Talk:Fairy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 in art and literature 2 beliefs and ideas of different cultures 3 pre-Celtic little people 4 Changeling 5 Re: mythical 6 Sprite 7 place where they were said to live 8 Types of fairies 9 Intro 10 Removal of Irish Fairies 11 Fey vs. Fae 12 Problem paragraphs in the article? 13 Too many laundry lists! 14 What is the name for a male fairy? 15 Ambiguity of Fairy, Faerie etc 16 Article Cleanup 17 Cottingley Fairies 18 Standardization of Spelling 19 Dazjae 20 Modern Culture and Film 21 Deragatory slang 22 Etymology 23 Wording

[edit] in art and literature

I have attempted to add the 'Aziza', which Wikipedia does include in a brief passage, but it has been deleted several times, when I attempted it. I am concerned and do not understand why this would be deleted when it is in fact faerie lore. There was some mention of not adding external links, however there is an edit button that allows additions to the section that leads readers further into areas of fae listed on Wikipedia which is where I included it. Can anyone help? Is this something only an admin can add? If so can it be added for the connoseiurs of fae? Thankyou. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.0.143 (talk • contribs).

How is this more notable than the existing examples? And you might be taken more seriously with an account. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

HI there,

i added the original entry for fairy and was just editing it to add the info regarding a midsummer nights dream - and discovered someone else was doing the same thing at that very moment... who are you? :)

Sorry about that. Saw a gap and leapt in. If you're working on something it's useful to put a to be continued marker in it! sjc

Oh No worries at all - just interesting, coz I added the original entry ages ago, and just decided to add something :) (CatS - i don't actually have an account, perhaps I should create one.)

Yeah, having an account is nice. So much more human than an IP address! It's nice to be able to put names to contributions, too. sjc

Actually, the more I think and look at this the more I think we probably need a Fairies in art and Fairies in literature spin-off from this page. sjc

Hmmm - yes, a very good idea - and also something about cross cultural fairies perhaps? and what about Elves, Gnomes, Leprechauns,

Goblins etc?

These words all mean different things to fairies, and to the best of my knowledge only Leprechauns come directly from fairies (by modern mythological theory, in fact, "Lugh chromáin" is the name of one of the Sidhe).

[edit] beliefs and ideas of different cultures

How about having divisions for different cultures' ideas of fairies? And the history of belief in them? Around the time of the Scottish Reformation Scottish fairy belief started to change quite substantially, for example. Just a thought -Egoinos

yes! why not! please add what you know - sounds interesting. CatS

Indeed. According to my mother people in India have beleived in fairies for hundreds of years (they call them 'fo-rees'with a very soft f). Fairies in India are also associated with flora, the beleif being that the prettiest of flower gardens have a presence. I know people first hand that have attributed some possessions and even deaths to malevolent fairy posessions.

[edit] pre-Celtic little people

From the article: "This belief has prompted some historians and mythological commentators to speculate that the fairies are actually derived from a folk memory of the people that inhabited the island of Great Britain before the Celts arrived. These people would have been armed only with stone, and hence iron would have been the decisive Celtic advantage."

Does anyone know any actual scholars or historians that have ever suggested this? This seems connected with an idea that the "little people" were pre-Celtic people in the British Isles, too, or that the Picts were (and that these people were also apparently small in stature despite the fact that skeletons we have from that time don't suggest that, and we have a number of skeletons that would be freakishly large people even today). I've never seen any scholars suggest this but I seen it come out of many people with a questionable understanding of Celtic history (usually people who would also like to paint the Celts as noble matriarchal savages...). Also, if the "little people" and allied beings were just mythologised pre-Celtic people the Celtic cultures would then have been absent of "little people" type beings before then, which isn't likely as all other people related to the Celts also had them (The Germanic elves/alfar for instance). Iron is also a Pan-Indo-European counter against ill things in general so the idea would seem likely to have been around before the Celts found non-iron bearing people to conquer.

David MacRitchie is the only one I can find that did any serious work on it, but I know the idea came from about the Victorian age. It's relativity hard for me to find anything, sadly. Armchair scholar and Google never have sites about the truths of Fairies, only about those cute, childish, sites. Annoying, but what can I do? 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changeling

Just noticed that changeling (perhaps symptomatic of Wikipedia's membership...) consisted entirely of text about a Star Trek character... Added a small stub about European legends, but don't know too much about it. Hope someone here can help,2toise 08:00, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Re: mythical

Mythical doesn't necessarily imply false. According to dictionary.com:
"Myth n.
1.a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society."

However, not everyone thinks of that definition, so I suggest the term "chimerical" or "praeternatural." Firstly, the terms fit. Secondly, people will probably look the terms up, thus expanding their vocabularies. :) Dustin Asby 14:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sprite

Also, check out Sprite (creature) for a somewhat substantial list of creatures (and to help me organize and link it). Dustin Asby 14:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] place where they were said to live

Could someone add detail to this?

"This word is derived from the name of a place where they were said to live:"

[edit] Types of fairies

Made redirect of Types of fairies—if anyone wants to recreate it and expand, total content was: "there are many diffrent types of fairies. including the sand man, the tooth fairy, pixies, sprites, water fairies, brownies,etc. the sand man puts kids to sleep. the tooth fairy takes kid's teeth and gives them money." -DialUp 05:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About "Faery" as the place where fairies live: Tolkien talks about this a little in an essay somewhere; I think it's called "On Fairy Tales." Sorry I don't have access to the book where I read this at the moment.

[edit] Intro

The introduction should be both expanded and split, as the first sentence is aspecific enough to merit placing fairy as a redirect for Mythologic Creatures, while the rest of the intro talks about etymology (which deserves a special section, as it's long and has many good points) and glamour (an entire article on its own). -Iro

• Follow up.* I did everything but touch on the specific nature of fey and their powers, which I (or someone else) will have to do later. I recommend turning this into a category and placing such entities as angels (and fallen angels), elves, nymphs, youkai, and so forth into it. -Iro

[edit] Removal of Irish Fairies

I have temporarily removed the Irish Fairy section, as it was out of place. I think that this should be the central article for a faerie category, as the Irish are not the only culture with fairies. Further, discussion of Irish Fairies should go in its own article (on the sidhe) unless we are going to include short pieces on every culture's version of fairies. That, of course, is a large and tedious task, especially considering that there are already articles for the various other ethnocentric fairy mythologies. I'll put this section back in if a reason arises for Irish Fairies to be covered here.

[edit] Fey vs. Fae

Having looked at some parts of the OED, the Fey vs. Fae argument should be amended somewhat. The spelling proper of Fae (and Faerie) are only roughly standardized through history, even during the reformatory parts. Fey is listed as doomed to die, though some other sources of variable repute make other claims on the subject. I think we should divide the etymology and spelling sections, citing many sources on the subject.

Having found that "fey" can also mean "enchanted," "clairvoyant," or "marked by a magical or otherworldly quality" and that the "doomed to die" meaning is mainly Scottish, I move that this section be revised.

The American Heritage Dictionary mentions the magical quality and gives a word history.(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fey)

-Also there is an issue that Fay points here, and seems to lack a page for itself. This is an issue, as Fay and Fey are also last names, and names of corporations and towns.

[edit] Problem paragraphs in the article?

Can someone explain what these 4 paragraphs are doing?

A common misconception is that faires are mammals. In fact, faries belong to the insect group Maschitics Fairus, where it is believed the modern day corruption 'fairy' originated. Fairies procreate only on a full moon. The male fairy secretes a sticky pus like substance over an organic receptor, a tree log or other such appropriate natural object. Female fairies are attracted by the scent and can detect the male secreation from a radius of 20 miles using thier powerful, magical, sense of smell. Afer a gestation period of several weeks, the female must retreat to a safe area to lay her eggs. Often a hollowed out tree bark is padded with leaves and twigs, carefully sewed using a miniture rowenta machine. The female remains with the eggs until hatched.

Females may occassionally kill and eat a male after mating but this is more the exception than the rule. The young fairies are colored orange and white when they emerge 1 to 4 weeks later. The female faries may live for more than a year and a half. Growth requires 2 to 4 months, depending on availability of prey during which the females molt 6 to 8 times and the males 3 to 6 times.

Newly hatched fairies are predominately white or yellowish-white, gradually acquiring more black and varying amounts of red and white with each molt. Juveniles of both sexes resemble the male and are harmless.

Faries were worshipped heavily during the latter 16th to early 17th century, however, wizards discoverd in 1623 that fairies could be used in various creams as an active ingredient to stimulate growth. Subsequent popularity of these over the counter creams led to them being hunted to extinction. Generations later, the only evidence we have that the ever existed is in rare fossil stones.

It looks like someone tried to put some "realistic biological information" into this, but I don't suspect it can be back up with any actual research :-).

• These paras look all wrong to me. I'm removing them "until someone can provide verification that it is correct"! -- SGBailey 12:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many laundry lists!

The "Fairies in..." sections of this article are out of control. I intend to be doing some judicious pruning and rewriting of them shortly. If anyone has any suggestions, please make them here. Nandesuka 13:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You've done a great job, it was getting out of hand indeed. But still some nitpicking :), I wonder why you removed Holly Short (who has her own Wikipedia article) and who is an excellent example of a fairy in modern popular culture. All Artemis Fowl books concentrate on an underground world of fairies, so in my opinion Holly Short deserves to be on the fairy shortlist, while The Legend of Zelda seems less important to me. PrinceCharming 18:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, individual calls are hard to make. My logic was to try to only include depictions that have stood the test of time (Shakespeare being the canonical example). I don't know if Artemis Fowl will be talked about in 100 years. And somewhere, someone who edits mostly the Zelda articles is making the exact opposite argument :-). I won't necessarily complain if Holly goes back in, but we should try to hold the line, on general principles. Nandesuka 18:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the name for a male fairy?

Are there male fairies? Are they called fairies or something else? Does anyone know? Thanx!

Heck yes. They're called fairies, unless they're called elves, nomenclature being what it is. Sir Orfeo's wife is carried off by the king of Faerie, and Fair Janet has to ask to find out that Tam Lin is a human. Goldfritha 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity of Fairy, Faerie etc

Should this page be split on a cultural basis? Some cultures e.g. Celtic use the word Faerie to describe a type of Tolkienesque Elf while others (English) use Fairy to describe a tiny winged woman e.g. Tinkerbell. Much confusion. Needs to be sorted out, I'm not enough of an authority... Megamanic 03:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happier seeing it separated into the distinct styles of what is called "fairy" (or "faerie"), yes. Certainly the current illustrations don't give the impression of faeries that I tend to draw, which is the "tiny winged woman" type and a common understanding of the term. There are faeries in stories who are about the size and appearance of humans, which is different. And in at least one role-playing game that I'm familiar with, it describes faeries as little winged people (6 inches high) and sprites as littler winged people (4 inches high) with less intellectual development (sorta)...so the distinction isn't between, say, "faeries" as human-size and "sprites" as tiny size. And, especially, most of the things I've read that have tiny winged people in them call them "faeries" (with a few calling them "elves"), e.g. Thumbelina.

I don't think the spelling difference (fairy/faerie) necessarily means they're separate words...but if someone knows the standard terminology, by all means indicate it in the article. (I use "faerie" for tiny winged people, because I prefer the spelling...seems more dignified, less commercial, I guess. Which also means that, since I use it as a spelling variation of "fairy," I don't pay much attention to which stories use which spelling.) Kilyle 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Cleanup

Okay, I've been noticing a lot of edits recently (a gradually increasing number since the article was first cleaned up from its original run-on junkiness) with very little consensus on edits. So, for our editting pleasure, I'm going to compose a list of things that need to be taken care of:

Introductory Definition: This has been editted a great deal with little citation and lots of minor details. This definition, given the faerie nature of vagueness, should give a brief summary of the article with a *brief* explanation of what fae were originally (see elf, nymph, angel, etc.), then go on about modern conceptions (small, insect-winged yada yada) and associations (trolls).

Etymology: I will admit that when I entered this section, it was too long for the scope of this article, though the word history reflects several key aspects of fairy character. While the Farsi "Pari" comment keeps coming back, I think it and "fey" should be put into subsections of the etymology concerning controversy.

Fairies in Literature, etc.: I'm glad that we've editted this section down quite a bit, though I'm not happy with how sloppily short it is. Fairy is, after all, the category article and, while it should give plenty of links to its respective articles, should give the most information on the basics of the subject. I move that we have a decent paragraph (at the least) on the topics of "Fairies in Literature," "Fairies in Art," etc. I also think we should try to take from the Elves page the idea of detailed accounts of the history of this folklore (and, since this is the category article, not limit ourselves to, say, Anglo-Celtic fay). That means laying out key points that are common in faerie mythology, from magic to depictions to whatever else is necessary.

Pictures: I'm glad that we're trying to pull pictures into this article. However, the pictures don't seem to work well with each other. -->"Take the Fair Face of a Woman" has been the article's key picture for who knows how long, yet this is about the only place I have ever seen it. -->Digital Art: Who found this? Is this public domain? Should we be using something more "historic" (say, 10 years+ in age) to show this? -->Angsalvor: This picture can be found on the Elves page and, while I like it and think it has plenty of merit for the subject at hand, I wonder if it's a good idea to recycle it.

--Iro 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps reverting to uncited statements, such as "Although in modern culture they are often depicted as beautiful young females, they originally had quite a different image as haggard old women or mischievous old men." That statement as a whole demands extensive citation, as a.) that's talking about many, many cultures and b.) from what I've found is discussing multiple types of things that are equally labeled "fairy." Please, if you're going to revise and you add something as extreme as that, cite your sources. A good book to look into: The Great Encyclopedia of Faeries by Pierre Dubois. Though he devotes a major portion of the book to French fae, he actually tries to discuss fae (and other spirits, if you wish to not class them as fae) from other cultures. Guess what: most of them are beautiful females! Hags exist as an archetype within or connected to that of faerie, but don't say that all fae were originally hags and old men, as that's simply not true. Iro 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who has been reverting. My main objection to your recent changes is not in the description, but in some of the odder additions (such as the connections to "spiritual beings" and "angels." Can you explain the basis of those additions? Nandesuka 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean as additional links? If you don't want those, you can remove them, my connection is that both faeries and angels are spirits in human form that exercise magical powers and share the similar traits of usually being depicted as radiant and beautiful. Think of the Seelie Court of Scottish folklore and the Ljosalfar (or simply Alfar), the Elves of Norse Mythology - these are classed beneath the overarching concept of "fairy" quite readily, yet they are have the "good" and "celestial" qualities (respectively) associated with angels. Same thing goes for demons and the Unseelie Court. I'm happy with revisions and I'd be perfectly fine with you removing "angels" and "demons" from the links, but that's an easy thing to do. Reverting to your version with its description, though, is entirely too much, though.

Fairy is a broad term and so it is used for many, many mythological creatures, allowing for big discrepencies in different people's placement of beings under that name. Some beings bear closer resemblence to each other than others (nymphs to alfar to angels is closer than alfar [elves] to dwarves to goblins, if you go by the original word; if you go by the later usage, elf to goblin is easy, but elf to giant is completely out of the question). Still, distinctions can be extremely difficult if not completely useless given the morphic nature of folklore.

Finally, if that's not a convincing argument, why don't we simply take away the links, placing them into a "for later edits" part of the discussion (or else masking them from the main article) if you think some of them are more of a stretch than others? In the meantime, we can put a "don't edit" sticker on the page and discuss this without a revision war (though I'm not going to put the sticker on just yet, as I want your response).

As for the use of the word "spirit," in anthropology the word "spirit" simply means "a supernatural being," just as it can in normal usage -- it doesn't necessarily reflect a corporeal or incorporeal essence in any usage. For example, the words "kami" and "youkai" in Japanese are both translated as "spirit" (the former is often translated as "god," though it could also be interpreted as "genius," especially "genius loci;" the latter is also given as "demon," "apparition," or the like). Really, I don't see what's so outlandish about labeling fairies as spirits. Iro 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Where we need to be cautious is that this is English Wikipedia, and in English, "fairy" has a very specific connotation, connected to folklore and tales, and is not generally used in the same sense as other terms people throw around (such as "ghost", "spirit", etc. The relevant definition from the OED, for example, says:

4. a. One of a class of supernatural beings of diminutive size, in popular belief 
supposed to possess magical powers and to have great influence for good or evil 
over the affairs of man. See ELF and FAY n.2

I think the observation in this definition that the word "fairy" implies definite corporeal attributes should suggest that broadening the term to something as vague as, say, the Japanese kami or the Roman lares is a mistake. Nandesuka 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that the word is, in fact, used to refer to creatures not of the English tradition. Saying that "since this is the English wikipedia, we should only talk about things within the English tradition" is also a bad idea, given the numerous subjects that need to be discussed for English speakers that are not in the English tradition. Case in point, read the link "Slavic Fairies" - it has nothing to do with English tradition at all. Further, the OED happens to be a source for current usage and etymology, which is only a small aspect of this article. On top of that, many parts of the category to which this article belongs are not English at all. Thus, it is a mistake to simply discuss only the diminutive, insect-winged fairies (though I will say that a subsection of this article on that topic is, indeed, an order). Iro 23:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is the problem of historical versions of the word in the English tradition itself. Take Spencer's Faerie Queene, in which fairies are neither small nor hideous crones, but tall and beautiful. Point being, if you limit the article to a very minute and historically limited perspective, you're doing an injustice to the topic and entry. Iro 23:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Something else I've noticed: no where in your quoted OED snippet does it mention anything about corporeality, only size. I remind you that "spirit" is used quite regularly to refer to beings considered corporeal, as was my point with kami and youkai. As I mentioned, fairy is used to connote quite a few different things: "fairy" leprechaun, "fairy" nymph, "fairy" troll, "fairy" pillywiggin (the diminutive, floral, insect-winged fairies). While I happen to think that it is quite often used more morphically than a primary ethos of faerie would permit, the fact that fairies are themselves described as "resisting definition" and the tendency in folklore to use the term in such a way makes it still necessary to mention these extra parts of the tradition, if they are indeed extra. Iro 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have waited for a few weeks and you have yet to reply, so I am reverting the article as promised. Iro 07:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see there have been contributions. I shall then not revert the article, instead just editing as per usual.

[edit] Cottingley Fairies

Should there be a mention of this famous Hoax? For info, see http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/ 203.45.15.218 05:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "mention" of this hoax is now the exact same, fairly long text as in the article itself. Switch it to a simple mention, with perhaps a quick summary, and a link to the article. Kilyle 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of Spelling

There are about a million different ways we are spelling "fairy" in this article. Can we vote to spell it one way consistently throughout the article? Otherwise it looks kind of shoddy.--TurabianNights 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dazjae

Can we get consensus here that "Dazjae" is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article? A myspace page does not a music career make. Nandesuka 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that until she's got a good WP page, she's probably not important enough to include. Notwithstanding the fact that her addition seemed like a promotional spiel until it was edited down. --TurabianNights 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Culture and Film

I have rewritten the "modern culture and film" laundry list as a paragraph, and culled it to only the most notable examples. If anyone feels I culled too much, feel free to add notable examples back in, but I urge you to not revert to the "laundry list" format. Nandesuka 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that if someone wants to include another example in this section, perhaps he or she should prove its notability here.

For instance, can we discuss why these works might be considered important or vastly different from what has already been mentioned? What does mentioning these works add to the article?

• Holly Black's Tithe
• Datlow & Windlings Fairy Reel Tales
• Dazjae
• Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (my own addition, and one I am happy to vote about)

--TurabianNights 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deragatory slang

A discussion in the WikiFairy talk page inadvertantly brought up an interesting point... why is there no mention in this article of the fact that the word "fairy" has been used as a derogatory term for homosexual men? I don't condone the use of insults and such, but since Wikipedia is concerned with reporting facts and cultural situations, it would seem to make sense to include a bit of background information, specifically when the slang term first came into common use and possible explanations of the origin. - Ugliness Man 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite some reliable sources and we will. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 05:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I got my BA in Classics (Reed College, '96) and, while I've seen dictionaries with the Etymology from Latin as being from "fata" (Fates), I've never heard any convincing explanation for this. I consulted with another Classist who is a Latin expert, and she can't see any way that "fairy" could come from "fata". Not only can neither one of us find any morphology that would transmute "fata" to "fairy" (I mean how does the "t" become an "r"?), but it doesn't really make any sense that stories about what seem to be spirits would have anything to do with the 3 Fates of Greco-Roman mythology. Moreover, since as far as I know Fairy folklore comes from the British Isles, I don't know of any reason that the word would come from Latin in particular, as opposed to from German or Celtic. The stories seem similar to Elf stories from Germanic cultures, and there were numerous Germans on the British Isles ever since Roman hegemony lapsed -- not only Anglo-Saxons, but numerous Vikings as well as Jutes and others. So why not see the word as coming directly from "fair", which is a good German word? "Fairy" would then mean one who is fair.

Could "fairy" be a similar formation to "browny", interpretting "browny" to mean literally one who is brown? ("Brown" also comes from German.) Also, in the South (of the USA), there is folklore about "blackies". These are NOT African Americans. They're spirits, sort of like elves, fairies, brownies and the like. If "blacky" stories came from the British Isles as well, is it possible that we have spirits in three colors: fair (taken as meaning "white"), brown and black? Is it then possible that these three types of spirits are the three types of elves: light, dark and black? In other words, is it possible that the folkloric tradition of fairies actually came from the folklore of elves from the Teutonic peoples who settled the British Isles during the Dark Ages?

- Ivan Richmond

The article explains that "fate" became "fae" through Old French, and the suffix -ery was added later. As for brownies, I always thought they looked like Jawas. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

In the Cottingley Fairies section, the article reads: "Griffiths and Wright were then given 24 photographic plates and took three more photos in August 1920. They blamed constant rainfall, but..." There is no explanation of what was being blamed on rainfall. The same can be said of the (better referenced) source article, Cottingley Fairies. Both articles need to be changed in this paragraph (and this one shortened significantly in this section, as suggested above by another user). - dcljr (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that the inability to use the other 21 plates was blamed on rain. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)