This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Norse history and culture, aWikiProject related to all activities of theNorthGermanic peoples, both inScandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of theKalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
This article is supported byWikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach toMythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editingthe article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit theWikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofWomen's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
I think when we talk about mythological, religious or literarycharacters, there should be a note of context. Is it in NorthernEuropeanMythology? I think because of the reference toOdin, butif id never heard of Odin either?
Heh, editing a bit quick...Fixed now. If you note anything like this and know how to fix it, please do :-) --Anders Torlind
I think the whole "Symbolism" section should be removed. There are virtually no facts mentioned and it includes phrases like "We all know" and a rhetorical question. It sounds more like a school essay than an article in an encyclopedia. I can't say I'm thrilled with the section "Microcosmos" either ("our ancestors", "have always been regarded", associations not backed by facts etc.), in fact, I think that too should be removed.
I am not saying we don't need these sections, but they should be written from an objective point of view and contain hard facts. Does anybody else feel this way?--Tail10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find this assessment pretty odd. Why is this status not "on hold" rather than "failed"? Firstly, popular culture mentions are going to be hard to source without original research involved. They are rarely mentioned. I have no idea why you mention thisWill the Real God Please Stand Up book.
Secondly, these are the only sources for these two figures and are exactly what they say about the figures. Being the "first man and woman" would indicate that they are responsible for further humans, and this is stated quite plainly in theProse Edda section, which mentions the term "Midgard". Is there some confusion here on your part?:bloodofox: (talk)07:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not from the source material. I don't know where it's from, but this level of detail is otherwise nowhere to be found about the two. This book is irrelevant.:bloodofox: (talk)08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is from "Norse Gods and Giants" by Doubleday and Company. N. Y. pp.27-28 per inline citation.[4]
"In popular culture" section may need some researching, thus may not done quickly. So the article was not put on hold. I put an article "on hold" if I feel it can mended in a short time.--Redtigerxyz (talk)08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are innumerable little references like this in modern popular culture, particularly in Scandinavia. I don't see the point in mentioning a handful of them as none of them are particularly major that I can think of off of the top of my head. Perhaps artistic depictions of them would be helpful, but this is a requirement I have not otherwise encountered inWP:GAN. Simply stating that the figures are referenced at times in popular culture should suffice, frankly.:bloodofox: (talk)08:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, but please renominate atWP:GAN, because i think somebody else should look into the matter as i think "Outside Norse myth" or "popular culture" would be needed. Also once i say it is "failed" in edit summary, GAN; i can't pass it. --Redtigerxyz (talk)09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great. Good work—I'll just pass it straight away. Please note the two changes I did: the use of "upright" syntax in the image, and the full url cite for the link from the Municipality of Oslo.Arsenikk(talk)20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of information that should be added to this article in Hultgård, Anders (2007). "The Askr and Embla Myth in a Comparative Perspective" inOld Norse in Long-Term Perspectives. Nordic Academic Press.ISBN918911681X.:bloodofox: (talk)01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's out there, and likely most of it falls into two categories: the rejected school of "they got it all from the Christians" and Christian-centric "Ask and Embla, you know, the Norse Adam and Eve" commentary. As far as I can tell, Ask and Embla and Adam and Eve don't really have anything in common outside of simply being legendary progenitors. Ask and Embla's ultimate origin in Proto-Indo-European religion seems to be pretty well established.:bloodofox: (talk)00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the more I thought about it, I think most religions have a first man-and-woman-type story. Be nice to have a discussion somewhere - maybe next time I see a full set ofthe Golden Bough somewhere...Casliber (talk·contribs)04:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing the article leaves out (unless I missed it somewhere) is which person is which gender. Is Ask or Embla the male or the female? I don't want to assume that Ask is the male just because that name comes first when the two are listed, or that Embla is female because her name is the second of the two. So which is which?Silmalel (talk)19:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link onAsk and Embla. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
b(MoS):
