# Talk:Ask and Embla

I think when we talk about mythological, religious or literary
characters, there should be a note of context. Is it in Northern
European
Mythology? I think because of the reference to Odin, but
if 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?--Tail 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Haukur 10:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ask and Embla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Fails: "Broad in its coverage". Does not cover:
Mention of Ask and Embla, outside Norse mythology, use of names in other later books. [1]
[2]

Their children [3]
The word Midgard is not mentioned????
Short 1 line sections in "Theories", can be expanded or merged as 1 big section. Similarly, for Attestations. Fails: WP:LAYOUT
You are welcome to ask for a reassessment.
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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 this Will 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 the Prose Edda section, which mentions the term "Midgard". Is there some confusion here on your part? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
"Will the Real God Please Stand Up" quotes about their direct descendants. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
It is from "Norse Gods and Giants" by Doubleday and Company. N. Y. pp.27-28 per inline citation. [4]
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a modern retelling. Again, this is not found in the source texts. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I am no expert, it may or may not be a "modern retelling". I just saw the reference stated.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It definitely is. It's very telling that this dubious book is using a modern retelling as source material. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
"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)
I've since mentioned that the two are sometimes mentioned in popular culture in the lead. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In popular culture, where should be mentioned.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There may be other references to the couple, which i have not linked to.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
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 in WP:GAN. Simply stating that the figures are referenced at times in popular culture should suffice, frankly. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
A section on "Artistic depictions" would be great.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have since created such a section. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ask for a WP:GAR, if you want, now or renominate at WP:GAN. Good work, i can see immediate changes in the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work, but please renominate at WP: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)
Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ask and Embla/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
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)
Thanks for the review and the work, I appreciate it! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CAD isn't popular culture; it's a bad webcomic drawn by a hack. Removing this section. 190.224.156.13 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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" in Old Norse in Long-Term Perspectives. Nordic Academic Press. ISBN 918911681X. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there was some source which raised a parallel with Adam and Eve (as first two humans?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 of the Golden Bough somewhere...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
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)

Good point, I'll correct that. Ask is male and Embla is female. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Silmalel (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ask and Embla. 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/20090125125123/http://www.oslo.kommune.no:80/losartikler/article23199-7726.html?articleID=23199&categoryID=7726&tip=1 to http://www.oslo.kommune.no/losartikler/article23199-7726.html?articleID=23199&categoryID=7726&tip=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)