text:
Talk:Elf

Etymology not supported by sources
This article puts a lot of emphasis on "elf" being connection with the Latin "albh-" (which is the root of "albino"), and its primary source is the 2003 book "A handbook of Germanic etymology" by Orel. However this book does not support this claim. (If anyone has a copy, simply turn to page 13 to see for yourself, or check it out at Archive.org.)

It states:

albaz sb.m.: Burg *alfs 'elf', ON alfr 'nightmare, elf', OE aelf 'elf, genius, incubus', MLG alf 'evil spirit', OHG alb id. Of uncertain origin. KUHN KZ IV 110 (to Skt rbhú- 'clever, skilful'); WADSTEIN ''Festschr. Bugge 152-155 (to *albh- white'); TORP-FALK 21; SAUS-SURE apud MASTRELLI StG XIII 5-13 (to the name of the Alps); HOLTHAUSEN AEEW 186; POKORNY I 30; VRIES ANEW'' 5-6; KÖBLER 708; KLUGE-SEEBOLD 24-25.

For albiz it states a primary link with 'deep river-bed' and 'river-bed'. It makes a passing reference to a connection with the Latin 'albus' and 'white', but then states "this etymology is not very reliable" due to the stronger connection with the Swedish 'alv' and 'elve', meaning 'river-bed').

Looking through this talk page, this odd emphasis on "white" as part of its etymology has been brought up before, as it is not generally accepted elsewhere.

For some reason this article seems intent on linking "elf" primarily with "whiteness" and "cleverness" and nothing else, but it is not supported by the current sources, and is actually contradicted by them.

WikiMane11 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 * In terms of this history of the Wikipedia article itself, the main reference for the paragraph you're talking about is actually Hall 2007, 54–55 (which, for full disclosure, is a book by me). As the phrasing of the paragraph has changed, it has come to look like that reference only applies to a sentence where I'm named specifically. I've added the same reference at the end of a couple of the other sentences in that paragraph just to make it clear that the paragraph all based on that book, not Orel.
 * Orel's book does cover the *albh etymology (he explicitly says that Wadstein argues for it, and it's also in Vries ANEW at least). It's a shame that Guus Kroonen (2013), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 11 (Leiden: Brill), doesn't include the elf-word — a weird omission.
 * But maybe the article should follow Orel's lead and say that the etymology is uncertain rather than 'generally agreed'?
 * I believe that Riccardo Ginevra's paper 'Old Norse Elves from a linguistic and comparative perspective', of which you can read a conference abstract here, will be published in the next couple of years, and, regardless of what new arguments he may make about the etymology, hopefully he will have a thorough summary of past research on the question that we will be able to cite.
 * I don't that anyone thinks that the English word 'elf' has anything to do with the etymon of Swedish 'alv'. That similarity is just thought to be a coincidence. Alarichall (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Reality and perception" segment completely useless
The segment on elves not being objectively real but having a "social" reality is correct but... completely unnecessary. This could be said about almost *any* fictional concept, ie it's not unique to elves. I propose it should be removed Observer31 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree. The concept is so broad it could apply equally as well to aliens or pizza-gate. Social reality may be useful in some scholarly concepts but it has no business directly under the lead. The following lines should be excised:
 * Where enough people have believed in the reality of elves that those beliefs then had real effects in the world, they can be understood as part of people's worldview, and as a social reality: a thing which, like the exchange value of a dollar bill or the sense of pride stirred up by a national flag, is real because of people's beliefs rather than as an objective reality.  2001:569:F015:5E00:811D:9746:D5D:7376 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to say: maybe you're right about trimming or removing this, but I wound up adding it because we do get comments here on the talk page from people who seem a bit confused about whether elves are real or not. (See under "Williams syndrome", "Fairy?" and "where there actually elves before noas ark".) And elves aren't fiction: fiction is something where the audience is not expected to believe that the content is real, whereas people did believe in the elves of medieval tradition (and in conventional Islamic theology jinn are still accorded the same reality status as God and angels). So elves are perhaps better compared to God, where the question of whether/how God is real is addressed explicitly. Alarichall (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Elfs?
Where did the idea that 'elf' can be pluralised as 'elfs' come from? I can't find it in the Oxford English Dictionary, or Dictionary.com.--90.206.198.139 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish the article would try to make clear what myths of the elves come from ordinary people, and what is made up by Snorre. For example I don't think people distinguished between 'light' and 'dark' elves.

The article could also include some etymology on the word elf (I always thought of it as having to do with river, that is, elves = river people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 * At one point it did have an extensive etymology that corroborated material from the OED (the traditional PIE derivation, meaning "brilliant white," that seems to work with the descriptions of the elves), but the etymology was (for some reason) mostly removed and the second proposed derivation was left, though it uses weasel words ("some") and is less likely (cognate of "labor," which isn't something associated with the elves until you get to much later in the tradition). I'd insert an etymology, but I don't know how to do footnote citations here. Iro (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, "elf" is of Anglo-Saxon origin and underwent regular fricative voicing in the plural, just like "wolf" and "leaf". The form "elfs" has never been an accepted form of the plural, as shown here: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=elfs%2Celues%2Celves&year_start=1600&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

Edited to reflect this Secondus2 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

References?
What is "Hall 2004"? --FinnWiki (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 * A significant part of the article was lost at this point and afterwards, because nobody paid attention and people just deleted vandalism instead of reverting/undoing the destructive edits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"The English word elf is from the Old English ælf or elf, in reference to a midget," In reference to a midget? Where is the reference to that ridiculous idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled about that claim too. I believe this is vandalism. It was introduced a year ago. The problem was that it was followed by more vandalism, and ClueBot rolled back to the earlier vandalised revision. I still find it disconcerting that this patent nonsense has stood unquestioned for a year. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien & elf ears
"A hallmark of fantasy elves is also their long and pointed ears (a convention begun with a note of Tolkien's that the ears of elves were "leaf-shaped")." I'm sorry, but this is absurd and there's no evidence for it. Shall we list the many many illustrators of Victorian and Edwardian England, and the rest of Europe, who portrayed elves and fairies as having pointed ears? Look at any drawing by Arthur Rackham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.95.123 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've seen a few images of Father Christmas/Sinterklass etc depicted as elf like, with pointy ears and such, dating from well before Tolkien's fantasy was published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack
It's pretty obvious that this page has been hijacked by someone with a Germanic agenda, or someone who has confused etymology with meaning. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist one. The over-focus on Germanic mythology rather than popular, mainstream use of the word is a mistake. More people will know Elf from World of Warcraft, Tolkien and D&D as well as European mythologies. This article should be about Elves and the Elf (germanic mythology) piped off to a different article. Davémon (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Davemon, elves are specific to Germanic mythology and do not exist in other "European mythologies". As for the popular cultural references, they all stem from the Germanic concept of elves. bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already an article for the elves that you are talking about, Davemon: Elves in fantasy fiction and games -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Fyrefly. What about []? Doesn't that kind of thing belong somewhere? I'm just thinking that someone who comes across the word 'Elf' probably isn't coming across a folkloric concept, but rather the popular culture one. Bloodofox is wrong, elves in popular culture largely derive from Tolkien, and Tolkien has a few more sources than just the Germanic. --Davémon (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that elves have a cultural and modern literary history far prior to Tolkien's writings. bloodofox: (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic Origin"
Someone utterly ignorant about the subject has redone the Elf page. They think the Norse are Germanic and from Germany. No, they're Scandinavian, and they are more related to us Slavs, than to Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Germanic peoples. bloodofox: (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever about that, I have replaced Germanic mythology with Norse mythology, which was in older versions of this article up until July 2006 when it was removed in a (IMHO) clumsy edit by an IP and never replaced. Norse mythology is also a proper Wikipedia article and this edit brings the article into line with the German-language article of the same name. Hohenloh + 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While the article is currently very poor and in need of a rewrite (I've tagged it), elves are by every indication beings stemming from Proto-Germanic and thus not an innovation distinct to the Norse. Your placement of Old English and German attestations under "Norse mythology" is outright wrong and has also been removed. bloodofox: (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article itself says: "The earliest preserved description of elves comes from Norse mythology. In Old Norse they are called álfar (nominative singular álfr)." I am also relying on the German-language article (which appears to be in a good state). See also the comments in the "Coatrack" section above, and I also agree with Fyrefly's comments below. Hohenloh + 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hohenloh, Old Norse is a Germanic language, and elves are attested prior in other Germanic languages. Old Norse records simply provide the most information we have about them. Otherwise, the German article is also pretty poor (even poorer than this one). The "coatrack" section above is plainly ridiculous. bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed
Recently I've tagged this article for a rewrite. My reasoning is that it's plagued with theory presented as fact, and one look at the reference section will dictate the core of the issue; it wasn't written with academia in hand, but rather as a semi-personal essay. However, has now twice removed the 'rewrite' tag in favor of a 'clean up' tag, stating "the article is far, far too developed already for a total rewrite to be a good idea" which I suppose we should read as 'hey, this article has been this way a long time, why bother?', despite the obvious issues. Unfortunate and counter-productive as it is, this sort of thing seems to happen when attempting to solicit others to produce a rewrite, and, as a result, I guess I'll have to leave the issue alone until I am able to sit down and produce a rewrite myself. bloodofox: (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as counter-productive and arrogant as you being so WP:UNCIVIL is, I'll respond anyway. I very obviously didn't mean "this article has been this way a long time, why bother?" I meant exactly what I said: that the article is much too developed for a rewrite to be necessary. The article is well-structured for the most part and has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length. In my opinion, only mild clean up is needed and a complete rewrite would only slow down the progress toward a better article status. Let's see what consensus decides. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fyrael, if this is your idea of "developed", I'd hate to see your term papers—"has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length"? Seriously? As the issues are clearly not glaring to you, I can only assume that you're not familiar with the material this article covers. This article suffers from the same issues as the dwarf and troll articles did before their rewrites; opinion and theory presented as fact from the very first lines, resulting in a severe entanglement throughoiut of theories preferred by the authors. This, combined with poor referencing, results in the need for a total rewrite. For example, while Hall's work is first-rate, his conclusions need to be presented separately from the attestations. "Consensus" is not needed for a rewrite of an article in a poor state, and it's simply a matter of someone making the time. bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see how many times I have to link WP:UNCIVIL before you read it and decide to stop being a child with these sad attempts at personal insults. Now, there are certainly sections with little-to-no citations used and need serious attention, but other sections are fairly well-sourced and I still think the overall structure is fine. We would probably be better off labelling individual sections with more specific clean-up tags since they have varying problems. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure isn't the problem. It's the content. And each section has the same set of problems, whether it's poor referencing or theory-as-fact. Look, I can see you're taking this personally, but I obviously don't know you, so don't. It is not a problem that you're not familiar enough with this material to have immediately spotted these issues, but your defense of the issues when they're brought up is. I will not accept defense of the state of this article as it stands on the grounds of being "developed", and nor should you if you are at all concerned about where you get your information from. I will prepare a rewrite as time permits. bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that you don't know me, which is what makes the attempts at personal insult so childish. I'm also plenty familiar with the material and my defense of the content is completely valid, but your arrogance has blinded you to any redeeming qualities of the article. I wish you good luck with the rewrite and I hope that at as much of it as possible is valuable enough for us to include in the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with a rewrite is in order the above exchange starts with a difference of opinion whether a rewrite tag is in order but degrades into bickering instead of substantive discussion, so I'll start a new thread on rewrites and my own assessments. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare
The article refers to "his elves are almost as small as insects", yet Titania is obviously large enough to say to Bottom "Sleep thou, and I will wind thee in my arms". Any comments? Peridon (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This conclusion is based on a misguided cherry-picking of passages. It also appears to be a Wikipedian's conclusion, which makes it WP:SYNTH. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this information about Elves should be allowed on this page.
Elves (singular elf) love to tell stories. I'll bet you didn't know that about elves. There's probably a lot of things you didn't know about elves. Another interesting, uh, "elfism", is that there are only three jobs available to an elf. The first is making shoes at night while the old cobbler sleeps. You can bake cookies in a tree, but as you can imagine, it's dangerous having an oven in an oak tree during the dry season. But the third job, some call it, "the Show" or "the Big Dance," it's the profession that every elf aspires to. And that is to build toys in Santa's workshop.

Elves try to stick to the four main food groups: Candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup.

The Code of the Elves: 1. Treat everyday like Christmas. 2. There's room for everyone on the nice list. 3. The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.

Elves generally love to make ginger bread houses, and eat cookie dough, and go ice skating, and even hold hands. They also love singing Christmas carols, and anything with Maple Syrup or sugar in it. They are great friends, and love to make toys. Most elves make over a thousand toys a day, but if they don't reach their quota, it doesn't mean they're cotton-headed ninny muggins, it just means that they might be better at doing other things, like changing the smoke detector batteries or bringing the Elf Choir down a whole octave (in a good way!). Every elf is important and unique, and one day might even help save Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.230.205 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 * What is the point of this? Are you attempting to demonstrate the eloquence of your writing skills for personal gratification?
 * In order to avoid clutter on this free, public, and essential informational service.... which is maintained through the hard work and many hours of volunteers... please only post relevant information that is useful to the article in question. Anything else (other than moderating comments) is simply sabotage. 2604:3D09:447D:8D00:C93:4A22:CAF2:98C4 (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

References not Corresponding to Citations
If this were a stub, then general references might be appropriate. However, as this is a fully-referenced article that is fairly mature, we need to be careful about using general references, especially references to recent books, because doing so is likely to appear promotional in nature. It has been suggested that the general references currently in the article "might" have been used in the base research for the article, but if such a connection is not obvious, then the reference should be part of an in-line citation, or it should be removed. Definitive works on Elves which are not cited should appear in a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section of this article (as previously suggested). Please feel free to make these edits. Otherwise, at least two of the four general references in this article should be removed completely. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * If Alaric Hall's print publications – especially his 2004 doctoral thesis – are not highly relevant to this article, then what is? Sure, they are (relatively) recent, they are available on the web, but that speaks in favour of them, rather than against them: they are up-to-date, peer-reviewed, scholarly book sources, ffs. Why should we limit ourselves to outdated publications going as far back as Grimm when we have so much better sources to add? (In addition, after all, new research can and will supplant sources as old as Grimm.) Why should we exclude Hall 2004? Just because of the fear that we might "promote" a modern, yes, even recent scholar specialising in the subject? That's so incredibly silly that it defies belief.
 * Yes, he has a Wikipedia account, yes, he has edited articles, but he hasn't done that to promote himself – it wasn't him who added his stuff; but even if he had, so what? It's not against the rules, it doesn't add undue importance – it is already important! – and it helps Wikipedia. This knee-jerk reflex against "self-promotion" doesn't exactly help the problem Wikipedia has attracting experts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hall's work is absolutely appropriate for this article, and when the rewrite comes, it should be well emphasized for exactly what it is; a modern scholarly work extensively tackling the subject. If nobody beats me to it, it's only a matter of time before I rewrite this article. As of now, however, reader beware—this article is currently crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012
The elf was also popularized by Enid Blyton's many children's stories. Elves, and other such magical creatures namely pixies, brownies, goblins and so forth, are often portrayed as tiny people, with pointy ears and brown skin, that live in tree holes or tree houses. Very often, Enid Blyton's stories involve children meeting and befriending these creatures, visiting them forthe very typically British meal, 'tea'. Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —  Abhishek  Talk 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Name?
The "Name" heading is confusing (dumbed-down?). It should be "Etymology" of course. Oh, and W-i-k-i-p-e-d-i-a s-u-c-k-s. Thank you. 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.116.227 (talk)

Superstition section
I took a stab at doing a cleanup of this article, over a series of edits. I will post several topics to explain the thrust of things I did. First off, I wanted to confine /*Mythology*/ section to content about the "race of elves" and segregate out material to do with "spirit" that cause diseases and nightmares into a the new /*Superstition*/ section. The superstitions date to Anglo-Saxon and Middle High German periods so moving them to /*Modern folklore*/ section would not be appropriate. Requesting feedback on this sectioning off. Also I tentatively subtitled /*Mythology*/ section as: "The elf as a race of supernatural beings" and /*Superstition*/ as "The elf as a spirit playing tricks", though I'm not too comfortable with the wordings, so I welcome anyone to improve them. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Before attempting any such division, which can easily stray into WP:OR territory, I recommend taking Alaric Hall's elf-related work in hand. This is by no means a simply topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it a personal subjective judgment or WP:OR to classify mentions mythological and heroic literature under /*Mythology*/ and moving out mentions in medical books/leechbooks. It also makes no sense to class superstitions (e.g. the alp-nightmare) under /*Mythology*/ if the citation goes back to the Middle Ages, but under /*Modern folklore*/ if it was from a later folk-tale. Obviously, the new section I tentatively called /*Superstition*/ awaits to be consolidated an merged with the section.
 * One reason for the split is to avoid being misled into thinking Medieval England and the German alp are just like the Norse alfar, when in fact you cannot safely ascribe attributes like dwelling in Alfheim or occurring in light and dark varieties to them. Some contributor inserted the sentence: 'Middle High German tradition separates the elbe "elves" from getwerc "dwarf", which was especially misleading in that way.
 * A. Hall's thesis/book is useful for being comprehensive but is obviously iconoclastic; his speculations detract from other commentators, and I am against giving his opinion or his schema for organizing information any WP:UNDUE weight. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that you're going to run into problems with the use of "superstition". This is not a neutral term. What you should be using is something like "folk belief" or more specific terms. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've since continued with my edits, and there is no longer a Superstition section, as I opted to incorporate into Folklore. Having checked up on sources, I found the presentation of information misleading or wrong in many cases, though it would be too onerous for me to log everything I found and corrected in the talk page here. But by way of illustration, I could point out a number of still outstanding issues still the Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore areas, which I didn't tamper with too much.
 * I don't feel the mention of "dark elves" need to be repeated in triplicate to drive home the point, and can be deferred to the extant dark elf articles (Dökkálfar and Svartálfar).
 * It is incorrect to suggest that the elf appears in Norna-Gests þáttr. I suspect someone just read e.g. (p.97) without citing her and came to the wrong conclusion. Olaf THINKS it might be an elf, but turns out to be Norna-gest.
 * I don't think it is fair characterization to say Olaf Geirstad-Elf was an elf. You can read snippets of Davidson's summary in her "The Road to Hel," and this Olaf is a draugr if anything.
 * Also there should be caveats written about álfablót, as Motz's paper above has done. "Undoubtedly it had one time been intended for the elves, but we do not know to which of their manifestations." She suggests in later times, álf might have only remained in name only, and the in the ritual "figure designated by it" (i.e. elves), "had become eclipsed" (by e.g. Odin)
 * The "Elf-cross" (illustrated by a pentagram in the Scandinavian folklore section) is not strictly Scandinavian, since when look at the drude article, you learn that the "Drudenfuss" or "Drudenkreuz" is pretty much the same thing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hrafnagaldr Óðins is misquoted as saying "the álfar have skill"; that is not the gist of what it says and is misleadingly to readers. It actually says "elves understand" (Lassen tr. [//www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Text%20Series/Hrafnagaldur%20Odins.pdf pdf]). Grimm, who is supposedly cited here, says so too: ""älfar verstehen", and Stallybrass's translation of Grimm actually concurs as well: "âlfar have skill (understanding)" -- note the parenthesis.
 * The quote from Fjölsvinnsmál that states Loki is an elf (álfr) is questionable as well. Grimm used Rask's edition, p.110b, str. 35 "liþski alfr Loki." However, Sophus Bugge's critical edition, p.349, strophe 34 has "Liðskjálfr, Loki". The compound word seems to mean "limb-shiverer" or somesuch.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * File:King Olaf and the Little People.jpg does not belong and needs to be deleted. Firstly, the story is about Olaf the Saint and not Olaf Geirstad-Alf, even though it is mistakenly featured in the article about the latter. Secondly, in the Danish ballad, Hellig-Olavs Væddefart DgF 50 which is the original source, they are not called "elves" but "trolls so small" ("De seyled offuer den Feld saa blaa; vd da løbe de Trolde saa smaa").--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Grimm's tripartite division of elves
I should have announced my intentions earlier, but I had taken out the following passage summarizing Grimm's view, contributed the edit on 10:23, 24 October 2009 by User:Dbachman: The etymology connecting *alboz with albus "white" suggests an original dichotomy of "white" vs. "black" genii, corresponding to the elves vs. the dwarves which was subsequently confused.1 Thus the elves proper were named ljósálfar "light elves", contrasting with døckálfar "dark elves".2

which I thought this needed editing. For one "original dichotomy" might conflict with Grimm saying the original alb was a "light, white, good spirit" ("albs mag also einen lichten, weissen, guten geist" (Grimm DM, Bd. 1, S. 413, In English translation "meant first of all" is used instead of "originally"). The other thing is the way the sentences run together, it cane easily be read as if dwarfs and dark elves are the same, but it needed to be clarified that Grimm insisted on the distinction between dwarfs and dark elves, because they are mentioned side-by-side in Hrafnagaldr Óðins (Rask's edition, "Saem 92b"). The block above was moved to the Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar page, and after edits now reads as follows:

Grimm surmised that the Germanic elf was probably a "light-colored, white, good spirit" while the dwarfs may have been conceived as "black spirits" by relative comparison. But the "two classes of creatures were getting confounded" (presumably as the elves were becoming increasingly demonized due to Christianization), and there arose a need to coin the term "light-elf" (ljósálfar) to refer to the "elves proper".1a(a Stallybrass's actual phrasing in his translation was "recourse was had to composition, and the elves proper were named liosâlfar" (Vol. 2, p.444) for Grimm's "'half man durch zusammen-setzung und nannte die eigentlichen âlfar liosâlfar."

Well, it used to read the "original elf (German:alb)" but is now --> "Germanic elf". Most of Grimm on the light-elves and black-elves should be moved to the spinoff article, what do you think? I'm not finding any modern scholars who endorse Grimm's tripartite division. Ironically, I was led through Wilkin's article here or here into thinking Tom Shippey may be a supporter, but he absolutely lambasted Grimm, saying of him: "his solution was significantly worse than Grundtvig’s, vague and indecisive." --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Saga section added
In my series of edits on, much of it was just rearranging the placement of paragraphs by previous editors for organizational purposes. Scholars discuss the "elf" and "elf-sacrifice" (álfablót) mentioned in these sagas in different context from the mythological elf. Hence a new section /*Sagas*/ to house them.
 * Olaf Geirstad-Elf - This is in a version of St. Olaf's saga, discussed in Vigfusson & Powell's Corpus Poeticum Boreale under the "Ancestral Worship" section, and by H. R. Ellis Davidson's Road to Hel under "Cult of the Dead" chapter. I have updated the target article somewhat as to this regard.
 * The poem Austrfaravísur by Sigvat the Skald is quoted in a version of St. Olaf's saga also. I'm not sure if him being a missionary for the king is quite the correct characterization, that might require fact-checking.
 * Norna-Gests þáttr is a tale from the Longest Saga of Olaf Trygvasson (Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta). I edited the article portion in regards to this tale. Norna-gest is mistaken for an elf or an andi "spirit". Cf. Anne Holtsmark's study of the Snorra Edda that explains how the Christian andlengr heaven, thorough association with andi might have led to Snorri's Andlang
 * There was reference to Álfheimr (region) which needed reattributing, and it was moved to the saga section. Davidson's lead-in to her quoting the passage from the ThV saga is: "By the time of the Fornaldar Sögur however Álfheim has become a country on the border-line of mythology, as when for example we are told in Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar (I)" (preview p.113). Her inference is, this was a geographical area with a later accretion of legend around it.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Keebler
Keebler Cookie company should get a mention, if for no other reason than to show that Santa isn't the only employer of elves. Also, does Willy Wonka employ elves? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Major Cleanup, May 1st-3rd 2014
May 1st: I'm about to start attempting a major cleanup of this article. I wrote one of the major scholarly studies on this subject, published in 2007: Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity, Anglo-Saxon Studies, 8 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007), currently available at http://www.libgen.net/view.php?id=383363. I've mostly steered clear of this article since then for fear of overemphasising my own work, but hopefully now enough time has elapsed that I can intervene and offer a well balanced cleanup. I have written an entry for a print encyclopedia on the subject, for example ('Elves', in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, ed. by Jeffrey A. Weinstock (forthcoming): http://www.alarichall.org.uk/ashgate_encyclopedia_elves.pdf). If people could bear with me as I work through the article over the next day or two I would be grateful! I'll post an update here when I'm done about what I think might need more work. Alarichall (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It's good to have you here, Alaric. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bloodofox! Alarichall (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Impressive work, Alaric! Haukur (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ta! Alarichall (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 3rd: Okay, I'm done! I'll no doubt keep haunting the page a bit finding typos and fiddling about, but for what it's worth, my major cleanup is complete. And the page is down from 73,349 bytes to 66,636 bytes, so although it's still vast, at least it's shorter! Lingering issues:
 * I've cited my own book a lot, just because it covers a lot of stuff and I know my way around it, but hopefully not in ways that overemphasise my own arguments, but rather in ways which direct the reader to my summaries of scholarship and debates. I want to come back when I have time and the books handy and put in more references to Shippey 2005, Gunnell 2007, Purkiss 2000, and Jeremy Harte's fairies book. Together these afford a good, up to date set of opinions on the current state of scholarship.
 * I'm particularly weak on the medieval German material, so I've relied a lot on Cyril Edwards, ‘Heinrich von Morungen and the Fairy-Mistress Theme’, in Celtic and Germanic Themes in European Literature, ed. by Neil Thomas (Lewiston, N. Y.: Mellen, 1994), pp. 13–30. More learned people might want to check what I did here.
 * I didn't attempt a thoroughgoing revision of the modern Scandinavian stuff, which is still a bit of a hotch-potch. Could be worse though!
 * There's clearly a case for turning some of the sections here into separate articles and having just one much shorter summary on elves as a launch pad. The Alp section here is probably better in a lot of ways than the main article Alp (folklore). I'd welcome opinions on what would be best to do, but for now I've just left Elf as one mega-entry. Alarichall (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Congratulations on your major revision here. It's good work. DBaK (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks DBaK! I appreciate it. Alarichall (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletions and Reverts by Haldrik
I see that has come out of the woodwork again and up to his usual pattern. This time he seems to be refactoring sourced text and removing portions at whim and without explanation. Last time we saw him he was around August of 2013, where he was attempting to impose all sorts of "dwarfs are medieval vampires" stuff on the dwarf article. After all sorts of abuse from Haldrik, this eventually got him [blocked for 32 hours] and we saw no more of him. I recommend an administration step in or other users simply revert him when he can't abide by policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello ! I haven't e-met you before. I've been trying to see what kinds of edits you made to the article and form my own view on how helpful they were, but it's quite hard because you don't provide summaries of the changes you make in the 'edit summary' box. I'd be grateful if you could do this for any future edits so we can work more effectively together. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mrenh Gongveal
I just created a Wiki for Mrenh Gongveal [ Khmer: ម្រេញគង្វាល ]. They are the Elves of Cambodia, and might make an interesting addition to this Elf page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrenh_Gongveal

EarthMonkeyCreative (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources for this. Article creator used a self-published book and at least one source that doesn't even mention these. Doug Weller (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've improved the referencing at Mrenh kongveal a bit and included in the article. Alarichall (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Elf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091125164734/http://www.northvegr.org:80/lore/viking/001_02.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/viking/001_02.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Scottish 'elves'
As the article notes, by the early modern period an 'elf' is just another word for a fairy, ghost, etc. Scottish sources that talk of 'elves' are written in English, the language of the church and the towns, but they are often just translating some Gaelic term (usually sith). If anything, using Scottish evidence just confuses the topic--though perhaps rightly so. I.e., it tells you about the history of the English word, but not really about the Germanic elf, at least any more than use of 'faun' tells you about the classical concept. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Wow 😮 102.90.65.129 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on "Now Agreeed Upon" in the Norse section
I'll be brief: I am having trouble to locate the listed sources for reference point number 23, "For a long time, views about elves in Old Norse mythology were defined by Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda, which talks about svartálfar, dökkálfar and ljósálfar. However, these words are only attested in the Prose Edda and texts based on it, and it is now agreed that they reflect traditions of dwarves, demons, and angels, partly showing Snorri's 'paganisation' of a Christian cosmology learned from the Elucidarius.[23]" - the attested sources are Shippey 2005, 180-81; Hall 2007, 23-26; Gunnell 2007, 127-28; Tolley 2009, I 220 - all of which I am having issues with finding. Could we at least have something quoted from any of these that corroboartes the statement? Particulaury since the line, "The consensus of modern scholarship is that Snorri’s elves are based on angels and demons of Christian cosmology" in the explanations makes it clear that we now have some evidence that this is so - and I would dearly like to see it cited. Hackeru (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

small little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.12.26 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Apologies for not noticing this earlier. As you may have noticed by now, if you look up Hall 2007 and Gunnell 2007 in the article bibliography, you'll find links to open-access texts of those publications. Alarichall (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Williams syndrome
Williams syndrome could be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.104 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To add: Williams syndrome is a genetic disorder that causes the individual to appear "elf-like": IE, long faces and pointy ears. As per the Williams syndrome article: "The adjective "elfin" may have originated to describe the facial features of people with Williams syndrome; before Williams syndrome's scientific cause was understood, people believed that individuals with the syndrome, who have exceptionally charming and kind personalities, had extraordinary, even magical, powers. This has been proposed to be the origin of the folklore of elves, fairies and other forms of the 'good people' or 'wee folk' present in English folklore.[57]"

I think Williams syndrome should be discussed further as a theoretical basis for why individuals believed in the existence of elves.

Finnish Elves
Someone ought to add a link to the Nisse Wikipedia page. Elves are very important to Finnish lore. In Finnish, they are referred to as Tonttu. More could be added about Finnish elves (see also Mauri Kunnas), but the Nisse page is a good starting point (maybe as a 'see also'?)

97.104.133.89 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)JustTryingToBeHelpful97.104.133.89 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Finnish traditions are currently covered in Elf, and the nisse in Elf. Any particular changes you'd like to suggest there? Alarichall (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018
Would be informative to have some pointers to Williams syndrome - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome#Society_and_culture. Sssemil (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm working on it! Alarichall (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go, Elf. How does that look? Alarichall (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done seems to have this well in hand. NiciVampireHeart 09:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very nice 👌 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sssemil (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A grim ripoff
This article looks like yet another example of Wiki-style obscurantism. The information appears to derive entirely from Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie, but garbled and hidden behind tons of less important ternary and quaternary sources. Grimm's text is still much better, and facts only briefly mentioned here are better explained there: https://archive.org/details/teutonicmytholog02grim/page/442. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019
Immediately before the phrase "Thus in the US, Canada, UK, and Ireland" is the letter "e" with a citation to Hall (2014). Please remove the "e" and the citation, since we don't need a stray "e" there. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019
The caption under the image of the Beowulf manuscript mistranscribes a Tironian note et (⁊) as an ampersand (&). Could this please be corrected where the Tironian et replaces the ampersand. 2602:30A:2E70:D020:CC8A:6A96:FE2:9C9 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Alarichall (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fairy?
So are they fairies or not? Booger-mike (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, since neither of them are real, it's tricky to answer that question! Alarichall (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Arabian" jinn
, if you look at Xoltron's editing history you'll see he has a history of claiming Arabic things are Persian. See especially his edits at One Thousand and One Nights, such as this. Look also at his recent edits at Jinn, such as this. Jinn are from pre-Islamic Arabia, whatever their ultimate origins may be. It seems strange that we shouldn't identify them as Arabian.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich, thank you for clarifying. I've self-reverted my reversion of your edit. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Etymology
So... Erhm... I don't have the linguistic expertise to confirm this, but I've always been told that the etymology for 'Elf' lies not in the Latin word for 'white' (albus), but the High German word for 'river' (albiz) and that it's association with a certain class of fairies (those associated with rivers, like Neck, kelpies and the like) came about in a similar way to how the word 'Sidhe' refers far more to a class of fairies than to the earthen mounds that the word originally referred to that they were said to dwell in.

I acknowledge that this isn't the strongest of evidence, has elements of OR and may well be wrong, but it would certainly explain far better why there's a distinction made between 'light' and 'dark' elves if it was a reference to white water rivers (fast rivers in the mountains) and black water rivers (swampy, slow moving rivers in the low lands) than if it meant 'the white people' (I can see the Germanic storytellers of old work that one out "Oh, sure, they're the white people, except they're pitch black so we'll just call then 'the dark white people' rather than just 'the black people'...").

If it is wrong, it might be worth adding a little bit to the etymology section about why. Robrecht (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen this etymology in a scholarly source (and although it was a long time ago, I did once read a lot of scholarly sources about the etymology of elf), so I'm not sure we'd be able to find a citation for it. Maybe it's a widespread folk etymology? Alarichall (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 * It seems River in old High German is 'aha' or 'fluz', the modern word being 'fluss' https://glosbe.com/en/goh/river. Do you have a source? 'Albiz' is also the source of the word 'Albus' in Latin. Its a proto Indo European word that branched off. I don't think the claim is that the word comes from the Latin, the Latin is a separate descendant of 'Albiz' that has a similar concept. I think it needs to be considered that in the past the concept of 'whiteness' and  was not like we use it today. Its possible that light and dark refers to pale and olive tones. Or the concept of Elves evolved beyond the meaning of the word to take on other characteristics. There is nothing concrete on this matter.2A02:C7D:8059:3400:B9C0:2167:B8B7:D4AC (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Nisse?
The article gives the impression that the notion of Christmas elves sort of appeared in America out of nowhere. I don't have the expertise to cite specific authorities, but their similarity to Nisse is unmistakable. Given that so much of Santa culture comes from Norway, this is hardly surprising. Isn't it likely that "elf" wasn't used as a translation of "nisse"? Certainly, Santa and his elves aren't the same type, suggesting "elf" was used as a broad term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1000:1E7:F151:B8A4:10EA:A803 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Nisse (folklore).  Doug Weller  talk 14:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Objective?
"From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real"

Ha ha. How is this possible? 188.172.108.164 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

matt white?
What is this? No explanation is given and nothing exists online. 188.172.108.164 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If by "matt" it is meant "matte", not only someone should fix the spelling, but remove it altogether. Latin cognates to a word and concept from Germanic people likely have little relevance. Alpharts Tod (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Matt White is a novelist who wrote Elvish Capers and The Road to Fairyland.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Matt White! I looked up 'matt' in the Oxford English Dictionary, and 'matt', not 'matte', is the spelling given there. Comparing the meaning of a Germanic word with its Indo-European cognates is the main way in which we can guess what it might have meant in early stages of its history, so comparing the meanings of Germanic words with (in this case) their Latin and Celtic cognates is a really important method. Alarichall (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Real Meaning?
The article is separate from the Elves in video game and movies article, but it is more connected to that than the real meaning of elves. The article simply discussed what Elfs are since the Christianisation of Europe, but barely touches on the origins of Elf. It mentions that the word is used as a root to many ancient German Warrior names, and thus, likely had a positive, or even divine meaning. But the article does not go into much else detail on the subject. 188.172.108.164 (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this enquiry! The reason why the article doesn't go into much detail about pre-Christian meanings of elf is that pre-Christian speakers of Germanic languages hardly ever wrote anything, so we have no direct evidence for what the word elf meant to them. In my view, the article says as much as can plausibly be known on the subject. Alarichall (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think there could be more focus on Alfheim, Ydalir, Ullr, Freyr, and the like. As these are probably our oldest clues. I think my main issue is, we have Elves in fiction and video games, Elves in modern tradition, but but the origin of Elves. I understand little is known from 2,000-3,000 years ago, but there could be more here. Alpharts Tod (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. In fact, we should have a whole tripartite article on the Etymology of elves.com.au.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

where there actually elves before noas ark
Suggest what could this mean 2A00:23C4:706:2600:1D3:6E84:72BA:4F77 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Borneo?
"Orang Bunian" is not an Elf but rather mysterious characters from Southeast Asia. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think many people view them as Elves, especially in Malaysia I would ask how they are different from elves? Tepkunset (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I would think the more pertinent question is why some people in Malaysia view Bunians as Elves? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:F855:A0F9:EF82:E1B4 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Jinn?
Jinn, have a rank as warrior and magical beings originating in the "1001 Nights". 137.59.221.36 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Elf personality
The fear parents have of Elf is that they could be naughty, attraction to innocence and possibly feminine, they possess Male juvenile behaviour, very independent and fearless, possibly warlike in attitude. 137.59.221.36 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022
Change Medieavl to Medieval Polygnotus (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ Typo fixed. see revision here A diehard editor (talk | edits) 10:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Älvalek.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023
Under the section "Reality and perception":

"From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real. However, elves have in many times and places been believed to be real beings. Where enough people have believed in the reality of elves that those beliefs then had real effects in the world, they can be understood as part of people's worldview, and as a social reality: a thing which, like the exchange value of a dollar bill or the sense of pride stirred up by a national flag, is real because of people's beliefs rather than as an objective reality."

"Not considered" is a weasel word that imbues doubt and false balance to the factual statement that elves aren't real, and implies that they may be real but we don't wish to believe so. Likewise, the following use of "however," intentionally lends additional doubt to that claim. Unless there is factual, scientific evidence that elves may have existed, leave these out and simply write it as: "...elves are not objectively real. Elves have in..."

Giving credence by buying into the myth of elves does not impart realism, not even in the majority of minds participating in the lore. At some level, we still know that we are playing pretend in a shared fantasy. The whole sentence evoking Social Reality is a mischaracterization of that concept, which the original editor seems to have grossly misunderstood. We're better off just striking that whole sentence out, replacing it with something else. 2601:152:4F80:5B60:DC93:FD4D:22B4:7CB1 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"humans and gods"
I think whoever wrote the sentence "There does not seem to have been any clear-cut distinction between humans and gods" right after a sacrifice to the elves has been mentioned, made a mistake he wasnt aware of and he meant "between elves and gods", hence the aforementioned alfablót (elf sacrifice) 2800:200:F270:24C7:10C8:841E:ADD9:8253 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Gothic form
The article currently states: Personal names provide the only evidence for elf in Gothic, which must have had the word *albs (plural *albeis). The most famous name of this kind is Alboin. This appears like it may be unsourced. Alboin is a Langobardic name, and doesn't Germanic *b generally become f in that position in Gothic? Burgundian (also likely East Germanic) appears to have *alfs according to Orel.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Hey ho Ermenrich! I cited Alboin and gave the form *albs in my 2007 elves book, which I probably intended to cite when I revised this article years ago. But it is perfectly possible that I made a mistake in that book: I hadn't (and haven't) studied Gothic properly and I can't remember what my source was. I'll try to find a better source but if you get to one first then feel free to fix it! Alarichall (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elf


text:
Electric charge

Electric charge (symbol q, sometimes Q) is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field. Electric charge can be positive or negative. Like charges repel each other and unlike charges attract each other. An object with no net charge is referred to as electrically neutral. Early knowledge of how charged substances interact is now called classical electrodynamics, and is still accurate for problems that do not require consideration of quantum effects.

Electric charge is a conserved property: the net charge of an isolated system, the quantity of positive charge minus the amount of negative charge, cannot change. Electric charge is carried by subatomic particles. In ordinary matter, negative charge is carried by electrons, and positive charge is carried by the protons in the nuclei of atoms. If there are more electrons than protons in a piece of matter, it will have a negative charge, if there are fewer it will have a positive charge, and if there are equal numbers it will be neutral. Charge is quantized: it comes in integer multiples of individual small units called the elementary charge, e, about which is the smallest charge that can exist freely. Particles called quarks have smaller charges, multiples of $1⁄3$e, but they are found only combined in particles that have a charge that is an integer multiple of e. In the Standard Model, charge is an absolutely conserved quantum number. The proton has a charge of +e, and the electron has a charge of −e.

Today, a negative charge is defined as the charge carried by an electron and a positive charge is that carried by a proton. Before these particles were discovered, a positive charge was defined by Benjamin Franklin as the charge acquired by a glass rod when it is rubbed with a silk cloth.

Electric charges produce electric fields. A moving charge also produces a magnetic field. The interaction of electric charges with an electromagnetic field (a combination of an electric and a magnetic field) is the source of the electromagnetic (or Lorentz) force, which is one of the four fundamental interactions in physics. The study of photon-mediated interactions among charged particles is called quantum electrodynamics.

The SI derived unit of electric charge is the coulomb (C) named after French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb. In electrical engineering it is also common to use the ampere-hour (A⋅h). In physics and chemistry it is common to use the elementary charge (e) as a unit. Chemistry also uses the Faraday constant, which is the charge of one mole of elementary charges.

Overview

Charge is the fundamental property of matter that exhibits electrostatic attraction or repulsion in the presence of other matter with charge. Electric charge is a characteristic property of many subatomic particles. The charges of free-standing particles are integer multiples of the elementary charge e; we say that electric charge is quantized. Michael Faraday, in his electrolysis experiments, was the first to note the discrete nature of electric charge. Robert Millikan's oil drop experiment demonstrated this fact directly, and measured the elementary charge. It has been discovered that one type of particle, quarks, have fractional charges of either −$1⁄3$ or +$2⁄3$, but it is believed they always occur in multiples of integral charge; free-standing quarks have never been observed.

By convention, the charge of an electron is negative, −e, while that of a proton is positive, +e. Charged particles whose charges have the same sign repel one another, and particles whose charges have different signs attract. Coulomb's law quantifies the electrostatic force between two particles by asserting that the force is proportional to the product of their charges, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The charge of an antiparticle equals that of the corresponding particle, but with opposite sign.

The electric charge of a macroscopic object is the sum of the electric charges of the particles that it is made up of. This charge is often small, because matter is made of atoms, and atoms typically have equal numbers of protons and electrons, in which case their charges cancel out, yielding a net charge of zero, thus making the atom neutral.

An ion is an atom (or group of atoms) that has lost one or more electrons, giving it a net positive charge (cation), or that has gained one or more electrons, giving it a net negative charge (anion). Monatomic ions are formed from single atoms, while polyatomic ions are formed from two or more atoms that have been bonded together, in each case yielding an ion with a positive or negative net charge.

During the formation of macroscopic objects, constituent atoms and ions usually combine to form structures composed of neutral ionic compounds electrically bound to neutral atoms. Thus macroscopic objects tend toward being neutral overall, but macroscopic objects are rarely perfectly net neutral.

Sometimes macroscopic objects contain ions distributed throughout the material, rigidly bound in place, giving an overall net positive or negative charge to the object. Also, macroscopic objects made of conductive elements can more or less easily (depending on the element) take on or give off electrons, and then maintain a net negative or positive charge indefinitely. When the net electric charge of an object is non-zero and motionless, the phenomenon is known as static electricity. This can easily be produced by rubbing two dissimilar materials together, such as rubbing amber with fur or glass with silk. In this way, non-conductive materials can be charged to a significant degree, either positively or negatively. Charge taken from one material is moved to the other material, leaving an opposite charge of the same magnitude behind. The law of conservation of charge always applies, giving the object from which a negative charge is taken a positive charge of the same magnitude, and vice versa.

Even when an object's net charge is zero, the charge can be distributed non-uniformly in the object (e.g., due to an external electromagnetic field, or bound polar molecules). In such cases, the object is said to be polarized. The charge due to polarization is known as bound charge, while the charge on an object produced by electrons gained or lost from outside the object is called free charge. The motion of electrons in conductive metals in a specific direction is known as electric current.

Unit
The SI unit of quantity of electric charge is the coulomb (symbol: C). The coulomb is defined as the quantity of charge that passes through the cross section of an electrical conductor carrying one ampere for one second. This unit was proposed in 1946 and ratified in 1948. The lowercase symbol q is often used to denote a quantity of electric charge. The quantity of electric charge can be directly measured with an electrometer, or indirectly measured with a ballistic galvanometer.

The elementary charge (the electric charge of the proton) is defined as a fundamental constant in the SI. The value for elementary charge, when expressed in SI units, is exactly

After discovering the quantized character of charge, in 1891, George Stoney proposed the unit 'electron' for this fundamental unit of electrical charge. J. J. Thomson subsequently discovered the particle that we now call the electron in 1897. The unit is today referred to as, , or simply denoted e, with the charge of an electron being −e. The charge of an isolated system should be a multiple of the elementary charge e, even if at large scales charge seems to behave as a continuous quantity. In some contexts it is meaningful to speak of fractions of an elementary charge; for example, in the fractional quantum Hall effect.

The unit faraday is sometimes used in electrochemistry. One faraday is the magnitude of the charge of one mole of elementary charges, i.e.

History
From ancient times, people were familiar with four types of phenomena that today would all be explained using the concept of electric charge: (a) lightning, (b) the torpedo fish (or electric ray), (c) St Elmo's Fire, and (d) that amber rubbed with fur would attract small, light objects. The first account of the is often attributed to the ancient Greek mathematician Thales of Miletus, who lived from c. 624 to c. 546 BC, but there are doubts about whether Thales left any writings; his account about amber is known from an account from early 200s. This account can be taken as evidence that the phenomenon was known since at least c. 600 BC, but Thales explained this phenomenon as evidence for inanimate objects having a soul. In other words, there was no indication of any conception of electric charge. More generally, the ancient Greeks did not understand the connections among these four kinds of phenomena. The Greeks observed that the charged amber buttons could attract light objects such as hair. They also found that if they rubbed the amber for long enough, they could even get an electric spark to jump, but there is also a claim that no mention of electric sparks appeared until late 17th century. This property derives from the triboelectric effect. In late 1100s, the substance jet, a compacted form of coal, was noted to have an amber effect, and in the middle of the 1500s, Girolamo Fracastoro, discovered that diamond also showed this effect. Some efforts were made by Fracastoro and others, especially Gerolamo Cardano to develop explanations for this phenomenon.

In contrast to astronomy, mechanics, and optics, which had been studied quantitatively since antiquity, the start of ongoing qualitative and quantitative research into electrical phenomena can be marked with the publication of De Magnete by the English scientist William Gilbert in 1600. In this book, there was a small section where Gilbert returned to the amber effect (as he called it) in addressing many of the earlier theories, and coined the Neo-Latin word electrica (from ἤλεκτρον (ēlektron), the Greek word for amber). The Latin word was translated into English as. Gilbert is also credited with the term electrical, while the term electricity came later, first attributed to Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica from 1646. (For more linguistic details see Etymology of electricity.) Gilbert hypothesized that this amber effect could be explained by an effluvium (a small stream of particles that flows from the electric object, without diminishing its bulk or weight) that acts on other objects. This idea of a material electrical effluvium was influential in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was a precursor to ideas developed in the 18th century about "electric fluid" (Dufay, Nollet, Franklin) and "electric charge".

Around 1663 Otto von Guericke invented what was probably the first electrostatic generator, but he did not recognize it primarily as an electrical device and only conducted minimal electrical experiments with it. Other European pioneers were Robert Boyle, who in 1675 published the first book in English that was devoted solely to electrical phenomena. His work was largely a repetition of Gilbert's studies, but he also identified several more "electrics", and noted mutual attraction between two bodies.

In 1729 Stephen Gray was experimenting with static electricity, which he generated using a glass tube. He noticed that a cork, used to protect the tube from dust and moisture, also became electrified (charged). Further experiments (e.g., extending the cork by putting thin sticks into it) showed—for the first time—that electrical effluvia (as Gray called it) could be transmitted (conducted) over a distance. Gray managed to transmit charge with twine (765 feet) and wire (865 feet). Through these experiments, Gray discovered the importance of different materials, which facilitated or hindered the conduction of electrical effluvia. John Theophilus Desaguliers, who repeated many of Gray's experiments, is credited with coining the terms conductors and insulators to refer to the effects of different materials in these experiments. Gray also discovered electrical induction (i.e., where charge could be transmitted from one object to another without any direct physical contact). For example, he showed that by bringing a charged glass tube close to, but not touching, a lump of lead that was sustained by a thread, it was possible to make the lead become electrified (e.g., to attract and repel brass filings). He attempted to explain this phenomenon with the idea of electrical effluvia.

Gray's discoveries introduced an important shift in the historical development of knowledge about electric charge. The fact that electrical effluvia could be transferred from one object to another, opened the theoretical possibility that this property was not inseparably connected to the bodies that were electrified by rubbing. In 1733 Charles François de Cisternay du Fay, inspired by Gray's work, made a series of experiments (reported in Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences), showing that more or less all substances could be 'electrified' by rubbing, except for metals and fluids and proposed that electricity comes in two varieties that cancel each other, which he expressed in terms of a two-fluid theory. When glass was rubbed with silk, du Fay said that the glass was charged with vitreous electricity, and, when amber was rubbed with fur, the amber was charged with resinous electricity. In contemporary understanding, positive charge is now defined as the charge of a glass rod after being rubbed with a silk cloth, but it is arbitrary which type of charge is called positive and which is called negative. Another important two-fluid theory from this time was proposed by Jean-Antoine Nollet (1745).

Up until about 1745, the main explanation for electrical attraction and repulsion was the idea that electrified bodies gave off an effluvium. Benjamin Franklin started electrical experiments in late 1746, and by 1750 had developed a one-fluid theory of electricity, based on an experiment that showed that a rubbed glass received the same, but opposite, charge strength as the cloth used to rub the glass. Franklin imagined electricity as being a type of invisible fluid present in all matter and coined the term itself (as well as battery and some others ); for example, he believed that it was the glass in a Leyden jar that held the accumulated charge. He posited that rubbing insulating surfaces together caused this fluid to change location, and that a flow of this fluid constitutes an electric current. He also posited that when matter contained an excess of the fluid it was charged and when it had a deficit it was  charged. He identified the term with vitreous electricity and  with resinous electricity after performing an experiment with a glass tube he had received from his overseas colleague Peter Collinson. The experiment had participant A charge the glass tube and participant B receive a shock to the knuckle from the charged tube. Franklin identified participant B to be positively charged after having been shocked by the tube. There is some ambiguity about whether William Watson independently arrived at the same one-fluid explanation around the same time (1747). Watson, after seeing Franklin's letter to Collinson, claims that he had presented the same explanation as Franklin in spring 1747. Franklin had studied some of Watson's works prior to making his own experiments and analysis, which was probably significant for Franklin's own theorizing. One physicist suggests that Watson first proposed a one-fluid theory, which Franklin then elaborated further and more influentially. A historian of science argues that Watson missed a subtle difference between his ideas and Franklin's, so that Watson misinterpreted his ideas as being similar to Franklin's. In any case, there was no animosity between Watson and Franklin, and the Franklin model of electrical action, formulated in early 1747, eventually became widely accepted at that time. After Franklin's work, effluvia-based explanations were rarely put forward.

It is now known that the Franklin model was fundamentally correct. There is only one kind of electrical charge, and only one variable is required to keep track of the amount of charge.

Until 1800 it was only possible to study conduction of electric charge by using an electrostatic discharge. In 1800 Alessandro Volta was the first to show that charge could be maintained in continuous motion through a closed path.

In 1833, Michael Faraday sought to remove any doubt that electricity is identical, regardless of the source by which it is produced. He discussed a variety of known forms, which he characterized as common electricity (e.g., static electricity, piezoelectricity, magnetic induction), voltaic electricity (e.g., electric current from a voltaic pile), and animal electricity (e.g.,  bioelectricity).

In 1838, Faraday raised a question about whether electricity was a fluid or fluids or a property of matter, like gravity. He investigated whether matter could be charged with one kind of charge independently of the other. He came to the conclusion that electric charge was a relation between two or more bodies, because he could not charge one body without having an opposite charge in another body.

In 1838, Faraday also put forth a theoretical explanation of electric force, while expressing neutrality about whether it originates from one, two, or no fluids. He focused on the idea that the normal state of particles is to be nonpolarized, and that when polarized, they seek to return to their natural, nonpolarized state.

In developing a field theory approach to electrodynamics (starting in the mid-1850s), James Clerk Maxwell stops considering electric charge as a special substance that accumulates in objects, and starts to understand electric charge as a consequence of the transformation of energy in the field. This pre-quantum understanding considered magnitude of electric charge to be a continuous quantity, even at the microscopic level.

The role of charge in static electricity
Static electricity refers to the electric charge of an object and the related electrostatic discharge when two objects are brought together that are not at equilibrium. An electrostatic discharge creates a change in the charge of each of the two objects.

Electrification by sliding
When a piece of glass and a piece of resin—neither of which exhibit any electrical properties—are rubbed together and left with the rubbed surfaces in contact, they still exhibit no electrical properties. When separated, they attract each other.

A second piece of glass rubbed with a second piece of resin, then separated and suspended near the former pieces of glass and resin causes these phenomena:
 * The two pieces of glass repel each other.
 * Each piece of glass attracts each piece of resin.
 * The two pieces of resin repel each other.

This attraction and repulsion is an electrical phenomenon, and the bodies that exhibit them are said to be electrified, or electrically charged. Bodies may be electrified in many other ways, as well as by sliding. The electrical properties of the two pieces of glass are similar to each other but opposite to those of the two pieces of resin: The glass attracts what the resin repels and repels what the resin attracts.

If a body electrified in any manner whatsoever behaves as the glass does, that is, if it repels the glass and attracts the resin, the body is said to be vitreously electrified, and if it attracts the glass and repels the resin it is said to be resinously electrified. All electrified bodies are either vitreously or resinously electrified.

An established convention in the scientific community defines vitreous electrification as positive, and resinous electrification as negative. The exactly opposite properties of the two kinds of electrification justify our indicating them by opposite signs, but the application of the positive sign to one rather than to the other kind must be considered as a matter of arbitrary convention—just as it is a matter of convention in mathematical diagram to reckon positive distances towards the right hand.

The role of charge in electric current
Electric current is the flow of electric charge through an object. The most common charge carriers are the positively charged proton and the negatively charged electron. The movement of any of these charged particles constitutes an electric current. In many situations, it suffices to speak of the conventional current without regard to whether it is carried by positive charges moving in the direction of the conventional current or by negative charges moving in the opposite direction. This macroscopic viewpoint is an approximation that simplifies electromagnetic concepts and calculations.

At the opposite extreme, if one looks at the microscopic situation, one sees there are many ways of carrying an electric current, including: a flow of electrons; a flow of electron holes that act like positive particles; and both negative and positive particles (ions or other charged particles) flowing in opposite directions in an electrolytic solution or a plasma.

Beware that, in the common and important case of metallic wires, the direction of the conventional current is opposite to the drift velocity of the actual charge carriers; i.e., the electrons. This is a source of confusion for beginners.

Conservation of electric charge
The total electric charge of an isolated system remains constant regardless of changes within the system itself. This law is inherent to all processes known to physics and can be derived in a local form from gauge invariance of the wave function. The conservation of charge results in the charge-current continuity equation. More generally, the rate of change in charge density ρ within a volume of integration V is equal to the area integral over the current density J through the closed surface S = ∂V, which is in turn equal to the net current I:

Thus, the conservation of electric charge, as expressed by the continuity equation, gives the result:
 * $$I = -\frac{\mathrm{d}q}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$

The charge transferred between times $$t_\mathrm{i}$$ and $$t_\mathrm{f}$$ is obtained by integrating both sides:
 * $$q = \int_{t_{\mathrm{i}}}^{t_{\mathrm{f}}} I\, \mathrm{d}t $$

where I is the net outward current through a closed surface and q is the electric charge contained within the volume defined by the surface.

Relativistic invariance
Aside from the properties described in articles about electromagnetism, charge is a relativistic invariant. This means that any particle that has charge q has the same charge regardless of how fast it is travelling. This property has been experimentally verified by showing that the charge of one helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons bound together in a nucleus and moving around at high speeds) is the same as two deuterium nuclei (one proton and one neutron bound together, but moving much more slowly than they would if they were in a helium nucleus).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Electric charge