Talk:Swan maiden

Black Swan

it may be early, but i believe that black swan can apply as the swan maiden in popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.143.4 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I agree.But black swans might be evil,For some reason.Maybe because of their blackness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.152.122 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Swanmay merge

The Dungeons and Dragons monster is merely a use of the creature from folklore and legend; it is not distinct enough to merit a separate article. Goldfritha 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Several D&D creatures have counterparts in legend, folklore, video games, etc (Minotaur (D&D), Goblin (D&D), Troll (D&D)). They have their own articles because their use in the the game differs significantly enough to warrant it.--Robbstrd 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether to merge the troll article with the general troll one, but the swanmay one with this one. So -- you need to argue that the difference is enough. Goldfritha 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm sorry, but swanmay IS a term from fantasy fiction and D&D. Folklorists do NOT use the term (though popular writers with no training in folklore who've become confused about the term's origins might use it).Perhaps the D&D article is not notable enough to exist alone, but it certainly shouldn't be merged here (perhaps merge swanmay to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons)). "Swan Maiden" is a folklore term. If you want to argue otherwise, please find me a citation in a folklore book that isn't for children. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for your assertion about "swanmay"? Goldfritha 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a lack of references, rather than a reference. I've never seen "swanmay" in a book written by a folklorist, but I've seen it NUMEROUS times in fantasy fiction and D&D, where it is more common than "swan maiden". If you want, I can give you tons of references for the use of "swan maiden" by folklorists, but I can't give you a reference for a discussion of the reason folklorists don't use the term "swanmay" by folklorists, any more than I can give you a citation for folklorists discussing why they don't use Lycan. The lack of a reference is what makes the point. It's non-use isn't discussed by the experts because they consider it a non-issue. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A lack of references is not sufficient when you are making a positive assertion, such as you did. You also seem unaware that "may" is an archaic form of "maiden"; see [1], the second listing. Goldfritha 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Mermaid's assertation was not positive: "Folklorists do NOT use the term." Of course, you may also be refering to the positive statement, "I'm sorry, but swanmay IS a term from fantasy fiction and D&D," in which case the reference in question would be any number of gaming or fantasy fiction books. As for "may" being an archaic form of "maiden," that may be so, but you still need to cite a folklore source that uses "swanmay."--Robbstrd 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was refering to, and "any number of gaming or fantasy fiction books" do not prove that the term is from fantasy and gaming, any more than they could prove that "dragon" stems from gaming and fantasy fiction; what is needed is a reference that says that the term was invented in fantasy. Mermaid needs to provide such a reference to assert that the term is exclusively modern. Goldfritha 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also irrelavant for the merge. The "swan maidens" of Russian or Norse folklore are appropriate for this article, even though they were certainly not called "swan maidens" (something about different languages). Even if the term "swan may" was invented, it was invented to refer to swan maidens, and they would be suitable for this article. Goldfritha 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though it is hard to prove a that folklorists never use it, see a google book search and note that the only uses of "swan may" that I see in folklore books are uses that do NOT use it as a substitute for "swan maiden", but coincidentally juxtapose "swan" and "may" in some other sort of sentence, such as "Hence Brahma's riding on Swan may symbolise ..." or "The swan may have had some symbolic signification which determined its use on the vases" or "A tree may talk; a swan may change into a king's daughter; a castle may be built up in an instant." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose D&D monster pages are becoming standard, and it will just be recreated. Leave this, and we can add references to it. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in another week the merge tag will have been up for nearly a month, and so far every vote except for one has opposed the merge. I suggest that, unless we get anything other than oppose votes during the next week, we should remove the merge tag and consider this discussion closed with a final verdict of oppose. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week, and still every vote but one is oppose, with the only merge voter so far being unable to support their primary point with any WP:V sources, so I've both removed the merge tag and also reversed the deletion of that same info from the article that had been previously deleted to smooth the way for the merge. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversed the deletion as information was WP:OR. I do not have to provide a reference to keep the info out; you must provide one to keep it in, and all you have cited here is OR.Goldfritha

What I put back in is certainly not WP:OR. The only thing I put in was that it is used in D&D and fantasy fiction. I did not put in that it was not used in folklore. I can cite the part that I had put back in quite easily, and I will, and I'll put that back in. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Peregrine Fisher beat me to it. Thanks! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, please provide a citation for what you wrote, namely that the term "swan may" was invented in fantasy fiction? One of your citations does not even address the matter, and one merely says that "swan maidens" were the source -- which is not prove that the term was invented. Goldfritha 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say it was "invented in fantasy fiction," it says "also called swan may or swanmay in fantasy fiction and Dungeons and Dragons." The one ref shows it was called this in one of Poul Anderson's books (fantasy fiction), the other shows that's what it's called in D&D (read the first sentence in the PDF). As far as the Anita Blake reference, this page has a copy of some of the text from her stories, and they call them swanmays. That can't be used as a ref because it's a forum and a copy vio, but the books themselves can be used as a primary source and that's what the person who added that sentence did. Put a fact tag on it if you want someone to go and find which book exactly says this. - Peregrine Fisher 02:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the lede's asserting that the term is used in fantasy and D&D -- to the exclusion of folklore and myth. To assert that, you have to prove that the term was invented for them, and did not stem from folklore, and so both your references are irrelevant. Goldfritha 03:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what you mean (which may mean I'm wrong). - Peregrine Fisher 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I said that "swan maiden" was an American term and as evidence, produced citations of Americans using it.

You would quite correctly say that in order to call it American I would have produce a citation that shows it is exclusive to Americans, that the British or Australians don't use it.

By the same token, for Mermaid to say that "swan may" is a fantasy and D&D term, she has to produce a citation that it is not found outside those contexts. Goldfritha 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Swan May terminology disagreement

All that material above arguing about the usage of "swan may" or "swanmay" should not be under the merge discussion anymore, so I've creating a new section for it to continue here. Okay, first of all, the statement and supporting citations that Goldfritha keeps removing does NOT state that folklorists never use "swan may" it merely states that "swan may" is used in Dungeons and Dragons and in fantasy fiction (facts that are easily supported by citations from any number of fantasy novels and D&D guides, we could add twenty citations to this effect if we wanted to without breaking a sweat). So keeping on removing that statement and its supporting citations is not really in line with Wikipedia policy. You can't accuse WP:OR as you keep saying. That statement you keep removing doesn't say that "swanmay" was invented in fantasy fiction as you accused above, it simply says it is used in fantasy fiction. Quite simply, it IS a fact that "swanmay" is used in D&D and in fantasy novels. Stating that, and just that, is perfectly supported by citations.
Furthermore, you keep suggesting that the burden of proof is on me to show that folklorists never use "swanmay". Well, for one thing, my previously-referenced google book search link and the accompanying argument above fails to produce any evidence to support your case. Furthermore, I'm not trying to add a sentence that says "Folklorists only use swan maiden, and never use swan may" I'm sticking to the facts, since I can't find a single place where folklorists discuss the fact that they don't use "swanmay." However, your suggestion that all burden of proof is on me is also flawed in other ways. I also would never be able to find a citation where geographers discuss that they don't use the term peanut butter to refer to Antarctica. Please do not persist in removing cited material that is demonstratably not WP:OR. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Mermaid, it does not "merely state that "swan may" is used in Dungeons and Dragons and in fantasy fiction". Anymore than if I went in and said that "swan maiden" was the American term for the being I would merely be say that it was used in America. I would be saying that it was not the term elsewhere.

Therefore, the burden of proof is indeed on you to show that in the folklore, people never used "swanmay". (Not folklorists. Indeed, folklorists use "swan maiden" to refer to beings that in the folklore were certainly not called "swan maidens" because the folklore was German and Norse, not English. Goldfritha 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the sentence under contention is:
The Swan Maiden (also called swan may or swanmay in fantasy fiction and Dungeons and Dragons) is a mythical creature who shapeshifts from human form to swan form.
which your above statement doesn't seem to apply to. And I don't understand your argument about the difference between folklorists' usage and folklore terms in other languages. This is the English Wikipedia, after all, and we're dealing with the term as it exists in English-language mythology books. Are you trying to say that the word in Swedish and/or German was "swanmay" or what? Plus, since everyone else disagreed with you about this same point during the merge debate, I'd take your arguments more seriously if you could find at least one other Wikipedian to take your side in this. If you can't find others to take your side, then concensus is already demonstratably against you in this matter. Your example about American/British language usage is not a good analogy either. A better one is my analogy, mentioned earlier, about how you can't find folklorists discussing why they don't use Lycan as a synonym for werewolf - because they consider it a non-issue. It doesn't matter that half the Internet seems to think that Lycan has some sort of ancient history now.
The citations that have already been put in to the swan maiden article show where the term is used. If you want to say that the term is used more universally than that, I think the burden of proof is on you to find those citations. I still believe that deleting cited material in favor of your own uncited conclusions is probably going to fall under WP:OR, even though we are in a bit of a gray area here. But, when in doubt, why not go with the citations? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is a dispute about whether it is proper to describe the term "swan may" or "swanmay" as occurring in fantasy fiction and Dungeons and Dragons. 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The description as given in the lede asserts that the term "swan may" is used only in fantasy and Dungeons and Dragons. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea has insisted that it is so. This is admitted original research on her part, based on her not having found the term in the works of folklorists.[2] I do not think it appropriate. Goldfritha 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Goldfritha's statement above is flawed in two ways: (1) I strongly object to the term "only" that Goldfritha keeps using, as that idea is flatly contradicted by the article itself, and (2) I believe it is pretty clear that I'm not doing original research (since when is adding citations that support a statement original research?). The sentence under contention does not say that the term is "only" used in those places. I feel as if Goldfritha is trying to revive an issue that was already decided by concensus during the merge debate. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Goldfritha, do you want the first sentence to read "The Swan Maiden (also called swan may or swanmay) is a mythical creature who shapeshifts from human form to swan form."? - Peregrine Fisher 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I believe the current lede ("The Swan Maiden (also called swan may or swanmay in fantasy fiction and Dungeons and Dragons) is a mythical creature who shapeshifts from human form to swan form.") is appropriate. Here's how to analyze it: Information should not be in the article unless it can be sourced. "Swanmay" or "swan may" can only be sourced to fantasy fiction and D&D. Therefore, the article should only make assertions about the use of those terms in fantasy fiction and D&D. As Mermaid says, we should not make claims one way or the other about the use of those terms in other areas (e.g. folklore) unless they can be sourced. PubliusFL 18:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you PubliusFL. That's exactly what I was trying to say, but I was having trouble stating it so clearly and simply. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the ten year necro, but it seems like one needn't provide proof to support the current stance when there is no evidence to oppose. Colonel Tractor 6:01 PM January 8 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Needs more citations and sources

Excluding intro and "Folklore motif and tale types", the rest of this article suffers from a severe lack of citations and sources, close to none. 108.41.205.108 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of Wayland?

Nothing of Wayland the Smith, which even links here?73.220.34.167 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Only a quick mention in the caption under the photo...73.220.34.167 (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Swan maiden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218193754/http://www.advancedpoetx.com/STUDIO/maidene.html to http://www.advancedpoetx.com/STUDIO/maidene.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060110012700/http://www.maerchenlexikon.de/etexte/400/te400-006.htm to http://www.maerchenlexikon.de/etexte/400/te400-006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)