Talk:Elf

Etymology not supported by sources

This article puts a lot of emphasis on "elf" being connection with the Latin "albh-" (which is the root of "albino"), and its primary source is the 2003 book "A handbook of Germanic etymology" by Orel. However this book does not support this claim. (If anyone has a copy, simply turn to page 13 to see for yourself, or check it out at Archive.org.)

It states:

albaz sb.m.: Burg *alfs 'elf', ON alfr 'nightmare, elf', OE aelf 'elf, genius, incubus', MLG alf 'evil spirit', OHG alb id. Of uncertain origin. KUHN KZ IV 110 (to Skt rbhú- 'clever, skilful'); WADSTEIN Festschr. Bugge 152-155 (to *albh- white'); TORP-FALK 21; SAUS-SURE apud MASTRELLI StG XIII 5-13 (to the name of the Alps); HOLTHAUSEN AEEW 186; POKORNY I 30; VRIES ANEW 5-6; KÖBLER 708; KLUGE-SEEBOLD 24-25.

For albiz it states a primary link with 'deep river-bed' and 'river-bed'. It makes a passing reference to a connection with the Latin 'albus' and 'white', but then states "this etymology is not very reliable" due to the stronger connection with the Swedish 'alv' and 'elve', meaning 'river-bed').

Looking through this talk page, this odd emphasis on "white" as part of its etymology has been brought up before, as it is not generally accepted elsewhere.

For some reason this article seems intent on linking "elf" primarily with "whiteness" and "cleverness" and nothing else, but it is not supported by the current sources, and is actually contradicted by them.

WikiMane11 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of this history of the Wikipedia article itself, the main reference for the paragraph you're talking about is actually Hall 2007, 54–55 (which, for full disclosure, is a book by me). As the phrasing of the paragraph has changed, it has come to look like that reference only applies to a sentence where I'm named specifically. I've added the same reference at the end of a couple of the other sentences in that paragraph just to make it clear that the paragraph all based on that book, not Orel.

Orel's book does cover the *albh etymology (he explicitly says that Wadstein argues for it, and it's also in Vries ANEW at least). It's a shame that Guus Kroonen (2013), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 11 (Leiden: Brill), doesn't include the elf-word — a weird omission.

But maybe the article should follow Orel's lead and say that the etymology is uncertain rather than 'generally agreed'?

I believe that Riccardo Ginevra's paper 'Old Norse Elves from a linguistic and comparative perspective', of which you can read a conference abstract here, will be published in the next couple of years, and, regardless of what new arguments he may make about the etymology, hopefully he will have a thorough summary of past research on the question that we will be able to cite.

I don't that anyone thinks that the English word 'elf' has anything to do with the etymon of Swedish 'alv'. That similarity is just thought to be a coincidence. Alarichall (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Reality and perception" segment completely useless

The segment on elves not being objectively real but having a "social" reality is correct but... completely unnecessary. This could be said about almost *any* fictional concept, ie it's not unique to elves. I propose it should be removed Observer31 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The concept is so broad it could apply equally as well to aliens or pizza-gate. Social reality may be useful in some scholarly concepts but it has no business directly under the lead. The following lines should be excised:

Where enough people have believed in the reality of elves that those beliefs then had real effects in the world, they can be understood as part of people's worldview, and as a social reality: a thing which, like the exchange value of a dollar bill or the sense of pride stirred up by a national flag, is real because of people's beliefs rather than as an objective reality. 2001:569:F015:5E00:811D:9746:D5D:7376 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to say: maybe you're right about trimming or removing this, but I wound up adding it because we do get comments here on the talk page from people who seem a bit confused about whether elves are real or not. (See under "Williams syndrome", "Fairy?" and "where there actually elves before noas ark".) And elves aren't fiction: fiction is something where the audience is not expected to believe that the content is real, whereas people did believe in the elves of medieval tradition (and in conventional Islamic theology jinn are still accorded the same reality status as God and angels). So elves are perhaps better compared to God, where the question of whether/how God is real is addressed explicitly. Alarichall (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Elfs?

Where did the idea that 'elf' can be pluralised as 'elfs' come from? I can't find it in the Oxford English Dictionary, or Dictionary.com.--90.206.198.139 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish the article would try to make clear what myths of the elves come from ordinary people, and what is made up by Snorre. For example I don't think people distinguished between 'light' and 'dark' elves.

The article could also include some etymology on the word elf (I always thought of it as having to do with river, that is, elves = river people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At one point it did have an extensive etymology that corroborated material from the OED (the traditional PIE derivation, meaning "brilliant white," that seems to work with the descriptions of the elves), but the etymology was (for some reason) mostly removed and the second proposed derivation was left, though it uses weasel words ("some") and is less likely (cognate of "labor," which isn't something associated with the elves until you get to much later in the tradition). I'd insert an etymology, but I don't know how to do footnote citations here. Iro (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, "elf" is of Anglo-Saxon origin and underwent regular fricative voicing in the plural, just like "wolf" and "leaf". The form "elfs" has never been an accepted form of the plural, as shown here: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=elfs%2Celues%2Celves&year_start=1600&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

Edited to reflect this Secondus2 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

References?

What is "Hall 2004"? --FinnWiki (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A significant part of the article was lost at this point and afterwards, because nobody paid attention and people just deleted vandalism instead of reverting/undoing the destructive edits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"The English word elf is from the Old English ælf or elf, in reference to a midget," In reference to a midget? Where is the reference to that ridiculous idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled about that claim too. I believe this is vandalism. It was introduced a year ago. The problem was that it was followed by more vandalism, and ClueBot rolled back to the earlier vandalised revision. I still find it disconcerting that this patent nonsense has stood unquestioned for a year. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien & elf ears

"A hallmark of fantasy elves is also their long and pointed ears (a convention begun with a note of Tolkien's that the ears of elves were "leaf-shaped")." I'm sorry, but this is absurd and there's no evidence for it. Shall we list the many many illustrators of Victorian and Edwardian England, and the rest of Europe, who portrayed elves and fairies as having pointed ears? Look at any drawing by Arthur Rackham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.95.123 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've seen a few images of Father Christmas/Sinterklass etc depicted as elf like, with pointy ears and such, dating from well before Tolkien's fantasy was published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

It's pretty obvious that this page has been hijacked by someone with a Germanic agenda, or someone who has confused etymology with meaning. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist one. The over-focus on Germanic mythology rather than popular, mainstream use of the word is a mistake. More people will know Elf from World of Warcraft, Tolkien and D&D as well as European mythologies. This article should be about Elves and the Elf (germanic mythology) piped off to a different article. Davémon (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, elves are specific to Germanic mythology and do not exist in other "European mythologies". As for the popular cultural references, they all stem from the Germanic concept of elves. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article for the elves that you are talking about, Davemon: Elves in fantasy fiction and games -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Fyrefly. What about [[1]]? Doesn't that kind of thing belong somewhere? I'm just thinking that someone who comes across the word 'Elf' probably isn't coming across a folkloric concept, but rather the popular culture one. Bloodofox is wrong, elves in popular culture largely derive from Tolkien, and Tolkien has a few more sources than just the Germanic. --Davémon (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that elves have a cultural and modern literary history far prior to Tolkien's writings. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic Origin"

Someone utterly ignorant about the subject has redone the Elf page. They think the Norse are Germanic and from Germany. No, they're Scandinavian, and they are more related to us Slavs, than to Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever about that, I have replaced Germanic mythology with Norse mythology, which was in older versions of this article up until July 2006 when it was removed in a (IMHO) clumsy edit by an IP and never replaced. Norse mythology is also a proper Wikipedia article and this edit brings the article into line with the German-language article of the same name. Hohenloh ⁺ 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

While the article is currently very poor and in need of a rewrite (I've tagged it), elves are by every indication beings stemming from Proto-Germanic and thus not an innovation distinct to the Norse. Your placement of Old English and German attestations under "Norse mythology" is outright wrong and has also been removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article itself says: "The earliest preserved description of elves comes from Norse mythology. In Old Norse they are called álfar (nominative singular álfr)." I am also relying on the German-language article (which appears to be in a good state). See also the comments in the "Coatrack" section above, and I also agree with Fyrefly's comments below. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hohenloh, Old Norse is a Germanic language, and elves are attested prior in other Germanic languages. Old Norse records simply provide the most information we have about them. Otherwise, the German article is also pretty poor (even poorer than this one). The "coatrack" section above is plainly ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed

Recently I've tagged this article for a rewrite. My reasoning is that it's plagued with theory presented as fact, and one look at the reference section will dictate the core of the issue; it wasn't written with academia in hand, but rather as a semi-personal essay. However, fyrael (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the 'rewrite' tag in favor of a 'clean up' tag, stating "the article is far, far too developed already for a total rewrite to be a good idea" which I suppose we should read as 'hey, this article has been this way a long time, why bother?', despite the obvious issues. Unfortunate and counter-productive as it is, this sort of thing seems to happen when attempting to solicit others to produce a rewrite, and, as a result, I guess I'll have to leave the issue alone until I am able to sit down and produce a rewrite myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as counter-productive and arrogant as you being so WP:UNCIVIL is, I'll respond anyway. I very obviously didn't mean "this article has been this way a long time, why bother?" I meant exactly what I said: that the article is much too developed for a rewrite to be necessary. The article is well-structured for the most part and has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length. In my opinion, only mild clean up is needed and a complete rewrite would only slow down the progress toward a better article status. Let's see what consensus decides. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fyrael, if this is your idea of "developed", I'd hate to see your term papers—"has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length"? Seriously? As the issues are clearly not glaring to you, I can only assume that you're not familiar with the material this article covers. This article suffers from the same issues as the dwarf and troll articles did before their rewrites; opinion and theory presented as fact from the very first lines, resulting in a severe entanglement throughoiut of theories preferred by the authors. This, combined with poor referencing, results in the need for a total rewrite. For example, while Hall's work is first-rate, his conclusions need to be presented separately from the attestations. "Consensus" is not needed for a rewrite of an article in a poor state, and it's simply a matter of someone making the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how many times I have to link WP:UNCIVIL before you read it and decide to stop being a child with these sad attempts at personal insults. Now, there are certainly sections with little-to-no citations used and need serious attention, but other sections are fairly well-sourced and I still think the overall structure is fine. We would probably be better off labelling individual sections with more specific clean-up tags since they have varying problems. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The structure isn't the problem. It's the content. And each section has the same set of problems, whether it's poor referencing or theory-as-fact. Look, I can see you're taking this personally, but I obviously don't know you, so don't. It is not a problem that you're not familiar enough with this material to have immediately spotted these issues, but your defense of the issues when they're brought up is. I will not accept defense of the state of this article as it stands on the grounds of being "developed", and nor should you if you are at all concerned about where you get your information from. I will prepare a rewrite as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that you don't know me, which is what makes the attempts at personal insult so childish. I'm also plenty familiar with the material and my defense of the content is completely valid, but your arrogance has blinded you to any redeeming qualities of the article. I wish you good luck with the rewrite and I hope that at as much of it as possible is valuable enough for us to include in the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with Bloodofox (talk · contribs) a rewrite is in order the above exchange starts with a difference of opinion whether a rewrite tag is in order but degrades into bickering instead of substantive discussion, so I'll start a new thread on rewrites and my own assessments. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare

The article refers to "his elves are almost as small as insects", yet Titania is obviously large enough to say to Bottom "Sleep thou, and I will wind thee in my arms". Any comments? Peridon (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This conclusion is based on a misguided cherry-picking of passages. It also appears to be a Wikipedian's conclusion, which makes it WP:SYNTH. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this information about Elves should be allowed on this page.

Elves (singular elf) love to tell stories. I'll bet you didn't know that about elves. There's probably a lot of things you didn't know about elves. Another interesting, uh, "elfism", is that there are only three jobs available to an elf. The first is making shoes at night while the old cobbler sleeps. You can bake cookies in a tree, but as you can imagine, it's dangerous having an oven in an oak tree during the dry season. But the third job, some call it, "the Show" or "the Big Dance," it's the profession that every elf aspires to. And that is to build toys in Santa's workshop.

Elves try to stick to the four main food groups: Candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup.

The Code of the Elves: 1. Treat everyday like Christmas. 2. There's room for everyone on the nice list. 3. The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.

Elves generally love to make ginger bread houses, and eat cookie dough, and go ice skating, and even hold hands. They also love singing Christmas carols, and anything with Maple Syrup or sugar in it. They are great friends, and love to make toys. Most elves make over a thousand toys a day, but if they don't reach their quota, it doesn't mean they're cotton-headed ninny muggins, it just means that they might be better at doing other things, like changing the smoke detector batteries or bringing the Elf Choir down a whole octave (in a good way!). Every elf is important and unique, and one day might even help save Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.230.205 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this? Are you attempting to demonstrate the eloquence of your writing skills for personal gratification?

In order to avoid clutter on this free, public, and essential informational service.... which is maintained through the hard work and many hours of volunteers... please only post relevant information that is useful to the article in question. Anything else (other than moderating comments) is simply sabotage. 2604:3D09:447D:8D00:C93:4A22:CAF2:98C4 (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

References not Corresponding to Citations

If this were a stub, then general references might be appropriate. However, as this is a fully-referenced article that is fairly mature, we need to be careful about using general references, especially references to recent books, because doing so is likely to appear promotional in nature. It has been suggested that the general references currently in the article "might" have been used in the base research for the article, but if such a connection is not obvious, then the reference should be part of an in-line citation, or it should be removed. Definitive works on Elves which are not cited should appear in a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section of this article (as previously suggested). Please feel free to make these edits. Otherwise, at least two of the four general references in this article should be removed completely. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If Alaric Hall's print publications – especially his 2004 doctoral thesis – are not highly relevant to this article, then what is? Sure, they are (relatively) recent, they are available on the web, but that speaks in favour of them, rather than against them: they are up-to-date, peer-reviewed, scholarly book sources, ffs. Why should we limit ourselves to outdated publications going as far back as Grimm when we have so much better sources to add? (In addition, after all, new research can and will supplant sources as old as Grimm.) Why should we exclude Hall 2004? Just because of the fear that we might "promote" a modern, yes, even recent scholar specialising in the subject? That's so incredibly silly that it defies belief.

Yes, he has a Wikipedia account, yes, he has edited articles, but he hasn't done that to promote himself – it wasn't him who added his stuff; but even if he had, so what? It's not against the rules, it doesn't add undue importance – it is already important! – and it helps Wikipedia. This knee-jerk reflex against "self-promotion" doesn't exactly help the problem Wikipedia has attracting experts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hall's work is absolutely appropriate for this article, and when the rewrite comes, it should be well emphasized for exactly what it is; a modern scholarly work extensively tackling the subject. If nobody beats me to it, it's only a matter of time before I rewrite this article. As of now, however, reader beware—this article is currently crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

The elf was also popularized by Enid Blyton's many children's stories. Elves, and other such magical creatures namely pixies, brownies, goblins and so forth, are often portrayed as tiny people, with pointy ears and brown skin, that live in tree holes or tree houses. Very often, Enid Blyton's stories involve children meeting and befriending these creatures, visiting them forthe very typically British meal, 'tea'. Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Name?

The "Name" heading is confusing (dumbed-down?). It should be "Etymology" of course. Oh, and W-i-k-i-p-e-d-i-a s-u-c-k-s. Thank you. 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.116.227 (talk)

Superstition section

I took a stab at doing a cleanup of this article, over a series of edits. I will post several topics to explain the thrust of things I did.
First off, I wanted to confine /*Mythology*/ section to content about the "race of elves" and segregate out material to do with "spirit" that cause diseases and nightmares into a the new /*Superstition*/ section. The superstitions date to Anglo-Saxon and Middle High German periods so moving them to /*Modern folklore*/ section would not be appropriate. Requesting feedback on this sectioning off. Also I tentatively subtitled /*Mythology*/ section as: "The elf as a race of supernatural beings" and /*Superstition*/ as "The elf as a spirit playing tricks", though I'm not too comfortable with the wordings, so I welcome anyone to improve them. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Before attempting any such division, which can easily stray into WP:OR territory, I recommend taking Alaric Hall's elf-related work in hand. This is by no means a simply topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider it a personal subjective judgment or WP:OR to classify mentions mythological and heroic literature under /*Mythology*/ and moving out mentions in medical books/leechbooks. It also makes no sense to class superstitions (e.g. the alp-nightmare) under /*Mythology*/ if the citation goes back to the Middle Ages, but under /*Modern folklore*/ if it was from a later folk-tale. Obviously, the new section I tentatively called /*Superstition*/ awaits to be consolidated an merged with the section.

One reason for the split is to avoid being misled into thinking Medieval England and the German alp are just like the Norse alfar, when in fact you cannot safely ascribe attributes like dwelling in Alfheim or occurring in light and dark varieties to them. Some contributor inserted the sentence: 'Middle High German tradition separates the elbe "elves" from getwerc "dwarf", which was especially misleading in that way.

A. Hall's thesis/book is useful for being comprehensive but is obviously iconoclastic; his speculations detract from other commentators, and I am against giving his opinion or his schema for organizing information any WP:UNDUE weight. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that you're going to run into problems with the use of "superstition". This is not a neutral term. What you should be using is something like "folk belief" or more specific terms. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've since continued with my edits, and there is no longer a Superstition section, as I opted to incorporate into Folklore. Having checked up on sources, I found the presentation of information misleading or wrong in many cases, though it would be too onerous for me to log everything I found and corrected in the talk page here. But by way of illustration, I could point out a number of still outstanding issues still the Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore areas, which I didn't tamper with too much.

• I don't feel the mention of "dark elves" need to be repeated in triplicate to drive home the point, and can be deferred to the extant dark elf articles (Dökkálfar and Svartálfar).
• It is incorrect to suggest that the elf appears in Norna-Gests þáttr. I suspect someone just read e.g. Motz, Lotte (1973). "Of Elves and Dwarves" (pdf). Arv:Tidskrift för Nordisk Folkminnesforskning. 29–30. (p.97) without citing her and came to the wrong conclusion. Olaf THINKS it might be an elf, but turns out to be Norna-gest.
• I don't think it is fair characterization to say Olaf Geirstad-Elf was an elf. You can read snippets of Davidson's summary in her "The Road to Hel," and this Olaf is a draugr if anything.
• Also there should be caveats written about álfablót, as Motz's paper above has done. "Undoubtedly it had one time been intended for the elves, but we do not know to which of their manifestations." She suggests in later times, álf might have only remained in name only, and the in the ritual "figure designated by it" (i.e. elves) , "had become eclipsed" (by e.g. Odin)
• The "Elf-cross" (illustrated by a pentagram in the Scandinavian folklore section) is not strictly Scandinavian, since when look at the drude article, you learn that the "Drudenfuss" or "Drudenkreuz" is pretty much the same thing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Hrafnagaldr Óðins is misquoted as saying "the álfar have skill"; that is not the gist of what it says and is misleadingly to readers. It actually says "elves understand" (Lassen tr. pdf). Grimm, who is supposedly cited here, says so too: ""älfar verstehen", and Stallybrass's translation of Grimm actually concurs as well: "âlfar have skill (understanding)" -- note the parenthesis.
• The quote from Fjölsvinnsmál that states Loki is an elf (álfr) is questionable as well. Grimm used Rask's edition, p.110b, str. 35 "liþski alfr Loki." However, Sophus Bugge's critical edition, p.349, strophe 34 has "Liðskjálfr, Loki". The compound word seems to mean "limb-shiverer" or somesuch.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• File:King Olaf and the Little People.jpg does not belong and needs to be deleted. Firstly, the story is about Olaf the Saint and not Olaf Geirstad-Alf, even though it is mistakenly featured in the article about the latter. Secondly, in the Danish ballad, Hellig-Olavs Væddefart DgF 50 which is the original source, they are not called "elves" but "trolls so small" ("De seyled offuer den Feld saa blaa; vd da løbe de Trolde saa smaa").--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Grimm's tripartite division of elves

I should have announced my intentions earlier, but I had taken out the following passage summarizing Grimm's view, contributed the edit on 10:23, 24 October 2009 by User:Dbachman:

The etymology connecting *alboz with albus "white" suggests an original dichotomy of "white" vs. "black" genii, corresponding to the elves vs. the dwarves which was subsequently confused.¹ Thus the elves proper were named ljósálfar "light elves", contrasting with døckálfar "dark elves".²

which I thought this needed editing. For one "original dichotomy" might conflict with Grimm saying the original alb was a "light, white, good spirit" ("albs mag also ursprünglich einen lichten, weissen, guten geist" (Grimm DM, Bd. 1, S. 413, In English translation "meant first of all" is used instead of "originally"). The other thing is the way the sentences run together, it cane easily be read as if dwarfs and dark elves are the same, but it needed to be clarified that Grimm insisted on the distinction between dwarfs and dark elves, because they are mentioned side-by-side in Hrafnagaldr Óðins (Rask's edition, "Saem 92b"). The block above was moved to the Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar page, and after edits now reads as follows:

Grimm surmised that the Germanic elf was probably a "light-colored, white, good spirit" while the dwarfs may have been conceived as "black spirits" by relative comparison. But the "two classes of creatures were getting confounded" (presumably as the elves were becoming increasingly demonized due to Christianization), and there arose a need to coin the term "light-elf" (ljósálfar) to refer to the "elves proper".^1a(^a Stallybrass's actual phrasing in his translation was "recourse was had to composition, and the elves proper were named liosâlfar" (Vol. 2, p.444) for Grimm's "'half man durch zusammen-setzung und nannte die eigentlichen âlfar liosâlfar." Grimm 1844, Bd. 1, S.413

Well, it used to read the "original elf (German:alb)" but is now --> "Germanic elf". Most of Grimm on the light-elves and black-elves should be moved to the spinoff article, what do you think? I'm not finding any modern scholars who endorse Grimm's tripartite division. Ironically, I was led through Wilkin's article here or here into thinking Tom Shippey may be a supporter, but he absolutely lambasted Grimm, saying of him: "his solution was significantly worse than Grundtvig’s, vague and indecisive." --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Saga section added

In my series of edits on 9 October 2013, much of it was just rearranging the placement of paragraphs by previous editors for organizational purposes. Scholars discuss the "elf" and "elf-sacrifice" (álfablót) mentioned in these sagas in different context from the mythological elf. Hence a new section /*Sagas*/ to house them.

• Olaf Geirstad-Elf - This is in a version of St. Olaf's saga, discussed in Vigfusson & Powell's Corpus Poeticum Boreale under the "Ancestral Worship" section, and by H. R. Ellis Davidson's Road to Hel under "Cult of the Dead" chapter. I have updated the target article somewhat as to this regard.
• The poem Austrfaravísur by Sigvat the Skald is quoted in a version of St. Olaf's saga also. I'm not sure if him being a missionary for the king is quite the correct characterization, that might require fact-checking.
• Norna-Gests þáttr is a tale from the Longest Saga of Olaf Trygvasson (Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta). I edited the article portion in regards to this tale. Norna-gest is mistaken for an elf or an andi "spirit". Cf. Anne Holtsmark's study of the Snorra Edda that explains how the Christian andlengr heaven, thorough association with andi might have led to Snorri's Andlang
• There was reference to Álfheimr (region) which needed reattributing, and it was moved to the saga section. Davidson's lead-in to her quoting the passage from the ThV saga is: "By the time of the Fornaldar Sögur however Álfheim has become a country on the border-line of mythology, as when for example we are told in Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar (I)" (preview p.113). Her inference is, this was a geographical area with a later accretion of legend around it.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Keebler

Keebler Cookie company should get a mention, if for no other reason than to show that Santa isn't the only employer of elves. Also, does Willy Wonka employ elves? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Major Cleanup, May 1st-3rd 2014

May 1st: I'm about to start attempting a major cleanup of this article. I wrote one of the major scholarly studies on this subject, published in 2007: Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity, Anglo-Saxon Studies, 8 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007), currently available at http://www.libgen.net/view.php?id=383363. I've mostly steered clear of this article since then for fear of overemphasising my own work, but hopefully now enough time has elapsed that I can intervene and offer a well balanced cleanup. I have written an entry for a print encyclopedia on the subject, for example ('Elves', in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, ed. by Jeffrey A. Weinstock (forthcoming): http://www.alarichall.org.uk/ashgate_encyclopedia_elves.pdf). If people could bear with me as I work through the article over the next day or two I would be grateful! I'll post an update here when I'm done about what I think might need more work. Alarichall (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. It's good to have you here, Alaric. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloodofox! Alarichall (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Impressive work, Alaric! Haukur (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta! Alarichall (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 3rd: Okay, I'm done! I'll no doubt keep haunting the page a bit finding typos and fiddling about, but for what it's worth, my major cleanup is complete. And the page is down from 73,349 bytes to 66,636 bytes, so although it's still vast, at least it's shorter! Lingering issues:

• I've cited my own book a lot, just because it covers a lot of stuff and I know my way around it, but hopefully not in ways that overemphasise my own arguments, but rather in ways which direct the reader to my summaries of scholarship and debates. I want to come back when I have time and the books handy and put in more references to Shippey 2005, Gunnell 2007, Purkiss 2000, and Jeremy Harte's fairies book. Together these afford a good, up to date set of opinions on the current state of scholarship.
• I'm particularly weak on the medieval German material, so I've relied a lot on Cyril Edwards, ‘Heinrich von Morungen and the Fairy-Mistress Theme’, in Celtic and Germanic Themes in European Literature, ed. by Neil Thomas (Lewiston, N. Y.: Mellen, 1994), pp. 13–30. More learned people might want to check what I did here.
• I didn't attempt a thoroughgoing revision of the modern Scandinavian stuff, which is still a bit of a hotch-potch. Could be worse though!
• There's clearly a case for turning some of the sections here into separate articles and having just one much shorter summary on elves as a launch pad. The Alp section here is probably better in a lot of ways than the main article Alp (folklore). I'd welcome opinions on what would be best to do, but for now I've just left Elf as one mega-entry. Alarichall (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your major revision here. It's good work. DBaK (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DBaK! I appreciate it. Alarichall (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletions and Reverts by Haldrik

I see that Haldrik (talk · contribs) has come out of the woodwork again and up to his usual pattern. This time he seems to be refactoring sourced text and removing portions at whim and without explanation. Last time we saw him he was around August of 2013, where he was attempting to impose all sorts of "dwarfs are medieval vampires" stuff on the dwarf article. After all sorts of abuse from Haldrik, this eventually got him [blocked for 32 hours] and we saw no more of him. I recommend an administration step in or other users simply revert him when he can't abide by policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Haldrik (talk · contribs)! I haven't e-met you before. I've been trying to see what kinds of edits you made to the article and form my own view on how helpful they were, but it's quite hard because you don't provide summaries of the changes you make in the 'edit summary' box. I'd be grateful if you could do this for any future edits so we can work more effectively together. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrenh Gongveal

I just created a Wiki for Mrenh Gongveal [ Khmer: ម្រេញគង្វាល ]. They are the Elves of Cambodia, and might make an interesting addition to this Elf page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrenh_Gongveal
EarthMonkeyCreative (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No reliable sources for this. Article creator used a self-published book and at least one source that doesn't even mention these. Doug Weller (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've improved the referencing at Mrenh kongveal a bit and included in the article. Alarichall (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091125164734/http://www.northvegr.org:80/lore/viking/001_02.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/viking/001_02.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Scottish 'elves'

As the article notes, by the early modern period an 'elf' is just another word for a fairy, ghost, etc. Scottish sources that talk of 'elves' are written in English, the language of the church and the towns, but they are often just translating some Gaelic term (usually sith). If anything, using Scottish evidence just confuses the topic--though perhaps rightly so. I.e., it tells you about the history of the English word, but not really about the Germanic elf, at least any more than use of 'faun' tells you about the classical concept. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow 😮 102.90.65.129 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on "Now Agreeed Upon" in the Norse section

I'll be brief: I am having trouble to locate the listed sources for reference point number 23, "For a long time, views about elves in Old Norse mythology were defined by Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda, which talks about svartálfar, dökkálfar and ljósálfar. However, these words are only attested in the Prose Edda and texts based on it, and it is now agreed that they reflect traditions of dwarves, demons, and angels, partly showing Snorri's 'paganisation' of a Christian cosmology learned from the Elucidarius.[23]" - the attested sources are Shippey 2005, 180-81; Hall 2007, 23-26; Gunnell 2007, 127-28; Tolley 2009, I 220 - all of which I am having issues with finding. Could we at least have something quoted from any of these that corroboartes the statement? Particulaury since the line, "The consensus of modern scholarship is that Snorri’s elves are based on angels and demons of Christian cosmology" in the explanations makes it clear that we now have some evidence that this is so - and I would dearly like to see it cited. Hackeru (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

small little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.12.26 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing this earlier. As you may have noticed by now, if you look up Hall 2007 and Gunnell 2007 in the article bibliography, you'll find links to open-access texts of those publications. Alarichall (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Williams syndrome

Williams syndrome could be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.104 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To add: Williams syndrome is a genetic disorder that causes the individual to appear "elf-like": IE, long faces and pointy ears. As per the Williams syndrome article: "The adjective "elfin" may have originated to describe the facial features of people with Williams syndrome; before Williams syndrome's scientific cause was understood, people believed that individuals with the syndrome, who have exceptionally charming and kind personalities, had extraordinary, even magical, powers. This has been proposed to be the origin of the folklore of elves, fairies and other forms of the 'good people' or 'wee folk' present in English folklore.[57]"

I think Williams syndrome should be discussed further as a theoretical basis for why individuals believed in the existence of elves.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 22:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state for the record that this is only my second GA assessment. That said, my previous assessment was well-received by other editors not involved.

I used to be a big fan of fantasy literature, including Tolkien and others, so this nomination came as a pleasant surprise.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Overview

• Prose: The lead has serious copyright issues. Large parts are copied from this source, as evidenced here.

[That last link isn't working for me, and I can't find the lead text at the powercoin.it link given. Anyway, do not fear! I wrote the header myself a few years ago. It was a gradual process, but this is the main edit: Special:PermanentLink/606650864. Any similarities elsewhere are because other people have taken the text from Wikipedia, as is their right. I do recognise that the header does need work though in relation to the suggestions below. Alarichall (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

Alright, I was not aware. Who copied which is always a major problem on Wikipedia articles, so i am glad you settled this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten almost completely. As for the main body of the article, this is professional scholarship, but it is often too technical and hard to follow for lay people.

Hopefully it's now OK! But it's not perfect: it can be hard to discuss some of the more technical stuff. Alarichall (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The section Elf#Relationship to Christian cosmologies seems out of place: if you intend to indicate a possible bias in works about elves, maybe this should be more clearly mentioned in the first paragraph of this section; if you merely intend to provide a history of literature about elves, then you should integrate this section with the main timeline in the following sections.

[Good point. I've changed the beginning of the section to make its notability clearer. I might move it up to the beginning of the article too, as it's a conceptual/historiographical section whereas everything else is based on surveying the evidence. Alarichall (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

The website that was copied is down per 27 September 2017 22:00. I am not sure whether this is coincidence, but I'd still recommend you rewrite the lead fully.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• MOS: Needs some tweaking. Lead is irregular. List at Elf#Equivalents in non-Germanic traditions needs to be rewritten as prose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists.

I've redone the header, which is now hopefully a concise summary of the article. I left one reference in because it's to an article which actually discusses how the header should be phrased (and therefore influenced the earlier version of the header). Is this OK? It's probaby quite an unusual situation. Alarichall (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

1. References layout: There is a reference missing here. There are two duplicate citations, which can be identified using this website.
2. Reliable sources: Some references have been published by the nominator himself, but their notability can be established, as they are frequently cited by other works in the field, and no other editor has indicated WP:UNDUE yet, counting from 2014. No violation of WP:COI was found.
3. Original research: I don't think there is any original research here, but there are many paragraphs which are not referenced, probably out of oversight or fear of redundant citing. Citations should be provided in these sections. There is a sentence about the size of elves which has been challenged as explained here, and should be removed unless confirmed by reliable secondary sources.

I fixed the reference that gave an error, and the references layout criterion has now passed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Farang Rak Tham! Alarichall (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Broadness: seems to cover almost everything. What i did notice is that current Icelandic beliefs are covered only briefly, even though these beliefs have often been subject of news reports. It is of significant interest, since it shows that beliefs in elves continue until this day, even in Europe, and have even led to the establishment of an "Elf School".

[Good point. I've put a 'see also' tag on the Scandinavia section directing people the fulsome entry on this matter (Huldufólk). I might put a bit more into the elves article itself too though. Alarichall (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

Great!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Focus: generally the article is focused, though a little too large. Some parts are too detailed. I think this okay though.
2. Neutral: Different, sometimes conflicting opinions are described in several sections, which is good. However, there is some in-universe writing now and then, e.i. the article now and then loses its skeptical distance.
3. Stable: article is stable.
4. Pics: Pics are relevant and tagged.

Detailed review per section

• The form of English used is British. Indicate this with a template just before the lead text starts, so future editors keep on writing in British English for consistency. [Done. Alarichall (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]
• There are many duplicate wikilinks in the main body of article, that is Old English, Wið færstice, Aos Sí, fairies, etc. Use this tool to identify them.

• On the other hand, there are also many terms that lay people would not know. You need to check and wikilink some. Below I have identified a few, but not comprehensively.

Lead

• see Prose above.

* Reference citations and the lengthy quote in the lead should be integrated in the main body of the article and removed from the lead. The lead should be rewritten as a complete summary of the article per WP:LEAD.

Done. See comments above. Alarichall (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

* The two references in the chart should be formatted as references, rather than mentioned inline.

Etymology

• Wikilink cognate. First time, explain shortly inline.
• "For example, Alaric Hall, noting that the cognates..." Sentence is too complex, split or simplify.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

Elves in names

• For improved clarity, use proper names in the section title
• Wikilink Celts. Not everyone knows who they were, although I don't think you need to explain inline.
• "The most famous such name is Alboin": grammar is unusual. Is this British grammar?
• "It is generally agreed that these names indicate": these names indicate is redundant. Cut out.
• " Other words for supernatural beings...": I am not following. Please simplify.
• "This seems to have led people to associate legendary heroes called Álfr with elves." Reference has been omitted or has accidentally been moved. If no source can be found, delete it.

[Done! To me, "The most famous such name is Alboin" is formal English rather than specifically British English. But maybe it is just us who would say it... Anyway, I rephrased. Alarichall (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

Great work!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to Christian cosmologies

• See above, under prose.
• Wikilink Christian cosmology.
• "Identifying elves..." don't bold any text apart from synonyms of the title in the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface.
• "As with the Irish Aos Sí, beliefs in elves have, therefore, been a part of Christian cultures throughout their recorded history": Remove their, it is confusing. Therefore doesn't need the commas.
• "(though of course there are no rigid distinctions between these)": redundant or WP:EDITORIAL. Remove.

*  "incubi": shortly gloss or explain inline.
* "confessions by people accused of witchcraft to encounters with elves" is confusing. Split into several sentences, or cut out detail.
* "It is even possible that stories were sometimes told from this perspective to subvert the dominance of the Church." even is out of place here, since this is a new line of thought altogether.
* Is "(if unusual)" mentioned in the cited source? If not, remove per WP:EDITORIAL.
* "...which lists elves among the monstrous races...": how is that not demonizing elves? Rephrase.

[I've implemented these changes or otherwise removed the problems in the course of rewriting this section. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

And nicely done!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Elves in medieval texts and post-medieval folk-belief

• Move introductory paragraphs to main lead.

Old English

*"But there is good evidence..." This paragraph has many problems. For one, there are contrasting views in here, but this is not indicated clearly.

* "...could cause illness": rephrase for encyclopedic tone, we are talking about a belief here.

• "...recent scholarship suggests Anglo-Saxon elves...were like people." Same here.

* "...recent scholarship..." start a new sentence or add a conjunction.
*"This fits well with the use of Old English ælf..." Split or simplify.

[Done. As mentioned below, I reorganised this entirely, so I hope it's improved! Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)]

Certainly!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Middle English

* "elf-beliefs": odd word, replace.

• "arcane wisdom of alchemy": you might want to rephrase this for neutrality, might get the attention of the anti-quack gestapo on the English Wikipedia.

* "...as in Geoffrey Chaucer's satirical": I don't believe satirical is a noun. Rephrase .
* "...where the title character sets out in quest of the 'elf-queen', who dwells in the 'countree of the Faerie'...": use double quotes instead per Manual of Style.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)]

Post-medieval folk belief in Britain

* "The similarities...are close." Seems an unusual expression. Find an alternative.
* "The noun elf-shot is first attested in a Scots poem"... You need to connect this with the scholarship on elf-shot in the Old English section .

[Done. Moving the elf-shot stuff led me to reorganise the medieval English section entirely. I *hope* it's now clearer! Alarichall (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)]

It certainly looks much better, and I think also makes for a more interesting read. I have to reread some sections here, but it looks great.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Old Norse texts

Expand or delete section.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Mythological texts

*Explain a little bit inline what type of work the Elucidarius is.
*"alliterating formulaic collocation": too technical. Expand or rephrase.
* "or sometimes even of not distinguishing between the two groups." Fix grammar.
* "There are hints that Freyr was associated with elves.." Who's Freyr? I only know Friday is named after her, and even about that I am not certain.
* "...and even that Snorri invented the Vanir": how does this prove that they are similar to álfar? Expand.
* "A kenning for the sun": What in Freyr's name is a kenning? Please explain.
* "influenced by romance": you need to expand on the word romance as this can mean many things.
* "and in later traditions": you need to start a new sentence here, to simplify the content.

[Thanks: all good points! Done. BTW, Friday takes its name from the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of Frigg. Poor Freyr doesn't have any days named after him. Alarichall (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Ah, i see. Nice editing work. Send Frigg my regards, and thanks for the correction!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Other sources

* This section contains primary sources. With regard to the content supported by primary sources, you should include secondary sources to prove this material is relevant per WP:WEIGHT.
* "'In the more realistic Sagas of Icelanders, Bishops' Sagas, and Sturlunga saga, álfar are rare. When seen, they are distant." If this is a quote, you need to attribute it inline, or paraphrase instead.

[The text is in quotations marks, followed by a reference showing where the quotation is from, so I would have said that it did have an inline attribution. Do you mean that the name of the author needs to be mentioned in the main text? This seems unnecessary to me. Anyway, I've paraphrased it instead. Alarichall (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Okay. It is my understanding of WP:INTEXT that mentioning the author within the sentence is required if you are quoting. But anyway, you have fixed it now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

* "These texts include a fleeting mention..." and next paragraph "The Kings' sagas include a rather elliptical account..." seem trivial. Rephrase or remove.

[I've rephrased to explain why, though brief, these are notable. The references that are already there explain this so no extra references needed. Alarichall (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Yes, you already fixed this. Nice work.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

* "going for a poo" rephrase in encyclopedic tone, if you are keeping the content, that is.

[Yeah, I always struggled with this. Something really scientific like 'going away to excrete' sounds silly, but translations that represent the colloquial tone of the original like 'going for a shit' sound obscene. I've now tried 'going to the toilet', although this is rather anachronistic. Alarichall (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Er, i guess we'll just stick to the toilet, then. Lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Post-medieval developments

Support by sources or remove.

[Yeah, moveover this is all duplicated later in the Scandinavian section. I've deleted it and will consider whether the material in the article could be organised a bit better. Alarichall (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Conclusion of 25 September

I will continue the detailed review after your response. Please note that there are two dead links in the article: in the section Elf#England and Germany, the link http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50073178 is dead,   and in Elf#Mythological texts the link to http://heathen.vuya.net/sites/default/files/1973%20Of%20Elves%20and%20Dwarves%20(Motz).pdf is dead.

I have now adjusted the url myself.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I will keep the GA Progress updated below.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Medieval and early modern German texts

* "Old High German alp is attested": The Old High German word...

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* "nature-god or -demon...": use double quotes per MOS:QUOTE. Delink nightmare per MOS:LWQ, as this is wikilinked elsewhere. Authors should be mentioned inline. Also, "nature-god or -demon" doesn't need hyphens. I am also wondering whether "als Nachtmahr" would be better translated as "as nightmare", leaving out the the, as a state of being, but I would have to access the full German quote to confirm that.
:: [I changed the translation of 'Naturgott oder -dämon' to 'Nature-god or nature-demon' ('nature god or demon' would not indicate that 'nature' is compounded not only with 'god' but also 'demon'. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

'als Nachtmahr' definitely denotes a kind of supernatural being, not a bad dream. I changed the English translation to 'the mare' to try and remove the ambiguity (though some readers may think 'the mare' is a kind of horse, so it's still not ideal. It's always hard talking about the mare in modern English. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

The article will always be a bit technical due to the field of scholarship, but i think you have clarified things to a great extent.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

*"occurs so often it would appear to be proverbial": simplify "would appear to be" to "seems"

[I would like to, but this is a quotation, and I'm not very confident with the primary evidence here so I'd rather leave the quotation as it is than paraphrase it and accidentally alter the sense. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* "die elben/der alp trieget mich" (the elves/elf is/are deceiving me)': quotes should be on both sides, and you might want to italicize the German per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign-language quotations. In Elf/elves the two words should be swapped.

[Again, this is a quotation, so we can't mess around with it, and I'd prefer not to paraphrase it. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC).]

::: Okay, but are/is should match plural/singular. This problem only occurs in the translation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
* "and are often associated with the mare." Split off in a separate sentence.

[I just rewrote the material instead. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

*"in later medieval prayers": move to start of sentence.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* Delink mare in poem.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* "elves are attested to": rephrase, i would use described by or depicted by.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* "Elves in German tradition": move however forward.

[I just rewrote the material instead. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

*"Von den elben virt entsehen": format per policy cited above, and per MOS:BQ you need to replace the pipes (|) with / or //.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Great, don't forget to italicize the German quotes.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

*"As in earlier English, elbe is attested translating words for nymphs": confusing, rephrase.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* Choose either dwarfs or dwarves as plural.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

*"This incubus motif recurs in the Þiðreks saga version of the parentage of Hagen (ON Högni), who was the product of his mother Oda being impregnated by an elf (ON álfr) while she lay in bed": simplify or split, and you might have to expand on the incubus motif inline, to explain what it is briefly .

[I just rewrote the material instead. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* the word for 'nightmare': double quotes.

[done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Early modern ballads

* Much unsourced content, better source it or remove it.
*"Elves have a prominent place...": split.

• "Because they were learned by heart, they sometimes mention elves when that term had become archaic in everyday usage, and have played a major role in transmitting traditional ideas about elves in post-medieval cultures." Too much content packed in one sentence. You need to go slower.
• Wikilink merman.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Post-medieval conceptions of elves

• Move summary to lead.

England and Germany

*"in elite culture": specify whether you mean literature, language, or something else.
*'fairy' and 'elf': remove quotes and italicize instead.

• wikilink aetiology.

* "is entirely his invention": you probably need to expand this, it is an invention as opposed to a traditional account I suppose?
*"an 'elf-lock' (tangled hair) is not caused by an elf as such": why would it be? Confusing.
*"the elves are almost as small as insects" Maybe OR. See overview. Similarly, "The influence of Shakespeare..." is not sourced either.

• "as a loan": as a loan word?

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Scandinavia

* The first paragraphs are not referenced. Source or delete.

Nicely rewritten!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

*..."which was carved into buildings or other objects.[102]" Link to a url in the reference, rather than an internal wikilink.

• "On lake shores...": attribute quote inline, and remove redundant and confusing reference to Google Maps.

*"A 2006 and 2007 study on superstition by the University of Iceland’s Faculty of Social Sciences": the wikilink superstition links to seems wrong. And while you are at it, rephrase superstition, because it is not neutral.
*" Terry Gunnell stated: 'Icelanders..." Use double quotes.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

::: I hate to be fuzzy, but per WP:MOS those need to be double quotes, not single. Same holds for other quotes.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I always use single, which is common in the UK, so it's hard to break the habit when you're typing! But I've now done a general search and replace so it should now be clean. Alarichall (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The confusing part is that other Wikipedias have different rules...--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion of 27 September

Almost finished. It is pretty quiet here...--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Equivalents in non-Germanic traditions

* rewrite in prose, see Overview above. [Done. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

• "Celtic-speaking world": which countries? And is this term common in scholarship? [It is common. The issue is that although Celtic languages are spoken in France, the UK, and Ireland, they spread across national boundaries and are no longer a majority language in any country. (Similar issues arise regarding the other language-groups here.) I've rephrased to make it clear that they're spoken in north-west Europe, and added a wikilink. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Okay, great.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* "bonnes dames": change comma to and. [Fixed in the course of general rephrasing. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

• "Finnic-speaking world": this is not a language family, and it does not include Estonian. Do you mean Finno-Ugric? [The Finnic languages are a language family (within the larger grouping of Finno-Ugric languages) and they do include Estonian. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Okay, sorry about that. I was unaware.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* show that the example of Japan is considered notable by citing a secondary source, or remove it.  [Done. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC).]

You found a reference in ten minutes. Impressive.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* " The beings most similar to elves..." refers to a Dutch translation of an article of you, which is already cited elsewhere in the article. Better cut out the Dutch translation, since the English original presumably supports the content as well, and English should be preferred on the English Wikipedia.

[The published version is the Dutch one. The English text, while available online and so linked from the bibliography, has not been formally published, so it's appropriate to cite the Dutch publication. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

:: I understand that the magazine Kelten is scholarly in nature. Great, but better remove the English version then.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern popular culture

* "With industrialisation and mass education...": move to main lead on top.
* 'A Visit from St. Nicholas', '’Twas the Night before Christmas': use double quotes that aren't curly per MOS:QUOTETITLE.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* "but it was the little helpers that were later attributed to him to whom the name stuck": to complex sentence, simplify or split up.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* subsection Elf#Christmas elf does not clearly state where de Christmas Elf originated from. If they originated from the poem cited, say so unequivocally.

[I've had a quick look for secondary literature and although there must be decent stuff out there, I haven't yet found it. I've tried to phrase in ways that are consistent with what I've found. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

Good. We stick to the sources, of course.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

* "elves slightly resemble nimble": weasel sentence. Rephrase as "elves are nimble..."

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* 'fairy-stories': quotes seem out of place, remove.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* "(popularized by the Dungeons & Dragons": did the RPG popularize Tolkien's elves or, the post-Tolkien version?

[Rephrased. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

See also

* Remove entry, as it is already mentioned in the main body of the article. [Done. Alarichall (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]' '

Final conclusion of 27 September

I am finished now. I think the article covers the subject well. The content is quite complete, but you need to work hard on the language and style to get it to GA. However, it seems you rather busy, as you have not responded yet. I will give you time until 2 October to fix things, after which I will mark the nomination as failed. If you have sufficient reason, I can give you more time, but you have to let me know.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I just thought I'd post here as well as on my talk page, for completeness. I really appreciate the care you've given to this and look forward to implementing/responding to your suggestions. Could you give me a couple of weeks? Alarichall (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alarichall, perhaps you'd better tell me when you have time for the assessment, and I can put the article on hold for the time being. Normally, you have seven days to implement suggestions.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I'll try and get it done this weekend and I'll let you know on Monday if I managed it or not, and we can see where we go from there. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alarichall, alright then. I can give you another week until 9 October, but after that, you would have to come up with pretty good reasons to ask for further postponement. See also WP:GAI. You can also ask another editor do the job instead of you, or work together. I have done that myself once (work together).--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol, I guess you and I just have a different understanding of 'a timely manner'. Anyway, thanks for the extension!

I have to start by stating the Wikipedia guidelines as a reviewer should, but if the situation requires it, I can be flexible.

I have used strikethrough text to indicate which problems have been fixed. The original research criterion has passed. With the speed you are doing this, you should be finished in no time.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments 6 October

Great work, Alarichall! The article has been greatly improved. Don't forget: the lead still needs some working on. Even though there are no copyright problems, the lead should be a comprehensive summary of the article, and all references cited in the lead should ideally be moved to the main body of the article. Also, it is unusual to have a large quote in a lead. The lead basically needs to state what is so important about this topic, and continue by summarizing the contents of the article, that's all.

After the lead is finished, there's just a few minor details left, but the article should pass GA.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your hard work on this and encouragement. I want to make sure I've finished any alterations of the main article before I have a go at the header. I don't think I'll be able to finish it today, but I will be able to tomorrow. I hope that's okay. Alarichall (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we can go on until the 9th, Alarichall.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now underlined the text concerning the problem with the lead (WP:LEAD) and three other remaining suggestions one other remaining suggestion, that is the part on modern, Icelandic beliefs. Please also note that there are a few more sentences in the article that have not been sourced yet.

I've gone through and made sure that no paragraphs are unreferenced. A few paragraphs only have one reference at the end, when that reference covers the entirety of the material in the paragraph. There are no 'citation needed' tags left! Alarichall (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And now I've extended the coverage of modern Icelandic elves a bit. Alarichall (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The three remaining suggestions are remaining suggestion is minor and not crucial for GA-level, but if time allows, we can fix it them .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I hope we're now complete! But I may have missed something. It was a very detailed review of a very long article! Thanks again: it's been good working with you and you've made this article a lot better :-) Alarichall (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Alarichall, you didn't miss a thing. Great work! I found the part on Icelandic beliefs especially interesting (and sobering)-- i always had the feeling that it was blown out of proportion. You do need to remove the part that says "(if these is even a useful question to ask)", I'm afraid, unless you can attribute it, per WP:EDITORIAL. As for the lead, leads are usually split in maximum four paragraphs, so if you can merge a bit that would be great. And then we're done. I also appreciate all the work you put into this, and your patience. My assessment was perhaps quite lengthy, but then again, this way the article won't get delisted from GA anytime soon, and you can bring it to FA level next. Oh, and don't forget to come up with an interesting "Did You Know?" entry for the Wikipedia front page. I'm sure you will come up with something quite fascinating.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll sort out the header and attribution before bed, I hope... Alarichall (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

File:Eadwine Psalter f 66r detail of Christ and demons attacking psalmist.png is PD-old. It's currently under a wrong license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop, thanks, I had overlooked that. {{PD-old-100}} tag, right?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Farang Rak Tham, that's right. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Finnusertop.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Finnish Elves

Someone ought to add a link to the Nisse Wikipedia page. Elves are very important to Finnish lore. In Finnish, they are referred to as Tonttu. More could be added about Finnish elves (see also Mauri Kunnas), but the Nisse page is a good starting point (maybe as a 'see also'?)

97.104.133.89 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)JustTryingToBeHelpful97.104.133.89 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Finnish traditions are currently covered in Elf#Europe, and the nisse in Elf#Terminology. Any particular changes you'd like to suggest there? Alarichall (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

Would be informative to have some pointers to Williams syndrome - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome#Society_and_culture. Sssemil (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'm working on it! Alarichall (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you go, @Sssemil: Elf#Demythologising_elves_as_people_with_illness_or_disability. How does that look? Alarichall (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Alarichall (talk · contribs) seems to have this well in hand. NiciVampireHeart 09:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Very nice 👌 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sssemil (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A grim ripoff

This article looks like yet another example of Wiki-style obscurantism. The information appears to derive entirely from Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie, but garbled and hidden behind tons of less important ternary and quaternary sources. Grimm's text is still much better, and facts only briefly mentioned here are better explained there: https://archive.org/details/teutonicmytholog02grim/page/442. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

Immediately before the phrase "Thus in the US, Canada, UK, and Ireland" is the letter "e" with a citation to Hall (2014). Please remove the "e" and the citation, since we don't need a stray "e" there. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

The caption under the image of the Beowulf manuscript mistranscribes a Tironian note et (⁊) as an ampersand (&). Could this please be corrected where the Tironian et replaces the ampersand. 2602:30A:2E70:D020:CC8A:6A96:FE2:9C9 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Alarichall (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fairy?

So are they fairies or not? Booger-mike (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, since neither of them are real, it's tricky to answer that question! Alarichall (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Arabian" jinn

@Bloodofox:, if you look at Xoltron's editing history you'll see he has a history of claiming Arabic things are Persian. See especially his edits at One Thousand and One Nights, such as this. Look also at his recent edits at Jinn, such as this. Jinn are from pre-Islamic Arabia, whatever their ultimate origins may be. It seems strange that we shouldn't identify them as Arabian.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, thank you for clarifying. I've self-reverted my reversion of your edit. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

So... Erhm... I don't have the linguistic expertise to confirm this, but I've always been told that the etymology for 'Elf' lies not in the Latin word for 'white' (albus), but the High German word for 'river' (albiz) and that it's association with a certain class of fairies (those associated with rivers, like Neck, kelpies and the like) came about in a similar way to how the word 'Sidhe' refers far more to a class of fairies than to the earthen mounds that the word originally referred to that they were said to dwell in.

I acknowledge that this isn't the strongest of evidence, has elements of OR and may well be wrong, but it would certainly explain far better why there's a distinction made between 'light' and 'dark' elves if it was a reference to white water rivers (fast rivers in the mountains) and black water rivers (swampy, slow moving rivers in the low lands) than if it meant 'the white people' (I can see the Germanic storytellers of old work that one out "Oh, sure, they're the white people, except they're pitch black so we'll just call then 'the dark white people' rather than just 'the black people'...").

If it is wrong, it might be worth adding a little bit to the etymology section about why. Robrecht (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen this etymology in a scholarly source (and although it was a long time ago, I did once read a lot of scholarly sources about the etymology of elf), so I'm not sure we'd be able to find a citation for it. Maybe it's a widespread folk etymology? Alarichall (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems River in old High German is 'aha' or 'fluz', the modern word being 'fluss' https://glosbe.com/en/goh/river. Do you have a source? 'Albiz' is also the source of the word 'Albus' in Latin. Its a proto Indo European word that branched off. I don't think the claim is that the word comes from the Latin, the Latin is a separate descendant of 'Albiz' that has a similar concept. I think it needs to be considered that in the past the concept of 'whiteness' and was not like we use it today. Its possible that light and dark refers to pale and olive tones. Or the concept of Elves evolved beyond the meaning of the word to take on other characteristics. There is nothing concrete on this matter.2A02:C7D:8059:3400:B9C0:2167:B8B7:D4AC (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Nisse?

The article gives the impression that the notion of Christmas elves sort of appeared in America out of nowhere. I don't have the expertise to cite specific authorities, but their similarity to Nisse is unmistakable. Given that so much of Santa culture comes from Norway, this is hardly surprising. Isn't it likely that "elf" wasn't used as a translation of "nisse"? Certainly, Santa and his elves aren't the same type, suggesting "elf" was used as a broad term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1000:1E7:F151:B8A4:10EA:A803 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

See Nisse (folklore)#Modern Nisse. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Objective?

"From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real"

Ha ha. How is this possible? 188.172.108.164 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

matt white?

What is this? No explanation is given and nothing exists online. 188.172.108.164 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If by "matt" it is meant "matte", not only someone should fix the spelling, but remove it altogether. Latin cognates to a word and concept from Germanic people likely have little relevance. Alpharts Tod (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Matt White is a novelist who wrote Elvish Capers and The Road to Fairyland.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Matt White! I looked up 'matt' in the Oxford English Dictionary, and 'matt', not 'matte', is the spelling given there. Comparing the meaning of a Germanic word with its Indo-European cognates is the main way in which we can guess what it might have meant in early stages of its history, so comparing the meanings of Germanic words with (in this case) their Latin and Celtic cognates is a really important method. Alarichall (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Real Meaning?

The article is separate from the Elves in video game and movies article, but it is more connected to that than the real meaning of elves. The article simply discussed what Elfs are since the Christianisation of Europe, but barely touches on the origins of Elf. It mentions that the word is used as a root to many ancient German Warrior names, and thus, likely had a positive, or even divine meaning. But the article does not go into much else detail on the subject. 188.172.108.164 (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this enquiry! The reason why the article doesn't go into much detail about pre-Christian meanings of elf is that pre-Christian speakers of Germanic languages hardly ever wrote anything, so we have no direct evidence for what the word elf meant to them. In my view, the article says as much as can plausibly be known on the subject. Alarichall (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there could be more focus on Alfheim, Ydalir, Ullr, Freyr, and the like. As these are probably our oldest clues. I think my main issue is, we have Elves in fiction and video games, Elves in modern tradition, but but the origin of Elves. I understand little is known from 2,000-3,000 years ago, but there could be more here. Alpharts Tod (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point. In fact, we should have a whole tripartite article on the Etymology of elves.com.au.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

where there actually elves before noas ark

Suggest what could this mean 2A00:23C4:706:2600:1D3:6E84:72BA:4F77 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Borneo?

"Orang Bunian" is not an Elf but rather mysterious characters from Southeast Asia. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think many people view them as Elves, especially in Malaysia I would ask how they are different from elves? Tepkunset (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think the more pertinent question is why some people in Malaysia view Bunians as Elves? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Jinn?

Jinn, have a rank as warrior and magical beings originating in the "1001 Nights". 137.59.221.36 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Elf personality

The fear parents have of Elf is that they could be naughty, attraction to innocence and possibly feminine, they possess Male juvenile behaviour, very independent and fearless, possibly warlike in attitude. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Change Medieavl to Medieval Polygnotus (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Typo fixed. see revision here A diehard editor (talk | edits) 10:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Älvalek.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Under the section "Reality and perception":

"From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real. However, elves have in many times and places been believed to be real beings. Where enough people have believed in the reality of elves that those beliefs then had real effects in the world, they can be understood as part of people's worldview, and as a social reality: a thing which, like the exchange value of a dollar bill or the sense of pride stirred up by a national flag, is real because of people's beliefs rather than as an objective reality."

"Not considered" is a weasel word that imbues doubt and false balance to the factual statement that elves aren't real, and implies that they may be real but we don't wish to believe so. Likewise, the following use of "however," intentionally lends additional doubt to that claim. Unless there is factual, scientific evidence that elves may have existed, leave these out and simply write it as: "...elves are not objectively real. Elves have in..."

Giving credence by buying into the myth of elves does not impart realism, not even in the majority of minds participating in the lore. At some level, we still know that we are playing pretend in a shared fantasy. The whole sentence evoking Social Reality is a mischaracterization of that concept, which the original editor seems to have grossly misunderstood. We're better off just striking that whole sentence out, replacing it with something else. 2601:152:4F80:5B60:DC93:FD4D:22B4:7CB1 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"humans and gods"

I think whoever wrote the sentence "There does not seem to have been any clear-cut distinction between humans and gods" right after a sacrifice to the elves has been mentioned, made a mistake he wasnt aware of and he meant "between elves and gods", hence the aforementioned alfablót (elf sacrifice) 2800:200:F270:24C7:10C8:841E:ADD9:8253 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Gothic form

The article currently states: Personal names provide the only evidence for elf in Gothic, which must have had the word *albs (plural *albeis). The most famous name of this kind is Alboin. This appears like it may be unsourced. Alboin is a Langobardic name, and doesn't Germanic *b generally become f in that position in Gothic? Burgundian (also likely East Germanic) appears to have *alfs according to Orel.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey ho Ermenrich! I cited Alboin and gave the form *albs in my 2007 elves book, which I probably intended to cite when I revised this article years ago. But it is perfectly possible that I made a mistake in that book: I hadn't (and haven't) studied Gothic properly and I can't remember what my source was. I'll try to find a better source but if you get to one first then feel free to fix it! Alarichall (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)