematic article from a folkloristic point of view

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

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

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

Other candidates

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