Jump to content

Talk:Undine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.65.113.96 (talk) at 12:01, 15 May 2024 (→Olive Schreiner, Renee Vivien, Jean Giraudoux: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

sourcing comment

Taken from Ondine's curse

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotel (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 August 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is Lawrence a Greek name? —Vivacissamamente 13:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At that, what is a knight doing in a tale from Greek mythology? It conforms to the medieval legend of the undine, but it does not seem to match otherwise. Goldfritha 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothing

I put in introductory information about the race of undines, but I don't think I smoothed out the flow from that to the fairy tale "Undine"; I'm not sure how to go about it. Goldfritha 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Editing To-Do

This page alternatively uses both "Ondine" and "Undine;" we should pick one and use it consistently. Also, there are no references given in the "Sleep" section, and I'm not sure it's appropriate as-written. Shiftychica (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

I am not comfortable with the tone set under "Characteristics," which seems to be telling me where I can go out and meet a nymph. Thoughts? Shiftychica (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in re: Gaspard de la nuit

I removed an extensive passage (link here) which was mostly about the piano piece Gaspard de la nuit, which I did not believe was appropriate. Since my earlier deletion was reverted, I'd like to explain why I deleted the passage in the first place. There are various problems with the passage, and unless these problems are fixed, I seriously object to the inclusion of this passage in the article.

  • Ravel's piece is already mentioned in the bulletted list.
  • There is far too much information about the piece here: this is an article on ondines, not Gaspard de la nuit. If readers are interested in Gaspard, they can click through to the article on Gaspard; otherwise, this is overkill for what is simply a cultural reference.
  • The etymology of the name Gaspard is not at all related to the article's subject, and only tangentially so to the piano piece. It should not be in this article at all.
  • There are numerous spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors.
  • As to the "other cultural reproductions" that were cited, Also Spracht Zarathustra, The Magic Flute, and Amahl and the Night Visitors, what references are made to ondines? I personally cannot recall--if there are indeed references, then they should be explicitly mentioned. The reference to A Tale of Two Cities appears to be about the name Gaspard, which again is irrelevant to this article's subject.
  • In addition, if these references are to be included in the article, then they should be part of the bulletted list, not as they have been formatted.

Please feel free to add this info to the article for Gaspard, once the appropriate corrections are made. However, the passage should not be here in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.102.50 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. Thank you for putting your reasons up. Good work.Luminum (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undine vs Ondine

So I tried to look up ondine in my dictionary and it wasn't there, but undine was. My impression is that ondine is an obsolescent variant, and that the current spelling is undine, from Neo-latin undina. I think the name of this article should be changed. Rwflammang (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject of name changes, is the parenthetical (mythology) accurate or even necessary? Undines were postulated by Paracelsus as part of his alchemical theory; they are not found in Greek or Roman mythology. If you go to the Undine disambiguation page, every name mentioned there comes directly or indirectly from this coinage of Paracelsus. Rwflammang (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ondine (mythology) → Undine (alchemy) – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. Rwflammang (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other games

Undines are also shown in Perfect World (Chinese created game, also in the International version). There are monsters early on called "Undine of Virtue, etc" that are depicted as mermaids who float on land, with fins on their hands, possibly the head. Here's a link to PWI's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.102.157 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Cleaning House

Hello. Recently I gutted quite a lot of this article. Here's why: First, most of the information here was totally unsourced. Wikipedia doesn't operate on the authority of anonymous editors alone. Beyond that, statements like "The German folktale of Ondine, a water nymph who curses her unfaithful husband to cease breathing if he should ever fall asleep again, is the basis for 'Ondine's Curse'" are flatly wrong. In line with this statement, the removed material was a big tangle of confusion. The name Undine enters the record by way of the pen of Paracelsus. It is thereafter a concept specific to alchemy and/or alchemically-influenced works. The subject of water beings in folklore is another matter, and the concept of an undine and the folklore record must not be conflated if there is any hope for accuracy or concision for the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bunch of poorly research stuff has accrued since my reboot of the article (or, really, just reducing the article down to a sentence or two) that saw some heavy pruning lately. It's good that the article is getting attention and that we're developing it further. I note that there's a lot more modern media out there employing the figures that we could add to the article and we could expand the Paracelsus section a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a work in progress, not the end product. Eric Corbett 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Please stop restoring unreferenced and inaccurate material in the mean time. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that you're being helpful? Eric Corbett 01:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask the same to you. As you've apparently recently found the article (I cleared it of nonsense some time ago), I suspect that you're still working out the details of the topic, but this begins with Paracelsus and develops into literary works from there and into modern material like, say, video games. Conflating what was and is not the work of Paracelsus is unhelpful, as is throwing around ideas like 'folk tradition' where it doesn't exist. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from adding inaccurate and unreferenced material to the article. It doesn't help. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "inaccurate and unreferenced material" are you claiming that I've added? Eric Corbett 02:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face a few unpalatable facts here Bloodofox. The state you left the article in was an absolute disgrace; everything that's happened to it since is an improvement. Eric Corbett 02:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check the diff. See those sections with no references you keep editing? As for my edits: I've simply scraped stuff that was unreferenced, while you're here adding information about Undines as "minor deities" (seriously?). If you can find something to complain about that I've "added", bring it up, specifically. Otherwise I'll just pently show that you're learning about a topic as you're editing it and you act like an offended school boy, resorting to childish insults, when you're called out for making a mistake. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. You've got away with your ignorant insults so far, so I suppose you will again. I've tried to explain your misconceptions about the nature of undines below; you might learn something by reading it. Eric Corbett 20:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2015

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: moved per request with Undine going to Undine (disambiguation). Favonian (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undine (alchemy) → Undine – All items on the Undine disambiguation page refer to undines and are hence derivative of the supernatural creature, which is the primary source of the name. Also, "alchemy" is a really really odd/reductionistic bracketed qualifier. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Undines are neither a component of folklore nor mythology (as is generally understood). They're essentially a 17th century invention of Paracelsus. :bloodofox: (talk)
It seems to fit our definition of mythology, since according to that, urban legends are myths, and undines seem to have entered modern mythology. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: - see Talk:Undine#Requested_move Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Undines as "Minor Female Deities" and the Folk Tradition that Never Was

Multiple editors mostly not discussing the article NE Ent 20:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So, recently Eric Corbett found this page and, unfortunately, hasn't left his old habits behind. As a result, they page, which had indeed accrued numerous terrible edits since last time I cleaned it up (i.e. demolished layers of misinformation from the general confusion around the figure, probably due to its usage as a gloss and modern roleplaying games), suffered from further deterioration under Corbett, who will aggressively edit war to add unreferenced sections and misinformation, such as that Undines are "minor female deities". We can certainly do better. I encourage other editors to keep an eye on this page and demand proper sources. In the mean time, this article isn't going anywhere before we disentangle Paracelsus from the Paracelsus-influenced material (which Corbett has so far resisted) and stop insisting that there was a "folk tradition" that did not exist.

Unfortunately, I suspect Corbett will respond to this with his typical schoolyard insults and subsequently feign deep distress and falsely claim to be quitting Wikipedia if the slightest reprimand comes. Without other editors, nothing will really get done here, so please do help out. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree they are not deities (never heard them described as such). However, all critters, whether real or fictional, need a description section. Regardless of Paracelsus' role in creating them, they have adopted other attributes since (much like werewolves, vampires, leprechauns etc.). I have left [citation needed] tags in places that need better referencing and will look to find some more material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but the figures that you mention aren't static: regarding the examples you provide, "descriptions" are going to vary from time and place in folklore (see, for example, dwarf (Germanic mythology), and so for the purpose accuracy it's wise to simply stick to the attestations and what they say exactly (i.e., according to... [description]). Although undines were coined by Paracelsus and not from a folk tradition, somewhat like a folk tradition they developed further over time (yet via literary circles), and so a static "description" is diachronically misleading (i.e. the undines of Paracelsus are pretty different than the romantic, tragic figures in the later literary works). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bloodofox, can you make your point without resorting to personal attacks? Please? Drmies (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that's unlikely, as Blodofox's agenda is quite clear to me at least. The folk belief to which the article refers, if it could be allowed to be developed without further disruption, is that of spirits associated with water, which was not an invention of Paracelsus. Eric Corbett 06:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. As irritating as it is, the best thing is to go slow and get talk page consensus for your edits--if they're good this should not be too difficult, and then bloodofox's reverting to the original state can be seen for what I fear it may be: pure disruption, including what appears to be the removal of validly sourced information. Drmies (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that to be the WP line, but it isn't mine. Eric Corbett 20:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Drmies, can you explain why you jumped on me and not Corbett? I guess he hasn't been making "personal attacks"? His adding unsourced nonsense to the article isn't "disruption"—can you explain that? Or is this just a case of 'pals have to stick together'?
And, no, Corbett, we're not talking about a general belief in water spirits; this article is specifically about Paracelsus's alchemical coinage, not general folk beliefs in water spirits. If you want to add information about its relation to general beliefs in water spirits, you're going to need a source connecting the two. Meanwhile, your pushing of a non-existant folk belief in goddess Undines remains patent nonsense that deserves on a crackpot blog, not here. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comments I redacted speak for themselves and, as it happens, I have not seen such insults coming from your opponent, no. If you wanted to pretend you were aware of the collaborative environment, you could start by saying "Eric Corbett", not "Corbett". And if I wanted to jump on you I'd just block you for those personal attacks, but I'm not going to feed your "pals" machine; I'm merely pointing out that a. you are making personal attacks and b. you are removing information without specific discussion of what makes the references invalid. Both items are disruptive. Drmies (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously complaining about me not referring to Corbett by his full user name? Oh please. You're an involved admin, and you have to room to threaten me to defend your pal. Your friend is adding total nonsense about "goddesses" and "folk traditions" to the articles. Do a little reading on this topic and return and maybe we can talk about it. Meanwhile you're just obstructing further progress here. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "complaining" about it--I am merely stating what I think it indicates, as do your other comments. BTW, I am not involved with this content, for instance; the rest of your sentence I can't parse. The nonsense in question, methinks, seems to have been accompanied by references to books, many of which weren't listed as sources before "Corbett" got all childish with this article. Drmies (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like many people, I call anyone who I don't personally know by their surname, and that goes for user names that look like names. You're either hyper-sensitive when it comes to your pal or looking for something to complain about to get further involved in this dispute, a dispute which is itself over basically nothing. Please refrain from creating problems where there aren't any. Again, I also highly suggest that you do some basic reading on this topic before you start hopping on the talk page and start threatening to block anyone who doesn't do what your friend wants. In fact, we were getting along with a more stable version just fine before you decided to show up and pretend that you're here to do anything but back whatever Corbett says. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't threaten anyone with anything, silly. Drmies (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have explained elsewhere I have very limited unstable Internet access at the moment but I would also state Bloodofox needs to rein in his animosity and personal attacks against Eric. I will also be working on this article, my participation so far has been restricted because of the reason already given. I feel this does come under the folklore/mythology category. I have added one ref meantime until I can get decent internet access, hopefully tomorrow. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no personal attacks and you're welcome to make a case on my talk page if you think they were made. I understand you guys usually edit together, and that's nice, but when someone goes and adds that Paracelsus's coinage are "minor deities" and aggressively reverts any changes to the contrary, we've got a real problem here. Further, read into it further, continue editing the article, and when you're more familiar with the topic you'll see how backwards this discussion has been so far by attempting to make a case for "goddesses" and a "folklore tradition" when it's a pretty clear cut case of invention on Paracelsus's part. Sure, the notion of four elements and water beings existed long before Paracelsus but undines didn't. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox - the ideal would be a description under Paracelsus comprising paracelsus' description and then other attributes as they became appended. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reinforce the point, as it seems not to be getting through, undine was a classification of water spirits in the writings of Paracelsus, not an entity in its own right. Therefore it makes no sense to consider attributes being appended. Eric Corbett 13:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A paracelsus expert source?

Soooo first things first, we need a scholarly source discussing paracelsus I guess.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This article isn't about Paracelsus. Eric Corbett 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's where things start anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, things start way before Paracelsus. The story of the undines is in fact rather a simple one. Ancient philosophers were aware of the classical elements, Paracelsus didn't invent them. Oriental philosophers developed the idea of nature spirits, which spread to Europe and which Paracelsus was aware of. The contribution of Paracelsus was to devise a classification for those nature spirits aligned with the four classical elements, undine being one of them and comprising a whole range of water spirits. Then writers began to develop the undine as a water nymph in its own right, as in Fouqué's Undine, which is where we are today. Eric Corbett 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah, but the idea would be the development of the attributes. I concede that I haven't read Paracelsus so don't know what is there and how much we can embellish that bit before adding subsequent material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's one aspect to be covered, certainly. But this storm in a teacup blew up while the structure of this article was still being developed, as if it was already the finished piece of work. That's why the ignorant rantings of Bloodofox were so galling. Eric Corbett 13:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking my head in here

Folks, I hate to see people I respect treating each other like this. So I'm going to butt in here. @Drmies: Probably because of the wringer I contributed to putting you through yesterday concerning another editor's problems, you botched the redaction of those comments at least once, so everybody's seen them and that's that. @Eric Corbett: You know a lot about expanding articles and improving prose, but you are not well versed in Germanic folklore and mythology. You've clambered up a gum tree here, based on poor sources. Bloodofox knows this stuff - better than me, in this instance - and has a point: we do have an article on nymphs. (And presumably articles on nixies, the Lorelei, and swan maidens.) @Bloodofox: Insulting Eric Corbett based on your take on his history here is not going to help you make your point, and he's evidently got more time to re-expand this article than you do, so ideally you'll work together on it (and Sagaciousphil too once she has better internet access again), because it does need re-expanding. What you should be doing is supplying the sources. You can't expect to just tell people to do the reading. The usual advice to experts applies: demonstrate it by explaining it, with references.

To be frank, the article has a reasonable introduction now but is still a bit of a mess. What we have is a quasi-philosophical concept propounded by Paracelsus that developed a life of its own in the 19th century - not in popular culture (those are all products of high culture, part of the Romantic wave of high culture on new topics and with new themes born out of the cult of the sublime and the rediscovery of non-Classical story material), not arising from folklore (this is more analogous to Perrault's and Hans Christian Andersen's literary stories), and not arising from mythology (pace Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained and the editor higher up the page who believes all mythology is Classical). It accrued features from figures such as those I named, because Romanticism was big on synthesis, but it's not a myth. The challenge the article faces is to state where that story occurs and what scholars say about its origins and relationship to Paracelsus; what Paracelsus actually says (and currently we refer to the same work first by its Latin title and then by a German translation ...), and how the concept of the undine varies between those 19th-century compositions that feature it. Those are more important, to my mind, than a description, because this is not a folk tradition that can be reconstructed or generalised about, it's story material that's been used by different writers and composers. It would also be nice if some scholar has written about what Paracelsus drew on, but I'm not sure either that "Alchemy" is the right disambiguator. I would suggest this article be moved to simply "Undine" and the DAB page be at "Undine (disambiguation)". Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir there is a requested move template about two segments above this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So Bloodofox is some kind of expert on Germanic mythology and folklore? Then maybe we ought to go back to the version as it was the last time (s)he edited it before (s)he decided to disrupt the work that was taking place for whatever reason.[1] How is it that a so-called expert could have missed the basic error on the nature of undines in the second sentence of the lead, which interestingly is repeated in the Encyclopedia Britannica article? I'd be interested to know which of the sources I've made use of you consider to be "poor" Yngvadottir. Eric Corbett 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But wasn't Bloodofox supposed to be a linguistics expert in November 2013 when offering an opinion on Malkin Tower? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yes. Obviously a person of many talents. Eric Corbett 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not unlike you, Eric :-) I see you've both been working on the article some more and it looks better now, but it still presents 19th-century high culture as "popular culture" and uses the word "mythology". The Chambers Dictionary, the one source that struck me as particularly dubious and that was being used for a claim about Germanic religious antecedents, appears to no longer be used. But I see Bloodofox says on his talk page that he has to take another break from editing, and as I say he knows more about folklore than I do, but I'm not entirely sure what you refer to as a basic error - of course Paracelsus didn't invent the notion of elementals, but he did come up with the name "undine", which is why the undine is not a mythological or a folklore figure. I've griped enough I think. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yngvadottir: looks like it would be best to leave this (and Wikipedia generally) in your capable, knowledgeable hands together with your expert protégé then, doesn't it? Evidently Wikipedia does not want nor appreciate content editors judging by the attitude demonstrated in your comments here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I'm sorry you read my comments that way. I've specified, I'll leave it at that. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So neither you nor your protégé are willing to do any of the actual work yourselves? Yet you're both quite willing to complain and condescend sufficiently to drive editors away from Wikipedia? SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's driving me away, and you ought not to let them drive you away either. I've tried to summarise the story of the undines in the section above. There were two basic errors Yngvadottir. The most serious of which was not to recognise that in the writings of Paracelsus undine is a classification of water spirits, not an entity. Undine only developed into an entity in the later dramatic writings of Fouqué et al. Eric Corbett 13:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I looked back here, since you addressed me, Eric. That makes perfect sense, and I have not edited the article, just made a second paragraph with what I saw as problematic in the version I was looking at each time, because I didn't want to get in the way of what you and SagaciousPhil were doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Sagaciousphil and I were trying to do was to incrementally turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. But then part way through the initial stitching we were rudely interrupted by a so-called expert who is clearly no expert at all on the subject of undines. It would often be easier to start from scratch with an article like this one, but I've always felt it's more respectful to try and maintain as much of what's already there as possible. I really hadn't got much beyond the stage of moving stuff around before the storm descended. Eric Corbett 19:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Bloodofox can now provide some evidence of my "typical schoolyard insults" and subsequently "feigned deep distress and falsely claiming to be quitting Wikipedia"? I can provide plenty of evidence of his/her offensive behaviour if this needs to be taken further. Eric Corbett 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I was looking something else unrelated up on Wikipedia and saw a notification about this. That'll teach me not to log out when I need to be working. Anyway, Wikipedia sure still has its problems. One of those problems it that if you're a user involved in a dispute and you make it clear that you're not around, especially on articles with few watchers, users who have all day to spend on here will just have a field day in your absence. I've seen it a lot of times before. This time I see that the very users above who have accused me of making personal attacks—which consist of me daring to mention that Corbett has a historical penchant for petty insults and dramatic threats to quit the site when he's blocked from it—have been doing little else here but... making personal attacks against my wiki-self like referring to my comments as "ignorant rantings" (that'd be Corbett himself, of course). OK, maybe I should have said: "Just glance at Corbett's block log and arbitration threads". But now I'm pushed to address some of these comments against me real quick so that uninvolved readers might have some idea of what they're about. To be sure, I'd never call myself an "expert". I doubt anyone on this talk page has. However, to be clear on comments I've made about certain subjects, I actually do have a formal background in, yes, linguistics (it's an academic field) and folkloristics (also an academic field, believe it or not). Especially in the area of Germanic studies (same). For those with similar backgrounds, this is probably fairly evident in many of the articles I've written for the site over the past decade. Then, next to taunts like these from the duo of Sagaciousphil and Corbett, there's the mocking me as a "protége" of the eternally patient Yngvadottir because Yngvadottir dared to step in and try to calm everyone down. For the record, typos be damned, I've actually been producing articles here since 2005, and so you've likely edited articles I edited once upon a time long ago, so maybe technically you're all my "protégés" or whatever: gasp and cue ohhhhh noooooooooo! But look, stuff like that is really childish, folks. Let's please try to at least be objectively funny if we're going to be taking shots at a bunch of other anonymous people on the internet.
Better yet, I propose that we just at least try to stick to the article at hand and leave focusing on one another's wiki-personas out of it. I assure you that we can both discuss problems and even be peaceably passive aggressive and revert-y and yet get some work done here. That said, I admit that I haven't had much time to sit down and rewrite this article over the years (actually, there's a pretty important article I need to be getting to in my spare time, but I fear that my time for this is probably over for a good while given pressing responsibilities...).
Now, this isn't intended as a personal attack. Corbett, I see that you've gone back and done some reading on this topic and come to realize that Paracelsus's undines are in fact not "minor female deities". However, the article is now citing a work by the very less than reliable Manly Palmer Hall as a reliable reference (for "the philosophy of nature spirits, generally believed to have originated in the East and probably Brahmanic, was familiar to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, and certainly to Paracelsus"). Hall was and isn't an academic and is not an authority; you can't make a "purse" with that reference. This stuff about "nature spirits" coming from "the East" is also outright nonsense without some specifics as to what is meant exactly by "nature spirits" and with a much better source than Manly Palmer Hall. For example, the Germanic Nixie does not an "elemental" make outside of strains of Paracelsus-ian influenced philosophy; whatever exactly the "East" is meant to be here, I can't think of any academic who is prepared to argue that belief and/or veneration of, say, female water beings probably didn't exist, say, pre-Indo-European expansion from the East.
Additionally, I've got to say that you're wrong to criticize my reduction of the old, misinformation-plagued article a year or whatever ago down to one line, especially given the state of it before. The sentence I reduced it down to is accurate (minus typos that I or some other kind soul probably fixed later). Have you read Liber de nymphis, sylphis, pygmaeis et salamandris et de caeteris spiritibus? It's in 16th century German and is pretty rambling (and even somewhat incoherent) but you can probably find a translation around. As I recall, you'll find Paracelsus describes categories of, yes, metaphysical 'elemental beings' (some names of which he draws loosely from folklore, like some form of German Kobold seemingly random used, as I recall, synonymously with his coinage, as I recall, gnomus). I've got a copy here somewhere from the last time I read it a few years back but I don't see one online.
The stuff you're adding about Classical influence on Paracelsus probably belongs on elemental or Paracelsus, albeit there's some folk cross pollination that's worth finding discussion about in later alchemical-inspired romantic works about undines/Undine and up until modern video games. That said, your search to find an elemental schematic like Paracelsus's (and by this I mean his learned alchemical four elements) in the ancient Germanic world is not going to yield anything; this is a result of classical learning. Like I said, no such Germanic folk tradition is known. But, no, I'm not sure where you're going to find a reference that says 'there's no such Germanic folk tradition'.
About all I can do right now is duck in and jot down these quick comments, so good luck until next time as I need to sign out and get to work! I hope to see more outside contributors next time I can get involved. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I on the other hand hope never to have to deal with you again. Eric Corbett 13:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved into this content dispute but I think your style leaves a lot to ask for too. I simply think you, Eric and Phil should NOT interact any more. Ever. Not edit same articles and just stay away from each other. All times. Sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravel

Worth adding - a famous piano piece from his Gaspard de la Nuit. Johnbod (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Schreiner, Renee Vivien, Jean Giraudoux

first did a novel called Undine, second wrote a poem called Undine, and Giraudoux's play about Undine is famous 92.41.64.113 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

any lakes Unda, Undina`s depression in Russia 176.65.113.96 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Undine&oldid=1223959561"