User talk:Bloodofox: Difference between revisions

Hello! Please note that if you leave a post at the bottom of the page, I will also respond to it on this page. Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

Vegvísir

Unfortunately, I failed to add the Vegvisir page to my "watching" list.

I am astounded that all the correct information I added and all the poor and incorrect information I removed has been completely trashed. "Flowers" is not a good reference, his translation is incorrect. The Huld manuscript is not the only manuscript it exists in, and certainly is not from 1880. I see no reason why the Björk and Skyrim references were removed, nor references to my source research pages.

I will reverted this page to my last version. If you object to this, please let's discuss it.

Justin F (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I've again reverted your adjustments ([1]). You're responsible for sourcing material you add. Adding a random "Foster (2015)" with no referent helps no one. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But the references do link to the source pages - for the translation quote and all the other information, they are both on my web page and the academic paper I've written The paper gives the full translation of Huld manuscript. Why did you just go reversing it? I will put it back. If anything, I can somehow expand the reference to give the titles of the web page and the paper? Would that satisfy you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galdrastafir.sigil (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I can add my full name - would that satisfy the requirements? ~ Justin Foster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galdrastafir.sigil (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I presume you're referring to this article: [2]. Did this appear in a publication? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes - I have made the paper available free to download online. Does this not make it a publication? Prior to this it was reviewed and edited by qualified people, including staff of the Árni Magnússom Institute. No, it has not appeared in any other publication. It has been referred to and appeared in the bibliographies of two books available for sale. It has been read by over 12,000 people.

I am regarded as the leading world expert on this subject, certainly in the English-speaking world. I still don't understand your problem with me, and I find that very frustrating.

Hello. Please read WP:PROVEIT, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. For something like this, we need a published source, not a self-published item, and preferably an item that has gone through peer review or that has been published via an academic press. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Bloodofox, @Galdrastafir.sigil: I'm going to butt in here because this is a bit of an unusual situation. We're only citing Flowers right now, and one of the two books referring to the Foster paper appears to be a 2016 book of his: see this search within. Someone should also check whether there are any relevant changes in the 2011 edition of his Galdrabók, but I believe that would be too early to have made use of Foster's work; what is the other book that cites it? It's an obvious conflict of interest to add a reference to your own work, and normally we would indeed require the article to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but since Flowers endorses it, it seems to me it should be possible to add a summary of what it says about the use of this sigil, and although the recent Flowers book is less scholarly, we may be able to cite the two together since the article rests on Flowers' interpretation anyway. In addition, we should correct Geir Vigfússon's patronymic and the year, 1860, based on this page on the manuscript that we already have as an external link. ... And I made a Commons category for the symbol, given the additional images now there :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Bloodofox, Thankyou @Yngvadottir:,

My paper is also referenced in Icelandic Magic - Aims, Tools and Techniques of the Icelandic Sorcerers by Christopher Alan Smith. Avalonia, 2015. ISBN 1905297939, 9781905297931 [3] My paper has also been reviewed by Magnús Rafnsson, author of Rún galdrabók and Tvær galdraskræður [4] and Adalheiður Guðmundsdóttir from the University of Iceland, who tought a course on the History of Magic in the Department of Folkloristics (http://uni.hi.is/adalh/kennsla/galdrar-a-islandi/).

I have spoken to Steven Flowers. For a short time, he considered co-authoring his latest book on the subject with me. As it turned out, he did not. In the end, he published and continued his trend of heavily biased writing toward his main area of interest: Troth and other pagan Germanic lifestyles. After publication, he agreed that he should not have published his Icelandic Magic under his "Stephen E. Flowers, PhD" title rather than his "Edred Thorsson" name. Further, in his earlier books, Flowers had never seen the Huld manuscript, nor based his translation on it. Instead, his only source at the time was the 1903 German essay by Ólafur Davíðsson, Isländische Zauberzeichen und Zauberbücher (which by the way I have also translated into English and made available) [5]. Thus, his translation while being generally close to what the Vegvísir title and purpose are, still lacks in accuracy. Even I have since updated my translation, changing the words "...this symbol..." into "...these staves...". The word "staves" is now the commonly accepted word given to these magic symbols (sigils), being the more accurate translation of "Stafir" (sing. "Stafur"). I will be publishing my new edition soon and in the meantime, it has the correction on my web site [6]

Finally, I want to reinclude the cultural aspects referring to Björk and Skyrim. For Björk there are many links showing her tattoo of Vegvísir, including two of her at the tattoo parlour getting it done. Similarly, there are numerous links, including the official Skyrim site, that shows their rendition of the Vegvísir stave.