User talk:Underleaf

Freyr - Continued from User talk:71.128.55.161

All the things mentioned there are 100%. - Underleaf

No they are not. I have already addressed the elf lord thing. Here is another:

He also possesses a sword that would by itself emerge from its sheath and spread a field with carnage whenever the owner desired it.

Where does it say so? - Haukur 16:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change it if you'd like....It is very safe to say that if Freyr was given Alfheim and he is a god, that he is the lord of it and all it's inhabitants, do you disagree? Just because it does not specifically say he is in whatever documents you have, does not mean he isn't. Please let us leave that argument be, nothing can be accomplished from it.

Let's stick to what is specifically said, that's much the safest course. If you absolutely insist that Álfheimr must be mentioned in the lead then very well. But since he's never specifically said to rule over the Álfar or pictured as commanding them and since this does not clearly occur as his role in any surviving myth it does not appear to me to belong in the lead. - Haukur 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note for comparison that Völundr is said to be "the lord of the Álfar". - Haukur 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I confused the term "lord" with "ruler", however that argument aside, there can be more than one lord. Grímnismál relates that the Van Freyr was the lord of Álfheimr (meaning "elf-world"), the home of the light-elves.

This Grímnismál reference is quoted in toto in the article:

Grímnismál, which is largely a collection of miscellaneous information about the gods, mentions Freyr's abode.

Alfheim Frey

gáfu í árdaga

tívar at tannféi. - Guðni Jónsson's edition

"Alfheim the gods to Frey

gave in days of yore

for a tooth-gift." - Thorpe's edition

A tooth-gift was a gift given to an infant on the cutting of the first tooth. Since Alfheimr or Álfheimr means "World of Álfar (Elves)" the fact that Freyr should own it is one of the indications of a connection between the Vanir and the obscure Álfar.

Is there anything about this which you are not happy with? - Haukur 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5: Ull yonder in Yew-Dale Has made himself a mansion: Elf-Home for Frey in the old days The gods gave as a tooth-fee.

It is very safe to say that he is lord AND ruler of Alfheim. This was well known in old-times. Also many people interpret it as such(me included), I will make sure it is mentioned, I too have tried to be reasonable. As a pun I will ask you to please stop trying to be "lord" over Freyrs page, and leave it to his followers.

I asked you to please leave it...yet you changed it again! Are you intentionally tryin to push my buttons? There is a distinct difference in the kind of Alfar that reside in Alfheim, you may not see it as important but we do!!! I will ask you again to leave it be, I have let you make your changes as you see fit, even though I have just as much right to change it as YOU! To be honest from this point if you change what I have done one more time, you will not only offend me and my kind, but Freyr himself as well.

For crying out loud - are you threatening me with the wrath of the gods now? Because you think Freyr likes your wording of the intro of his Wikipedia article better than he likes mine? Please try to get a little perspective here. I've proposed a wording which exactly cites the information in the Poetic Edda on Freyr's relationship with Álfheimr. Please at least try to explain what you find unacceptable in it before reverting yet again to your preferred wording. - Haukur 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Icelandic mythographer and historian Snorri Sturluson seems to have referred to dwarves (dvergar) as "dark-elves" (dökkálfar) or "black-elves" (svartálfar); whether this usage reflects wider medieval Scandinavian belief is uncertain. Elves who are not dark-elves are referred to by Snorri as "light-elves" (ljósálfar); this usage has often been connected with elves' etymological connection with whiteness. Snorri describes their differences like so:

There are many magnificent dwellings. One is there called Alfheim. There dwell the folk that are called light-elves; but the dark-elves dwell down in the earth, and they are unlike the light-elves in appearance, but much more so in deeds. The light-elves are fairer than the sun to look upon, but the dark-elves are blacker than pitch.

Threatening you?!?!? Why is it so hard for you not to have that mentioned in the lead? Is it that prepostorous? It's funny, because that now will be the only statement in the lead that is quoted exactly from the Eddas. Do yourself a favor and ask any expert on Pagan gods. It appears now that you just like to play god-in-a-box to make yourself feel somehow important. At this point it seems useless to explain anything to you since you seem to be convinced you are right even after I have given sufficient proof and a desire to make ONE thing clear in the lead paragraph. You obsess about omitting a widely-known belief because it is not written exactly word for word in the Eddas(News Flash! there are a lot more sources out there about this topic). It seems that anyone who disagrees with you must answer to you, and that your decision is final? I don't need to explain myself to you, and will do so nomore. I tried to be reasonable with you, but it seems there is no reasoning with you at all....I will continue to change it as I see fit(from a Pagan point of view), if you don't like it, TOUGH. It is very important that people see these truths about him (whether you believe them to be or not). And I can also assure you I am much more knowledgeable than you are in this matter. Hence I have not tampered with any of your other contributions.

I have cooperated with every reasonable thing you want to add to the article. My only concern is that the article is kept accurate, that unwarranted assumptions are not made and that things which are only found in one source aren't misleadingly emphasized.

Please stop claiming authority about this because you are a pagan and you assume that I am not. And try to avoid sentences like "I am much more knowledgeable than you are in this matter." That kind of style will get you nowhere - if you want to convince people that you're knowledgeable then do so through your contributions, not through boasting. - Haukur 13:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go for an argument from authority. I am not trying to hide any information on Freyr. I wrote most of the current article and I'm still working on expanding it. Anyone is, of course, free to help. - Haukur 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I commend you on this...you have done well, I respect the time and effort you have put into this project. However I have all the information you added and more, I'm not sure my knack for relaying them is any better than yours, but I would have eventually done what you did(along with the many other contributors). I honestly feel that the lead paragraph is too vague and needs more meat. This is the main motive behind my moves to edit. Take it as you will. But please stop considering yourself the chief editor for a webpage that is open to the public.

Oh and by the way, I have many more things I could add to this page, but seeing as how you would probably delete them I will not waste my time.

Please stop claiming authority about this because you are a pagan and you assume that I am not. And try to avoid sentences like "I am much more knowledgeable than you are in this matter." That kind of style will get you nowhere - if you want to convince people that you're knowledgeable then do so through your contributions, not through boasting. - Haukur 13:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well are you a pagan or not? And I don't need to avoid sentences like "I am much more knowledgeable than you are in this matter." Because from what I have seen so far that statement is entirely true.

That kind of style will get you nowhere - if you want to convince people that you're knowledgeable then do so through your contributions, not through boasting.

I'm not tying to convince anyone, and my boasting comes from you trying to throw your weight around on a public accessable web-site. Every contribution I have made you have either deleted entirely or changed to make yourself happy. You somehow seem to think that your contributions are the end-all be-all of the site. You are obviously narrow-minded. By excluding myth from a mythical topic.

Freyja

Where does it say that Freyr and Freyja are twins? - Haukur 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of misleading anyone with false statements or using unreliable sources. I am not making these things up!! Like I said before I don't need to site any of my sources for you, and will not do so. You're ignorant of my additions anyways. I have my sources and will add them when I feel comfortable enough that my contributions are welcome. Until then I will add things at my leasure.

That's where you're wrong. You do have to cite your sources or anything you add can be removed. Read up on WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:OR. Until you provide a proper source saying that Freyja and Freyr are twins the Freyr article won't say that they are twins.

I realize you probably aren't making stuff up yourself but whatever sources you have seem of poor quality. The article you just wrote on Beli, for example, is completely inaccurate.

My bad....I must have had too much coffee when I wrote it. I fixed it.

It's a good idea to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines or you'll likely be frustrated and get nowhere.

As for whether or not I am a pagan the point I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter. You can't claim any special privileges here because of your religion. We don't leave the article on Jesus to his followers and we don't leave the article on Freyr to his followers. You have to cite your sources like everyone else. - Haukur 09:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules. The reflection of your character as I've come to see, leaves me sullen. Allowing someone like you access to my sources would be the equivalent of throwing my bread to a dog; a waste. My beliefs and knowledge as well as my sources about Freyr are very sacred to me and my kind. I will save them from your scrutiny and mockery. I have already layed out my intentions. My original statement I wanted to add is a very common belief among Pagans. and is interpreted directly from the Eddas. It is apparent that you(Haukur) have ill will towards anyone editing any of your work here. You have no authority over my actions at this site, if so, you would be-able to block any additions from any one else. I pray for people like you everyday.

I have no special authority over the Freyr article or any other article on Wikipedia. The thing I'm trying to get across is that Wikipedia operates by certain rules and procedures. One of them is the verifiability requirement (see WP:V and WP:CITE). This means, among other things, that if you're adding information and it gets questioned you must be able to back it up with a credible source. If you can't or won't the information is removed.

In the example currently under discussion I don't remember Freyr and Freyja ever being called twins in the ancient sources. It is, however, perfectly possible that I'm missing something and that such a source does indeed exist. If you can quote such a source then we can say in the Freyr article that Freyr and Freyja are twins (and mention the source). But as long as you refuse to divulge your source then we can't.

You may feel that this is unfair. Perhaps it is. But it's how Wikipedia works. There are plenty of sites on the Web which don't work like that and some of them may be more suitable for you to contribute your thoughts on Freyr to. You can try http://everything2.com/ for example - or set up a site of your own.

You are of course also welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia but as long as you do you have to play by the rules or you will continually be frustrated. It's not just me who's being a prick - there are a lot of us pricks around here :)

It's entirely possible that I'm being possessive with the Freyr article. But look at this diff This is the difference between the article before you first edited it and my last version. There's been a lot of change. The lead has been expanded to include such things as Gullinbursti, Skíðblaðnir and the Swedish connection - all things which you have wanted. So you have definitely made your mark on the article in spite of our differences. - Haukur 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that the article is kept accurate, that unwarranted assumptions are not made and that things which are only found in one source aren't misleadingly emphasized. - Haukur

My original contribution was neither unwarranted nor an assumption. It is an interpretation of previously cited texts. It is not simply just his 'abode'(this too could be considered an interpretation), for he has many. I am not alone in this. Look at this way; If you or anyone was given an entire world as a tooth-gift(something given to someone who is new to something/Hence Freyr at one point was accepted as an Aesir and was new to the whole god thing) would you then not be considered by yourself and others "lord" of that world? We could debate on this one interpretation for years, just as many interpretations of the bible still have not been resolved for centuries. I too hope that we can come to some sort of mutual understanding of this dispute, honestly it should have never come to this in the first place. I respect your contributions, and never once intended to disfigure them or mislead anyone, I am just not the best at putting things into words. As you have come to see this is a very important topic for me. I would not have originally added it unless I was 100% confident in my decision. A simple quest for explanation with less angst on both our behalf would have avoided this and many useless attempts to over-ride each others edits :) - Underleaf 07:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Underleaf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- (aeropagitica) 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly aeropagitica!! :) :) :) Underleaf 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beli

The spelling is the least of my worries. Let's look at your text:

Beli - ("Moaning") Gymir's and Aurboda's son and brother to Freyr's wife, Gerd.

Unfamiliar to me. Where does it say so?

He is the leader of the barking Giants.

Also unfamiliar to me. Where are those giants described?

Freyr will be unarmed when he and Beli fight at Ragnarok, but Freyr will kill him with a stag antler.

This is familiar but according to the Prose Edda it has already happened. Other sources, as far as I know, don't mention Beli though Freyr is called "Beli's slayer" in a few ancient poems. - Haukur 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there are some who believe that it already happened, and many others who don't. Judging from the magnitude of the after-effects of Ragnarok however, I'd be first in-line to say it hasn't happened yet :) Underleaf 09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean it like that. I mean that the Prose Edda describes Ragnarök as in the future but Freyr's battle with Beli as in the past and not as a part of Ragnarök. - Haukur 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...maybe I am misunderstanding..to me "Beli's slayer" could mean both present or future from a grammatical stand-point. Like I've said before I am not the best at realying things grammatically.Underleaf 09:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think it was a bit of a stretch to call him "Beli's slayer" if that event was envisioned in the future. In any case here's what the Prose Edda says, after relating the story of Freyr and Gerðr:

This was to blame for Freyr's being so weaponless, when he fought with Beli, and slew him with the horn of a hart." Then said Gangleri: "'T is much to be wondered at, that such a great chief as Freyr is would give away his sword, not having another equally good. It was a great privation to him, when he fought with him called Beli; by my faith, he must have rued that gift." Then answered Hárr: "There was small matter in that, when he and Beli met; Freyr could have killed him with his hand. It shall come to pass that Freyr will think a worse thing has come upon him, when he misses his sword on that day that the Sons of Múspell go a-harrying."

As far as I know this is basically all we know about Beli. Anything else must be based on some elaborate interpretation and guesswork, Viktor Rydberg style. - Haukur 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found where the barking reference came from...It is from a poem published in 1997 and based off of the battle in the Skirnismal. I'm afraid to cite it for "some" may not deem it reputable. I will change Beli's page accordingly. Underleaf 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's a translation of Skírnismál: [1] There's no battle in it, is there?

By the way, I appreciate that you're making an effort to be nice now :) - Haukur 10:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant the Gylfaginning not The Lay of Skirnir...... Underleaf 11:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the title "Beli's Slayer". It is directly quoted from the Voluspa's 52nd Stanza.

It's in other places as well, Háleygjatal and Nafnaþulur at least. (Old Norse: "bani Belja") - Haukur 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skirnismal also relates this too in the 16th Stanza:

                           (Gerd said:)
   "Bid to my bower   the bold-minded come,
        to meet me and drink our mead;
   though far from us,   I fear me is not
            my brother's banesman.

I personally like "The Bane of Beli" myself. :) Underleaf 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to suggest that Skírnir killed Gerðr's brother. But it tells us nothing about who Gerðr's brother is. - Haukur 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also suggests that Gerd is aware of the prophecy about the battle at Ragnarok and is mistaking Skirnir as Freyr.(which several author's and translators have suggested, since he is riding Blodighofi and carrying Freyrs magic sword.) Underleaf 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such a prophecy. But as I've said before the only source I know of which describes Freyr's battle with Beli — the Prose Edda passage quoted in full above — places it in the past. - Haukur 20:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such a prophecy - Haukur

I hope you're not serious. Underleaf 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a prophecy of Ragnarök. There's a prophecy of Freyr's battle with Surtr. But the only ancient source which describes Freyr's battle with Beli places it in the past. - Haukur 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's probably because when prophets relay a prophecy(or someone speaks of it) it has already happened in their minds-eye, and could/can be related as past-tense. I don't see where you are trying to go with this argument. Underleaf 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is much simpler to assume that the battle did take place in the past as described then to assume something like that. We should report what the ancient sources say, not speculative theories. - Haukur 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to assume that Ragnarok already happened just because one tiny section refers to it as past-tense. Don't be ridiculous. So what you are saying is that Ragnarok started and ended while Skirnir was traveling to woo Gerd for Freyr(this is just after Freyr gives up his sword.)? I seriously don't see where you are going with this, and if you can't see it from what I have already mentioned I will assume you just want to argue, and in that case I have better things to do with my time. :) Underleaf 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that Freyr's battle with Beli is not described as a part of the battle of Ragnarök. Why should we assume that it is? - Haukur 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the research and find out for yourself. Underleaf 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. If you want the article to say that Freyr fights Beli at Ragnarök - rather than that he has already fought him - then you have to find a source which says so. - Haukur 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care when or where Freyr kills Beli I just know he does, that also is a debated topic. To avoid this argument any further since it seems that whatever I do demands it from you, I will change it. There now you can sleep again tonight. Underleaf 21:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I've now found a secondary source (as opposed to a primary source) which says that Freyr and Beli fight at Ragnarök. Quoth Rudolf Simek:

Beli (1) (ON, 'bellower'). A giant who fights with Freyr at Ragnarǫk. In Gylfaginning 36 Snorri tells of how Freyr had to fight Beli without a weapon and therefore killed him using an antler (the significance of which is obscure in the myth). This is why Freyr is known in kennings as 'Beli's killer' (bani Belja, e.g. Vǫluspá 53). It is possible that Freyr's killing of Beli without a weapon is linked with the tale that Freyr had lent his horse and sword to his servant Skírnir, details which are known from the lay of Freyr's wooing (Skírnismál). Gerðr, the giantess who Skírnir woos on Freyr's behalf, is grieving in Skírnismál 16 about the death at Freyr's hand of her brother (name not given). We may conclude from this that Beli was the brother of Gerðr and as such the son of Gymir and Aurboða, but this is by no means certain.

Simek, Rudolf. Dictionary of Northern Mythology. 1993. Trans. Angela Hall. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. ISBN 0859913694. New edition 2000, ISBN 0859915131.

Simek's statement is unqualified, as if it is generally known and accepted that the battle will happen at Ragnarök. This seems very strange to me, I'm trying to track down the origin of the idea. - Haukur 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr again

I am going to make the following changes to the lead of the Freyr article for the following reasons.

1. I am going to replace the word "magnificent" with "shining" in describing Gullinbursti. It seems strange to use a word like "magnificent" on Wikipedia unless it is a direct quote to something, which I don't think it is in this case. The word "shining" seems more neutral and helpful, the boar emits light.

2. I am going to replace the mention of Freyr's horse in the lead with a mention of his battle with Beli. We only have space for so much in the intro of an article and I argue that the horse is not one of the top 15 or so facts that we should mention. The name Blóðughófi only occurs a couple of times in the comparatively late Þulur poems. Beli seems more significant to me since he is mentioned in several heathen poems as well as the Prose Edda.

3. I am going to change the reference to Álfheimr back to containing only a paraphrase of the Grímnismál stanza. There is no need to include an interpretation in the lead. If it is obvious from the stanza that Freyr was "lord of Álfheimr" then it will be obvious to the reader of the paraphrase too. Including this at all is already a compromise on my behalf as my original version of the lead did not mention Álfheimr at all and I thought that was perfectly fine.

4. I am going to change the reference to being pulled in a wagon to one about riding the boar. The Húsdrápa stanza appears to say this and, as a heathen poem, it is more reliable than Snorri's 13th century prose. Both are quoted in the main part of the article.

5. I am going to remove the reference to Freyr being "god of the brave warrior". I don't see this stated anywhere in the article and the lead should summarize the article.

Thanks for changing the Beli article in accordance with our discussion. I've since contacted an expert I know who tells me that the reference in Simek to Freyr and Beli fighting at Ragnarök is a mistake, one corrected in the translation of the book he had.

- Haukur 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]