The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2015 [1].

Nuckelavee[edit]

Nominator(s): Eric Corbett talk; SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article, part of our Scottish mythology series, tells of the centaur-like nuckelavee of Orkney, the most horrible of all Scottish demons with its immense head, lack of skin, and breath that could destroy crops. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Some queries.....

The rest all looks fine - minor quibbles only..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading through Cas Liber. Eric Corbett 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  • I've changed "onset of an interest" to "upsurge of interest".
  • I've slightly shortened that sentence, but I don't think it's particularly difficult to read as it stands?
  • Changed to "romanticised and systematically altered", which I think makes it a bit clearer what "systematised" means anyway.
Eric Corbett 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah - all good. It wasn't hugely long that sentence, just came across a tad so, so I didn't feel it was a deal-breaker in anyway, but I do think it's better slightly shorter. Anyway, all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I've removed it.
  • I've linked neck (water spirit) here because of the removal above.
  • I've added a note as it's a bit of a complicated explanation to incorporate into the text.
  • I've included the dates of his publications as a note as that's the only indicator I can find ...
  • Nothing is specified that I can find.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I've changed it to Norse as Nordic re-directs to that.
  • I've changed it to Devil.
  • I think "its" is correct.
  • Not that I can find.
  • Thanks for taking a look at this, FunkMonk. I've tried to make a start on addressing your comments and will continue to go over them again tomorrow (UK time). Re: the Orkneyjar.com (Sigurd Towrie) source - as I'm not sure if I'm supposed to include refs etc on the FAC template, I'll instead ask if you would please have a look at the bottom of this review where the reliability and my reasoning for it was discussed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing from me, this is utterly flawless as I imagined it would be from these two fine nominators. CassiantoTalk 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in very good shape, can't imagine there being a mass of material to write about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kiyoweap[edit]

This article has numerous issues. Reviewers who are spotting no problems probably need to be frank about being a drive-by "general-purpose FA reviewer" rather than a "WP:Mythology participant level" reviewer, because they are obviously not putting in the due diligence effort of checking what is stated in the article versus what occurs in the cited sources.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Under Talk:Nuckelavee#Kelp I describe various issues relating to nuckelavee and seaweed-burning to make kelp (soda ash). One has to do with botanical identification. Another concerns conflicting information from differing sources (not mine, but exiting citations already in the article). I can't determine if this is a misread of one of the sources, or if the dissenting opinions need to be presented in fair proportion as per WP:Neutrality. But some solution is required.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to centre around kelp. I highly doubt anyone has an emotional interest in the specifics of which seaweed is used, so we can have a look on the talk page and discuss. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing this up as if undiscussed on the talk page? The issue is the meaning of the word 'kelp' (not helped by the sources!), which makes more sense if used for the product and generic "seaweed" used for what they burnt. The problem is partly the source. In any case I highly doubt anyone of us is emotionally attached to kelp per se. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My notice was perfectly legit. It was timed when issues were unresolved (after Eric had reverted my edit without explanation, but before editors "fixed" the issue). Only in the aftermath does this notice seem redundant.
If such notices wish to be avoided, I contend that the editors should be the ones to refrain from knee-jerk reverting my edit as "not an improvement", only to subsequently restore my content piecemeal signed under their own name.
Cas Liber marginalizes my input saying "I highly doubt anyone of us is emotionally attached to kelp", without bothering to google and read up on the material. As he is usually a stickler for such taxonomic detail, this comment is quite unbecoming.
In a nutshell, I am highlighting the fact that "kelp" in common parlance excludes Fucus spp. (or "wracks"), but various sources on 19th century kelp for glass-making say Fucus was (mainly) used, and also, in Orc. and Shet. folklore certain sea-horse spirits as sea trow and the tangie (akin/equatable to Nuckelavee) are known or opined to be covered by Fucus. (More precise discussion with citations I'll add at Talk:Nuckelavee#Kelp) --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, show us the sources on that page then. Nothing you've shown me excludes Fucus so please show me one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. That "Troicis" or "Trowis" in Jo Ben's manuscript is reference to a (sea) trow seems backable by multiple sources (paper, book, thesis), so NPOV treatment would be to move the bulk of this material to trow (folklore).
→This issue has been further elaborated below. last sentence added --21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

3. The article might then say "One view is that the trow mentioned in Jo Ben's medieval ms. was a nuckelavee," but this seems to be the webauthor's opinion at Orkneyjar.com, and its info can't be considered WP:RS if not backable by other published sources. I already pointed out in Talk:Stoor worm#Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback that the Storðar-gandr etymology given by Orkneyjar.com is questionable.

4. The citation given for Jo Ben is "Bruford 1997 p.117", but there is nothing on that page that matches, so there must have been some other piece of information intended to be elicited from this essay, from some other page(??). I would have to guess that it has something to do with Orkney having more Celtic heritage and not so nearly purely Norse.

That citation isn't needed anyway, so I've removed it. Eric Corbett 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. The reason I guess this (#4.↑) is that the lede claim of "composite of a water horse from Celtic mythology and Nokk is very tenuously sourced: under #Origins the authority is once again the heavily used Orkeyjar.com site. The hyperlink should probably be corrected to a different page "nokk.htm" entitled "The Nuggle", and there is a marginal musing there, quote: ".. has led me to wonder whether the dread Nuckelavee was a... amalgamation of ..pre-Norse Celtic water-horse and [Norse monster]", but this seems tantamount to a blog source.

Your guesswork has no place here. Eric Corbett 13:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. "Dennison.. romanticized" is an assessment in the context of the Finfolk, citing Jennings's article entitled the "The Finnfolk". It is hardly kosher practice to transfer an opinion in the context of other creatures/beings to this one, and it should be removed from here and placed in Finfolk.

I don't agree. We're making a general point about Dennison's approach to collecting these stories. Eric Corbett 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. "The late 19th century saw an upsurge of interest.." (under #Etymology) is a cookie-cutter reuse of a statement found in Eric's kelpie article (#Folk belief). This is sourced to Monaghan's Celtic Mythology book. In kelpie, there was at least a Celtic (Scottish Gaelic) derivation theory, though a very much disputed one, so there was some reason for sourcing this. But for nuckelavee, I don't see any Gaelic etymological derivation given or forthcoming, so the reuse of this sentence is inappropriate. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate because we're still talking about the upsurge of interest in collecting Scottish folklore. Eric Corbett 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a spot-check is in order then, I (and perhaps other reviewers) do not necessarily cross-check with the sources when reviewing an article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Again, thanks, Nikkimaria, for taking a look at this. FunkMonk did query it above and if I may point to the same link of a GA review where the reliability and my reasoning for it was discussed at the bottom. That also further links to a number of articles that already use it, some of which are included as GAs and Featured Lists within the Featured topic Islands of Scotland. I will ping Ben MacDui, a respected and very experienced editor within the Scottish Islands topic, but unfortunately he is now in semi-retirement; he has, however, commented on the use of this reference previously, as can be seen by following the first link I gave. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sort of issue has been a recurring one in my now dwindling attempts to improve articles about the island fringes of Scotland. How should we treat evidently intelligent and knowledgable local sources that lack academic credentials - especially if there are few or none that have the latter? I don't believe it's a matter of black and white. Having spent time in academia myself I think it's fair to say that there are no few opinionated and ill-informed individuals in that world who seem to think that as they have a PhD in a vaguely-related subject this means that their opinions should be treated as gospel, whether it is properly evidenced or not. On the other hand we clearly should not be quoting couthy local yokels as authorities just because there is nothing better. Here then is my opinion in regard to Orkneyjar. It may not be perfect but I don't recall ever coming across information on it that was demonstrably false or misleading. I think it's fair to say that no Wikipedian has, to date, written more about the geography and history of Orkney than myself, and Mr Towrie knows ten times what I know. I therefore use this source with confidence whenever the occasion arises (and of course ideally there will be a second ref to back it up, usually in a book that no other Wikipedian will have access to). Whether or not this also applies to Towrie's views on the myhology of Orkney I cannot be as certain and I leave that for others to judge, but generally speaking I consider him a trusted source - and no I have never met him or had any dealings with him in person. Happy editing to you all. Ben MacDui 08:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, "a hub for world class research, teaching, and professional consultancy" has a twitter account - @UHIArchaeology. I see that today they state that "Ness of Brodgar dig diary entries will be posted daily at Orkneyjar..." Ben MacDui 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orkneyjar is certainly "high-quality" in the sense that nearly all of its mythology contents are as found on RS sources. However, the site also presents a number of its own opinions and interpretations. And in order for the website's opinions (or a statement of fact only attestable to the website) to be considered "high quality RS", it must be shown that the creator is among "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" (under WP:RS).
When Orkneyjar offers an etymology (of Stoor worm) radically different from the that given in the SND (Scottish National Dictionary), the "high quality RS" of this opinion comes into question. Mr. Towrie not being a linguist, this off-mainstream etymology is subject to the clause "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight" (under WP:FRINGE guideline).
(To be fair, without that DSL search engine now at our disposal, it would have been much more difficult to discrover the etymology, which is filed under "sture" in the SND, and Orkneyjar gave its opinion a decade or more ago)
Turning now to Nuckelavee, its etymology is filed under "neugle" in the SND, and Orkeyjar opined that nuckelavee is a corruption of knoggelvi, which differs in nuance from the SND which only states these are two attested forms. I am arguing we should stick to the more conservative statement of the latter, barring other RS attributions being found.
Furthermore, under etymology section, Orkney's assumption (my 3. above) is used via WP:SYNTH type argument to justify use of Hibbert as source. This is more painstaking to explain in detail, and would involve more substantial amounts of editing to rectify. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly the Hibbert archive link is timing out for me at present. Am trying to get my head around your last paragraph. Need to read all these (again) to clarify the claims of synthesis and weighting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah ok. The SND lists all terms as related with nuckelavee and knoggelvi as derivatives. Question is, is it an extraordinary claim? My thinking is that Orkneyjar is likely familiar with words and how they change locally, so maybe it's not an extraordinary claim and that SND being a dictionary will be by nature brief. Let me think some more...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect anyone familiar with how words are anglicised from older words would be able to tell that nuckelavee is anglicised/derived from knoggelvi, so I think I am happy with how this is worded. I can't see the Marwick source but if it says "mukkelevi = trow" in it, then I can't see a synth problem as mukkelevi is so obviously etymologically intertwined with the other two. i.e there is no emphasis on trow that needs to ne moved to a trow article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cas. Yes, Marwick categorically states "mukkelevi = trow"; Marwick also asserts Nuckelavee -> knoggelvi. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hibbert never says explicitly he is talking about "nuckelavee", so in order to argue he is, you have to impose Orkeyjar's conjecture that Jo Ben's MS. possibly refers specifically to the nuckelavee, and that is SYNTH.
Also note that Hibbert considers his being a parallel of the deity that holds command over both fresh and sea water, contradictory to Dennison's account that the nuckelavee can be eluded by fleeing into fresh water.

Hibbert engages in circumlocution saying something like <the equivalent that the Orcadians have a different name for>. He's probably thinking of the term troicus (given in Latin), but I'm unable to rule out "tangie" (which derives from Orcadian "tang", which is "fuci" that Hibbert mentions here). So assuming Hibbert is definitiely referring to nuckelavee is a rocky proposition.

Actually, as I rethink this, I do think Hibbert is useable as source, insofar as the SND says nuckelavee is a derived form of "neugle", which Hibbert certainly talks about, as well as its connection to "Old Nick" = devil. You just can't represent him as talking about nuckelavee, that is to say, source him as saying the folklore of nuckelavee is a deformation or derivation from the folklore of neck (water spirit).--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also your "=trow" isn't sound argument at all, because it's actually "⊂ trow". Had you looked up trow under SND, or if you had browsed Alan Bruford's piece Adam Grydehøj's 2013 paper that was removed from the source, you would've realized "trow" is a very general term like "fairy". A tangie is a trow according to some other sources.
Now, if you are redefining the perimeters of this article to include all creatures that might fall under the fold of "sea trow" or "water trow", that is one possible solution. This will also allow Jo Ben's article to be discussed under those terms. However, then there is obviously a considerable rewrite before it can be seen as "complete". The Talk:Nuckelavee/GA1 review remark that "I doubt we'll see the mythological demarcation disputes" may have been a bit premature.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC) factual author info error corrected --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified by your preoccupation with "trow". Nowhere does the article claim that the nuckelavee is a trow, it simply reports what Marwick (2000) says, which is that the similarly named mukkelevi was considered a sea trow by Shetland islanders, a fact that is incontrovertible; not that it was a sea trow. You may disagree, but I believe that Marwick's commentary carries somewhat more weight than your own.
Your claim about Hibbert is equally puzzling, and appears to be based on your own opinions and original research. Eric Corbett 12:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are pretending that the Marwick statement is the only reference to trow your article makes. But as preluded at my point #2 above, at the very fore of your "Description" section you insist on using Jo Ben's 16c. Latin manuscript, and this document is an explicit reference to "Trowis" (archaic form of "trow"), according to the view expressed in published scholarship. See Adam Grydehøj's 2009 Ph.D. paper (pdf) for a clearer description.
As it turns out, the same author (Grydehøj) says as much in another piece (2013 paper), which you had recourse to access, but chose to remove in your Revision as of 13:59, 26 June 2014. I gather you never properly read it and promptly forgot, leading to an unwittingly committing act of censorship, but the end result is, that revision constitutes WP:CHERRYPICKING by favoring a web source over an academic folklorist.
As noted, "trow" is a general term exactly like "fairy" ("A trow [is the] equivalent of the mainland British fairy, with all of the imprecision that the latter word implies", Grydehøj 2013). If Marwick says Shetlanders consider the mukkelevi a (type of) "sea fairy", that is perfectly consistent with what I or Grydehøj hold in this regard, and you are mistaken when you say I "disagree" with Marwick on this point. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like me extrapolating from Hibbert's fuci (fucus = wrack = tang) comment to infer he might be talking about "tangie", and see this as too original reasearch-y, see Jamieson' etymological dictionary which says this: "Tangie, a sea-spirit, which, according to the popular belief in Orkney, sometimes assumes the appearance of a small horse, at other times that of an old man. Tangie, I am informed, is the same with the Sea- Trow". --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We will not be responding to any more of your disruptive obsession with trows. Eric Corbett 22:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- after having plenty of time to look this over, I see no other reviewer taking up the cause for the allegedly questionable use of one word in the entire article, so I'm going to close the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More