Jump to content

Talk:Kelpie/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

water-kelpie?

I haven't seen the term - always just "kelpie".....just sayin'......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's referenced in the first citation. Eric Corbett 23:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is also Walter Scott's poem - see pages 298-300. Not sure if it helps with the question below but on p. 300 Appendix - the short paragraph that starts: "It is believed in Angus ...." "... attributes are selected as are appropriate to the scenery." Or am I just making the waters even muddier? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks better in the article now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please fix the error! I was not able to.

Quoting from the article:

"The kelpie has counterparts across the world, such as the wihwin of South America," Do not exist such thing like wihwin in any country in South America. But do exist Iara!: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iara_(folklore) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iara_(mythology) Why my fix of the kelpie article was cleared?

I have just reverted your addition of this material and left an explanatory note on your talk page. Please do not add it again as it is not referenced. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you reply. But "wihwin of South America" is not referenced too! 03:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.145.227.231 (talk)
It is correctly referenced in the body copy - see ref #9. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was because this person was an IP User from Brazil, with imperfect command of English, but the way you marginalize this user's contribution doesn't seem to do justice. The user does make a valid point that there is no "wihwin of South America," and you should have shown good grace and conceded that on his/her prompting, you did make the correction to "Central America".--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass Reversion of Improvements

Hello. Recently I swept through this article and found all sorts of issues: Links to an amateur website about "the paranormal", an inter-Wikipedia "reference", a note on werewolves that wasn't in the reference cited (and was also rather confused), a reference to the pseudo-science of cryptozoology, "Myth", "fable", and "folktale" used as synonyms, a title was employed, modern nations were referred to as ancient in one incident, and "folktale" was written as "folk tale". I even took the time to check up on a variety of the references used, and I expanded from a reference and added a quote from it, as the original write up from it was also rather confused. Personally, I've got a background in folkloristics and I've written a ton of related articles, and all of these changes were thoroughly commented on in my edit summaries. However, this was all mass reverted [1] with the explanation of "unsourced, DABs". Nothing "unsourced" was added; in fact, unsourced material was *removed*. DABs can easily be fixed. So what's the deal? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The deal is that this article is on the front page today after having recently been reviewed favourably by independent editors.[2] There may be errors or deficiencies in the article despite that. However, since there is a general consensus that the article is in good shape, it is not appropriate to make major revisions right now. Please raise issues on the talk page before doing re-writes. Also, as you will see, petty vandalism has been going on today, as is usually the case. This makes it especially difficult to deal with constructive changes at this very moment. I'm sure in a day or so's time the editors of this article will be very pleased to have your knowledgable contributions. Thank you for your help on this. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
While this is a thoughtful response and I appreciate that, your reversion edit summary was insulting ([3] ("children came out for playtime")). The reversion consisted solely of my edits and no vandalism. Regardless of how many editors have seen this article, it was passed with clear problems. This appears to be an example of an FA article that needed a little more time in the cooker before being featured. The reference to cryptozoology and some of these other problems should have been caught at the very least. As for it being on the front page right now, until it's locked, it's still perfectly editable; editors just need to look at what they're reverting before they do so. Sometimes these articles benefit a lot by drawing the attention of specialists by way of this process. I mean, at the end of the day, we're here to improve the article, not blindly revert all edits to it until a few days have passed, aren't we? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologise for the edit summary which, as I can now see, was not appropriate (or suitable under any circumstances). I am sorry about that. However, there had been a number of vandalism edits that several people had been trying to revert, sometimes not realising the extent of the problems. The reversion I made, although it undid some of your work, also restored the lead section, which had been entirely removed. My reversion covered a large number of edits and reversions, some good, many bad. People have to work hard to keep main page articles from being ruined and so problems like this can arise. Thincat (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
... and it may be of little comfort to you but the substantive edit I made (adding a reference) has also disappeared in the mêlée! I'm not surprised (this has happened to me before when I have made main page edits) and I am certainly not blaming anyone. I shall restore it in a few days' time. Thincat (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I reverted to the original copy this morning was because there had been a number of edits - not by Bloodofox - which introduced unsourced information. I have since been out for the day and have only just returned. As Thincat states above, we will be more than willing to consider some suggested edits when we can go through each suggestion slowly. I have again reverted to the original copy. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I see that some of these have been instituted. I still disagree with the reversions; this stuff really should have been caught before this got to "featured" status. Now that things have calmed down, I'll go back and adjust the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

In my 08:23, 3 July 2014 edit of the Kelpie#Etymology section was reverted, apparently on a kill-on-sight policy, without real examination of what I was trying to accomplish, but I will list below the issues and flaws I was trying to address. --Kiyoweap (talk)

  1. Gaelic etymology was unsourced.
    → Neither OED nor Mackillop was inline cited, and I chose to use Skeat's original paper. Perhaps you meant Harper's Online Etymological Dictionary at the end of parag to somehow point back to the first sentence, not sure, but some kind of fix was needed.
    What I meant by "inline citation" was a footnote after the first sentence to eliminate ambiguity. But if you are asserting OED is your source, it brings up the another issue. OED isn't as quite endorsing about Gaelic etymology as you, and in fact, your phrasing is frankly near verbatim to what's given in Harper's. Downplaying OED's skepticism and changing the nuance in this way is non-neutral POV. I feel that my edit that discussed Jamieson's kalb "calf" suggestion, countered by Skeat's Gaelic proposition was more balanced, though wound up being rather verbose. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    Then it would be as well to say what you mean. Unlike you I do not consider myself to be a superior source to the OED, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of its etymology. Your claim that the phrasing is "frankly near verbatim to what's given in Harper's" is frankly ludicrous, and I will treat that with the contempt it deserves. Eric Corbett 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    (←) You aren't addressing the issue with your wild accusations. I am not refuting OED as a source, rather, pointing out that you are not sticking to the OED source. The OED, to paraphrase, states that [an unnamed lexicographer] has suggested an etymology based on Gaelic cailpeach "heifer", but corroborating evidence is lacking for this. This is clearly more skeptical tone than you put it. And I should think it plain to anyone's eyes that that your wording, "..but it may be derived from the Scottish Gaelic calpa.." is much closer to Harper's "..perhaps related to Gaelic colpach.." than the OED.--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Paper was cited using chapter heading name instead of paper title
    →Carlyle's paper (Transac. 1788) was cited using the chapter heading "An introduction to an Ode of Mr Collins," but the paper's title (according to Contents) is "An Ode on the Popular Superstions of the Highlands,.. etc."
    →This mistake also propounded another omission, and the actual title of Collins' ode fails to be mentioned anywhere in your edit. Done--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Collins' poem "manuscript.. from around 1759" not accurate
    →In OED online, "a1759" does not stand for "around 1759" but "ante 1759". The OED print edition gave a "1747" date, which made me enquire what the situation was. "Before 1759" just meant some time before the poet's death, and I preferred the "1749" date is given by Carlye's paper. Several books of within the past five years or so also give "1749-50" as date of composition.
    Corrected. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I prefer the 1749 date, with recent literature shifting terminus ante quem to 1750. However, if you are adamant I will just sigh and let you have your way. Please correct the "published some time before 1759" mistake you have introduced, then cross this item out, with a {{done}} mark. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)--correction on years, added by Kiyoweap (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
     Done--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. 1993 date of DOST arbitrary
    →I'm not sure about the exact publication dates for A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, but Part XVII "Judge— Knot" 1957?, Volume 3 H—L 1963 and 1967? so giving a date of some later edition seems arbitrary, and I preferred to just omit it.
    Addressed now, with a link added to the definition in the online edition of the DOST. Eric Corbett 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Done
  5. then spelled kaelpie
    →This reads as if everyone spelt it that way at that time.
    As this is the first recorded use of the term then everyone did so far as we're concerned. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Place names Kelpie hoall and Kelpie Hooll
    →"place names" (in the plural) is misleading. These are two variant spellings of one place name (singular) from the same record. Both your Margaret Scott's website and DOST (http://http://dsl.ac.uk) use the singular. Also note that Ms. Scott's spelling differs with "Kelpiehooll" found on DOST online, so this may need verifying in print.
    Whether or not these two place names refer to the same location is irrelevant, they are two place names. Place names are now consistent with those given in the DOST. Eric Corbett 06:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Done
  7. Harper's Online Etymological Dictionary
    →I'm not exactly sure why this source has to be brought in, attached with a blurb of Mr. Harper being the founder in the body of the article, you need to explain to the rest of us. I guessed that it was because its content was a knockoff of what the Oxford English Dictionary had to say (even sharing the same intiials!), except this site was freely viewable and not subscriptions only.
    As it's really nothing to do with etymology I've moved that sentence to the beginning of the following paragraph. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me be brutally frank with you Kiyoweap. You are clearly wasting not just your own time here but more importantly mine. Added to which it's rather difficult to take seriously the comments of someone who would leave glashtyn in the state that you have, so why not go and tidy that up instead of trying to pick nits here? Eric Corbett 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Eric, I do agree I am belaboring mostly minor points. But if I expended such labor, I was only indulging your collaborator Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs)'s request to take up the points in the Talk Page. So for you to call them time-wasting and nit-picking is hardly warranted. In hindsight, on the smaller fixes, I might have broken them up piecemeal into a series of minor edits. So that is what I'll do for the smaller corrections from now on. I'm adding a strikeout and a {{done}} mark to the issues I feel you've addressed, but the others I feel you have dodged them.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Kiyoweap, I initially suggested you try to discuss matters here as your first edit did not make sense; in an attempt to be respectful I simply highlighted the DAB link errors etc in the edit summary when I reverted. I have reverted an edit you made to the article again this morning as once more you are introducing harv errors. In response to your comment above: "I prefer ... However, if you are adamant I will just sigh and let you have your way.", please note that your preference does not come into the equation, especially as you appear to prefer articles to resemble this. Also your veiled accusations of close paraphrasing etc are offensive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your recent revert Sagaciousphil, I think we can dispense with the pettiness. Fact is, the article in the Celtic Magazine was being cited using an erroneous volume and year (III, 1875), but when I corrected the {{citation}} I forgot to fix the {{Harv}} (actually {{sfnp}}) alongside, causing a break-link. Sagaciousphil might as well taken a minute to do the global change himself, but instead, he reinstated the erroneous issue year, I suppose, just so he can air his snide remark on my incompetence. I question the general propriety of this type of revert, using flimsy excuses such as Dab link or syntax to justify it, and it boggles my mind that Sgaciousphil could expect anyone at the receiving end to take it as a gesture of "attempt[ing] to be respectful." Be good enough to recall that bloodofox (talk · contribs) has already expressed his displeasure at being subjected to the same sort of revert tactic.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Bloodofox is even more incompetent than you are, so his displeasure is of no consequence to me, or I dare say Sagaciousphil either. Eric Corbett 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's really not necessary. Let's play nice with one another in the sandbox, Eric. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Folkloristics: Myth, Fable, and Folktale

Hello folks. I notice that this article seems to use "myth", "fable", and "folktale" as synonyms. Colloquially, I can see where the confusion arises; they're all narratives in a sort of murky area, especially for modern Wikipedia-using folk such as ourselves. However, in folkloristics, these aren't synonyms but rather categories of their own. What do you say we stick to "folklore" and "narratives" for sake of consistency? I understand the temptation to use myth, but the term, infamously hard to define as it is, has particular implications that aren't necessarily appropriate for this article and the academic usage has very different implications than the colloquial. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Current Title Policy?

Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) and I have been editing the article a lot today, and I think we're working well together, and that the article has been benefiting from our adjustments. I particularly appreciate you fixing my typos, Eric—I know it's a pain. However, we seem to have a disagreement about usage of the title Sir. As far as I understand, titles aren't used on Wikipedia: As I recall, and it's been a while, otherwise we'd end up with a huge string of titles around various religious figures and every time we cited someone holding a PhD, we'd refer to them with the appropriate Dr.. I tried to look around and couldn't find where this was/(is?) listed; has this policy changed? Whatever the case, there's no reason to go reverting one another when we could be putting our time to use on all these articles that need work, after all. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COMMON NAME. The question is whether or not Walter Scott is more commonly referred to as Walter Scott or as Sir Walter Scott. Eric Corbett 23:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's a title and not a name, and of course titles are commonly used in their respective spheres. It's the same with the other examples I've provided; are we making an exception here for reasons unknown to me? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is discussing Walter Scott or Arthur Conan Doyle they'll almost invariably prefix the name with "Sir" on its first occurrence. After that it'll be Scott or Conan Doyle, but not Walter Scott. Eric Corbett 23:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wihwin

@Sagaciousphil: I am re-inserting the Rose reference, which unlike the Varner reference (which requires a subscription) provides readily available information about the wihwin, which I have added as a quote in the ref. Please do not delete it again. --Thnidu (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The Varner reference is a reliable source; the quote from Rose about the wihwin is not necessary as this article is about, and should remain focused on, the kelpie. I am therefore reverting it. Kindly respect this and do not change it. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil: I've just thanked you. That's for the fuller explanation. But please restore the redlink. As I understand policy (not looking up the page now, mobile editing is already enough of a pain), there's nothing wrong with a redlink to an unwritten page of reasonable notability. --Thnidu (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Okay - I have restored the red link meantime; however, I personally hate red links unless there is a strong likelihood an article will be generated because I feel if there is sufficient notability at the very least a stub should be created. I'll ping Drmies as he can often magic sources "out of thin air" and American mythology is really not something I know about. There is already the passing mention in Varner plus the Rose ref - which, by the way, I can't see even when logged into my Amazon account and trying to utilise the 'Look inside' feature - but hopefully if at least one more reliable ref can be found, a very basic stub can be created to turn the red link blue. I'll see what more I can do in the morning (it's late here). SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Kudos for editing on a mobile - I struggle even on my iPad, let alone my iPhone!

@Sagaciousphil: Thanks. —I can't imagine why you can't see the Google Books link... say, you said "Amazon": did you try the link I put? If it doesn't work, try this fuller one:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GKrACS_n86wC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA419&dq=wihwin#v=onepage&q=wihwin&f=false
I found plenty of sources with a simple Google search for wihwin. --Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did try the links. The problem is that Google doesn't show the same thing to everyone - this essay briefly explains it; sometimes Amazon can give a bit more access so I often check there as well. I will try to create a very basic stub for it this morning but the emphasis is on basic/minimal as I have no interest in the wihwin at all (and to be honest, I don't really think the onus is on me). SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged the wihwin parallel as {{Failed verification}} because Varner connects it with generic "Water Horse", and his meta-source Porteous "resembling a horse"; neither explicitly connects it with "kelpie". Accordingly, the tidbit should be moved to the water horse article. The tidbit never deserved a place in the lede paragraph in the first place, the wihwin is so obscure, it is not one of the important parallels you need to know in a nutshell.
P.S. There is a problem with the wihwin article that was set up in a hurry. I don't think you are allowed to claim a wihwin-bäckahäst connection based on one source saying wihwin-kelpie and another saying kelpie-bäckahäst. Connecting by doing a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game like that constitutes WP:Synthesis --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Each-uisge

This article needs to be more careful when the sources are actually discussing the Each-uisge and not kelpie as such. In a number of instance, the source cited (e.g. Lewis Spence) explicity qualifies their statement as being abut the "water horse (each-uisge) as distinct from kelpie", and yet the article assigns the attributes to the "kelpie". I have tagged some of those relating to the Varner issue as {{Failed verification}} which shows up as [not in citation given (See discussion.)] in the article. These content should be removed from Kelpie and moved to the Each-uisge article, as appropriate. I think there are other statements that need to be checked on this account. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing from the rather naive false premise that the kelpie, each-uisge and water horse are in fact three different entities, a distinction not universally applied, as the article explains. Why don't you try and see what you can do with the very poor each-uisge article instead of continuing to waste everyone's time here? I'd be interested to see what you can come up with. Eric Corbett 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is specifically about attestations and analysis for the a figures called kelpies. If we're going to be handling figures that appear to be related or even synonymous, then we need to make it very explicit every time it happens. The introduction also needs to make this clear. However, I think Kiyoweap is right that it just needs to be moved over to Each-uisge. We need to be approaching these distinctions surgically, yet when a distinction isn't clear, we need to explicitly communicate that to the reader. Meanwhile, if we can't find a replacement for the Varner references from reliable, academic sources, then the Varner material just needs to go. These are all important issues to solve if we're going to get this article to a quality state. I certainly don't think it's a "waste of everyone's time here" to do so; the article badly needs improvement, and I think we should be thanking Kiyoweap for taking the time out to do so. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anyone editing that article though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You are, of course, welcome to do so. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If you'd actually taken the time to do a little bit of research Bloodofox, instead of jumping into what you perceive to be a promising avenue to pursue your vendetta against me, you'd have realised by now as would your colleague Kiyoweap that in all probability the kelpie==water horse==each uisge, just different terms used in different places for the same entity. Which is why I challenged Kiyoweap to produce something decent on the each uisge, which I guarantee he'll be unable to do. And your repeated implication that this is not already a quality article is both insulting and inflammatory, and no doubt fully intended to be so. Eric Corbett 21:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that Corbett is currently blocked for 72 hours for incivility towards another editor ([4]), so he might be away for a while. Anyway, no, no matter how we slice it, when an article makes it to the main pages and it references pseudoscience like cryptozoology, there's no getting around the fact that it needed more eyes and work done before it became a "featured" article. That's really inarguable; so can we please drop the "but it was a featured article" thing? It's not helpful.
Further, we don't simple assume figures are 'the same' because they share similarities; neither folklore nor mythology work that way. While similarities are important to note, their differences can also be crucial. Finally, I don't know what "vendetta" you're speaking of; I only vaguely remember editing with you in the past and I don't particularly remember what it was about. I've been around a while and worked on plenty of articles, and I don't take it personally. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually just woke up and saw that and this on my watch list. Please consider a little good faith; we're all volunteers here. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? Well, that's fine and I guess, as we are all volunteers, you will act in good faith and wait until Eric's block is lifted then, won't you? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you requesting that we not edit this page until Eric's block for incivility towards another editor is lifted? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved from #Gary R. Varner: Reliable Source? above

  • 16d "water weeds in their hair".{{FV}} → Varner quotes MacCulloch, "piece of water-weed in his hair" but source is explicitly in reference to the each uisge.
  • 40 "as with cinematic werewolves, a kelpie can be killed by a silver bullet, [and it becomes] turf and a soft mass like jelly-fish",{{FV}} →Varner cites Spence, but latter is clearly talking about "the water-horse of the Western Highlands (each uisge)" (which he says "must be differentiated from the kelpie") so this is another factoid that needs to move to the each uisge article.above bullets copied & modified for layout--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The distinction that Spence makes isn't one that's universally applied, as the article explains. Eric Corbett 12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean as the article now explains, as one of the numerous issues that we've had to change since this article reached the main page! :bloodofox: (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No, no bloodofox, the "isn't universally applied" bit was there alright, except that not a single instance was supplied which was what was lame about it. I believe I was the one who went and inserted Walter Scott, after Graham. But actually most of the other sources do make the distinction or even emphasize the distinction, and Eric is not at liberty to conflate as he wishes (eu is the same as kelpie), when the source that is attached specifically contradicts him (eu is not the kelpie). That's where the failed verification sets in. This kind of taking license is quite ubiquitous in the article. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Only in your rather ill-informed opinion. And Bloodofox, you could at least try and get your facts right before mouthing off again. Eric Corbett 13:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually Eric, this is not a point to your advantage at all. Unbacked refutation by the high and exalted Eric Corbett hardly constitutes satisfactory explanation in the minds of most Wiki-editors, so Bloodofox is vindicated. "Ain't universally" accepted can be posited flat-out by any fringe group, Flat Earth believers or Anthropogenic climate change denialists, but hardly a license to advance their views. Granted, the current state of the article, it is no longer a flat-out postulate (thanks to me), but is still backable only by a couple sources, and still runs counter to the majority of the primary/secondary sources cited. It is still a text-book case of POV article-writing. ---Kiyoweap (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, please, Sagaciousphil. We critics of your article have endured superciliousness and insults from the pair of you from day one. If I neglect to completely sugar-coat our critiques a couple of times, don't start crying foul. Stop shouting and playing moderator; you are one of the principal involved parties, so just stick to the issue.
To flip the argument, Eric's thesis of "kelpie==water horse==each uisge" (Total Conflation) is not universally held, and you cannot dogmatically trump that view over the view of the actual primary/secondary sources you're using. Explain to me how you can justify this as neutral point of view.
The only immediately obvious justification for me, would be if 19th century truism on this has been reassessed by a world-class authority figure on the topic/field with some endorsement by others, or, an innovative paper with indication of growing consensus in academia. Barring that, you would have to come up with some whopping alternate excuse.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are you still here? You've been told repeatedly, as the article has always said, that there is no clear distinction to be made. Eric Corbett 16:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kelpie vs Each-Uisge

Plus there's gotta be a quote somewhere distinguishing the former's often mischievous nature vs the latter's uniformly bloodthirsty one. I can add something from Katharine Brigg's Dictionary of Fairies but not quite contrastive enough...will peruse again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Different authors differ in their accounts, which is what we've tried to convey in the article. There's really no universally accepted definition or description of a kelpie. And as some of the folk tales we've included, in particular the kelpie on the island of Barra demonstrate, the kelpie wasn't universally thought to be bloodthirsty. Eric Corbett 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
A Hundred Years in the Highlands by Osgood Mackenzie, page 235, says: The story of the celebrated water-kelpie—it was sometimes spoken of as the Each Uisge, and at other times as the Tarbh Oire; Westwood only mentions the Each Uisge once in passing when she's discussing the Water bull. An overall standard definition is pretty much as elusive as the creatures themselves. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Relocating here the sub-thread from #River vs. Lake more on topic to this thread--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC) My edit has virtually deleted out statements attributed to John Gregorson Campbell,..as I saw them as misrepresenting JGC's stance. Saying he "considered kelpies..relatively benign creatures [who] would rarely harm humans" hardly concurs with his acutal statement that "the kelpie .. devours women and children." As a mater of fact, JGC actually mitigates each-uisige's children abduction, saying it is an exaggerated bogeyman story ("pious fraud" "to silence a refractory child") that the adults tell to scare children. So it makes me skeptical about the assessement that Each Uisge is much bloodthirsty creature than the kelpie (stated by Cas Liber above and occuring in the each uisge article). JGC's gives a kelpie and mill story, but this is from Shetlands and turns out to be very similar to the "nuggle" stories from the Shetlands already given the article (citing Karl Blind); it seems iffy to me if this alone is any basis of what JGC thinks of kelpies in general. Another small point: in JGC's article thoroughout "water horse" is equivalent to the Celtic "each-uisge", not "water horses in general".--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder how many folks the folklorists spoke to and whether we'd have a different bunch of tales if they'd spoken to folks in different villages....but enough idle speculation. I don't claim to be any sort of expert by the whole mischievous kelpie vs decidedly bloothirsty each uisge stuck with me from childhood. I must admit I wouldn't say JGC is mitigating the each uisge's activities in explaining a source for their origin though. I think clarifying what authorities say which is a Good Thing, FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Mackillop counts both the Irishand/Scottish (each uisce/uisge) as "malevolent", the Scottish variety being "more terrifying". There follows a story localized in Aberfeldy, Scotland, of little girls being carried away one, with the liver floating up. But JGC calls a story similar to this a "pious fraud". Mackillop says in the Raasay tale the smith's daughter is devoured, but JGC says only that an abduction of a woman took place. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

River vs. Lake

Overview of identifiable issues, which I tried to address with my edit.

  • Incosistency in the old version as follows: "Lewis Spence define[s] kelpies as spirits living beside rivers..", vs. "every sizeable Scottish body of water has a kelpie story associated with it," citing Spence. Since Spence doesn't endorse Kelpies inhabiting lakes, I added in Graham as source on this and modified the statements.
  • Kelpie's habitat rivers vs. lakes: I placed J. G. Campbell, Briggs (folklorists already appearing in article) into camps of opinion on this. Mackillop's dictionary's neatly solves the inconsistency by saying that the stream-only viewpoint was superseded by any body of water later. I think Ron Black (annotated edition of J. G. Campbell) provides better explanation.
  • My edit has virtually deleted out statements attributed to John Gregorson Campbell,.. This sub-thread discussing repercussions of my edit as to bloodthirstiness of kelpie vs. each uisge now moved to #Kelpie vs Each-Uisge section.--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a fun one...

See this

In it, Parson notes that the appearance of the Each Uisge ("sometimes called the kelpie") on the Isle of Skye was described by Gordon in 1995 as having a parrot-like beak, and this, with its habit of diving suddenly, could be from real-life encounter with a sea turtle such as the leatherback turtle.

If the Skye beastie is mainly Each Uisge might add it over there...or could add it here I guess. Nice out-of-universe thingie to find.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Update I added it to the Each Uisge article as it is in Skye...pretty unequivocally highlands...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents: an intriguing bit of insight from a marine biologist, cleverly and very plausibly explaining how the water-horse acquired "sharp bill-like mouth" reputation due to turtle sightings. But I think sharp-billedness is limited to Skye. Therefore, I don't think it can be stretched to a credible origin theory for each uisge folklore generally across-the-board in Scotland, and due care for weighting is warranted. Will provide a few more details on Talk:Each uisge. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Ye-ah, which is why I qualified the descriptor by adding " on the Isle of Skye"....cheers/see you over there, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Better References

Apparently Strömbäck—exactly the right guy to be looking at for this sort of thing—wrote some stuff about the kelpie and the nix that might replace the sourcing issues we're having here with some solid academic work (perhaps Strömbäck, Dag. 1970. "Some Notes on the Nix in Older Nordic Tradition". Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies, Essays in Honor of Francis Lee Utley.) Anybody got access to this? I've found references to it on JSTOR but might need to visit to visit a library as I can't find it otherwise. If nothing else, I suspect that this paper might lead to a crucial section for this article.

Otherwise, JSTOR has seven pages of hits for "kelpie", though a lot of them are not helpful. Other academic databases I'm checking aren't much help so far either. As is usually (and unfortunately) the case, it seems that most of the material on this topic that will be useful to this article just isn't going to be available online. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will reiterate that we do not feel there is a problem with the Varner source. Could you clarify for me - are you saying you think there may be "crucial" information in articles you cannot access? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this "we" you and Eric? Please be specific, because you're certainly not speaking for the talk page as a whole. You'll see that there are other users above who take issue with this (@Yngvadottir:, @Kiyoweap:)—users who I'm aware have relevant backgrounds in this field—and they've expressed concerned about this use for good reason; again, Varner is just some guy on the internet, without an academic background relevant to this field nor academic publications connected to it. Yet he's cited as an authority throughout, including the introduction, because some Wikipedia editors found him on the internet. This wouldn't be OK on a term paper, and I'm not sure why you think this is an OK reference here. And, yeah, most of this material isn't going to be on the internet. This isn't unusual. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed I do mean Eric and I; however, you are also not speaking for the talk page as a whole. I am naturally aware that a great deal of information on almost every topic is not available on the internet - what I'm trying to get you to clarify is whether you have fully accessed the references you are saying here that, in your opinion, may have "crucial" information as you state you "might need to visit a library" which infers you have not actually read it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never used "we" as if I were. I'm confused as to what you're asking; let me just quote my initial post: "If nothing else, I suspect that this paper might lead to a crucial section for this article." There you go. If I'm asking for it, I think it's clear that I haven't read the entire article. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So why not come back when you've actually read it? Eric Corbett 13:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a trawl through JSTOR a bit later today hopefully.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

sv:Dag Strömbäck being a Swedish folklorist, and being a person with "ström" and "bäck" in his surname to boot, not too surprisingly brings up the bäckahäst in his paper on the neck/nix (snippet viewable).
Nick Middleton, by trade a geographer, probably didn't know the basics of Germanic languages accounting for his "double definite article" error (marked by "the [sic] bäckahästen". Error was btw already noted by FunkMonk during the FA process but ignored).
Middleton (2012) probably derived the information WP:CIRCULAR information taken from Wikipedia's neck (water spirit) article which has noted the Bäckahäst<->kelpie parallel since 2005. (If you go back and check, it was described as a "remote" parallel initially, then changed to a "close" parallel, and around May 2007 someone added "In Scandinavia, they appear as a man who can transform himself into a kelpie" in the lede. So how's that for laughs.)--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
But whether to give Bäckahäst mention or not is a rather subtle point. The issue that looms larger is the notion of the Germanic neck (water spirit) as the possible origin of the kelpie.
Despite Eric's belief that "the Gaelic cailpeach .. probably used by the locals," Karl Blind (1881) quotes J. F. Campbell as saying "I do not belive that [Kelpie] is Celtic at all," and suggests German Kalb "calf" as etymology.
This is echoed by Anonymous (1887) article in Celtic Magazine edited by philologist Alexander Macbain, and in John Jamieson An Etymological Dictionary that got reverted deserves to be restored. Dr. Jamieson is the attributed author of "Water-Kelpie," not Walter Scott as stated above.
It is clear that several important sources thus reject the Gaelic origins of kelpie and lean towards Germanic origins. But I don't think it goes beyond the barest notions, and I am skeptical if any developed thoughts on this can be found. Strömbäck does list "kelpie" among the neck-kind, in support of the notion, but only passingly as far as I can tell. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Loch na Cloinne in Farr or Thurso?

The article localizes one of the versions in Thurso in Caithness. However, the source (Annonymous (1887), Celtic Magazine 12 ) actually says in the neighborhood of Farr, Sutherland and Thurso, and isn't it better to say it is in Sutherland? The source is a person hailing from Sutherland, and the one hit I got on "Loch na Cloinne" "lake of the children" placed it in Reay Country (Rinder, Frank (1896) "Sutherland Folklore," Scottish Review 28 [5]) --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Glen Keltney and lochan near Aberfeldy identical?

Katharine Mary Briggs records a story of the kelpie at "Glen Keltney near Schiehallion" in Perthshire in one work, but later records the identical story as a water horse tale that occurs in "a small lochan near Aberfeldy. They are not verbatim word-for-word identical text-wise, but the difference in the choice of phrasing are slight.
I edited on the assumption that she is talking about the same location (call it "Body of Water X"), about 5km from either Schiehallion or Aberfeldy. So feedback on yes or no, if I am resorting to WP:Opinion here, and how to rephrase it to avoid that charge. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this on the basis it is opinion - you have also canvassed for opinion on the Scottish project, at least wait until you get some response. Again, you mangled references. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil: Before resorting to your usual revert again I feel you should make a gesture of finding out for yourself where this "Glen Keltney" (GK) place may lie in relation to "Aberfeldy" (A). Of course I can't force you, "Glen Keltney" registers low count upon Googling, and you may not be equal to the task. So we can table the geographic factor pending feedback for now.
Besides the coinciding geography, the two Briggs stories are identical down to minute details e.g. the horse urging the boy to mount him, calling him "scabby-head." So while I may run afoul of WP:OR to state categorically in the article they are identical without additional sourcing, on the flip side, pretending these are two independently collected tales is much more detrimentally misleading POV.
I need to interrupt and additionally explain for the audience at large. Instead of the complete Aberfeldy story given by Briggs (1979), Eric and Sagaciousphil used Mackillop's dictionary (2004/online)'s summary, where Mackillop identifies the location as "Aberfeldy, Tayside (until 1974, Perthshire)".
Now saying that Mackillop's version "omits the embellishment of the young boy" is inane on the face of it (since concise dictionaries will routinely omit details due to space restrictions). And it is outright misinformation, since Briggs's full-blown tale near Aberfeldy does not omit the boy. So kindly address that piece of reversion. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Image

Louis Breton's illustration of Orobas, High Priest of Hell [6] is often used as a depiction of a kelpie. I know it isn't one (obviously, they don't exist...I mean, I know it was never meant to be one), but it seems a pity that, when it is constantly described as a horse spirit, there are only images of romantic watery nymphettes and a line drawing of something that could be a depiction of something similar. Could you not include the Breton image with some explanatory text or would that be a breach of the OR rule? Belle (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Extensive searches were undertaken by several editors with considerable experience in sourcing suitable, correctly licensed, images - Orobas has no connection whatsoever with kelpies so it would be inappropriate for the image to be included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Belated acknowledgment to Bellemora for pointing out that the horse-headed man is no kelpie but Orobas. I recognize it as the kelpie picture in The World Guide to Gnomes (reissue of Keightley's Fairy Mythology) but could not identify it based on the sole hint of it coming from the "New York Public Picture Collection." The fake kelpie drawing also occurs in the Westwood book. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Loch Ness

Another piece of POV writing and shaky attribution. The Eric&Phil edit asserted equivalence of St. Columba's acquatic beast with kelpie on authority of Westwood, but in fact, Westwood is careful to note such an equivalence isn't readily to be had, and I have now quoted her in full on this.
In the FA process, Comments by FunkMonk already noted "Isn't the Columba story supposed to have happened in the River Ness, rather than Loch Ness itself?" and Eric brushed it aside, but there is no reason not to be precise. The Vita Columbae says the creature inhabits "fluvium.. Nesam" that Reeves's edition notes is river ness.
I will suggest one way to vaguely suggest connection here, though it can get original researchey without proper care. Note Vita Columbae's creature is called mainly aquatilis bestia "aquatic beast". The Latin bestia answers to the Gaelic (and Irish) biast, béist, biasd, with an entry given in Mackillop's dictionary. And in J. G. Campbell, p. 209, the smith who successfully killed the each uisge bears the epithet Alastair na Béisde (Alexander of the monster). --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has never claimed that the beast defeated by St Columba was a kelpie, except by inference in the lead. I agree that ought to be, and has been, removed, as the body of the article always referred to it not as a kelpie but simply as a monster. Eric Corbett 13:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems I'll have to assume a little less "good faith" when reviewing future FACs. This is the second of my points that have been brought up again. I guess you can come a long way by simply dismissing reviewer comments... FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
So it's taken you three months to come up with that pathetic, insulting, and deliberately provocative comment? Very impressive! Eric Corbett 13:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Lol. Calm down, I just noticed it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you may be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit what you think. Eric Corbett 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Luckily, you don't own this article, so it doesn't matter if you do. Others will have to clean up your mess, if you simply continue to ignore constructive criticism. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You just can't help yourself, can you? When I see some constructive criticism from you, as opposed to deliberate personal insults and provocation, then I will indeed give it the consideration it deserves. Until then ... Eric Corbett 13:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems you're unable to recognise it, as several issues are being brought up again independently. As for "insults", well, looking at this page and the FAC, you seem to be the main source of such. You've set the bar pretty low. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
So when are we going to have the benefit of your constructive criticism without the continual insults and provocation? Ever? Eric Corbett 13:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You removed the Loch Ness monster stuff and the ridiculous "the Bäckhästen", but only after it was brought up again. I take this as acknowledgement of my points you simply dismissed (with characteristic insults attached) during the FAC, no? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IP comment

I don't know anything about Wikipedia but um does anyone find it strange that despite the article asserting that kelpies are almost always male if human and usually look like horses, 2/3 paintings are of naked women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.91.2.128 (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gary R. Varner: Reliable Source?

So recently I went digging for information about Gary R. Varner, who is cited in this article rather prominently, and is cited as an authority by way of being a folklorist. However, Varner doesn't seem to have an academic background in folkloristics or a directly related field: [7]. Varner's website lists a substantial amount of non-academic publications on stuff relating to disparate folklore and mythology (some with dubious titles), but, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't see that he's responsible for any academic publications relating to the field: [8]. So, as far as I can tell, he's not an academic folklorist at all. Some of his stuff, including what we're citing here, is published by a publishing company called Algora, which looks rather questionable ([9]), whereas a lot of his stuff is published by the likes of self-publisher lulu.com (The Owens Valley Paiute - A Cultural History, Mysteries of Native American Myth and Religion, Hecate - The Witches' Goddess, Ethiopia: A Cultural History Of An Ancient Land, etc.). Should we be citing this individual as an authority here? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is all becoming rather tiresome. Eric Corbett 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
When I found this article it had stuff about cryptozoology on it and external links to amateur websites. It figures that something like this might slip through the cracks as well. Note that we're citing a book by a non-academic, apparently an amateur folklorist without a background in a related field, with a book from a non-reputable printing press. Most of the rest of his stuff is self-published. He's not a reliable source. However, I'm confused about your comment; are you annoyed that this reference slipped through the cracks or are you annoyed that I brought it up? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm annoyed that you're wasting my time. Eric Corbett 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we're all here working on this article together, with goal of making it a quality article. Poor sources are a problem; I'm not sure why this one is any different? Did you supply the source? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I may have done, I don't recall. But your contention that "non-academic" sources are inadmissible is a bit of a mystery to me. How are you defining "academic"? Have you checked to see how often his work is cited by those you might consider to be "academic"? Eric Corbett 23:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm using academic as in by way of academia and not amateur. There are no academic institutions involved with this guy's work. As far as I can tell, he's basically an enthusiast without any sort of formal academic background in this stuff publishing through self-publishers, or in this case, one step away from a self-publisher (actually, is that company a self-publishing company? Hard to tell.). It's the hard copy equivalent of a blog. In short, objectively speaking, he's not an authority to be cited. I think this applies here: Wikipedia:Reliable#Questionable_and_self-published_sources. There are much better sources out there to use than this. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I will simply say that I consider your position to be absurd. Another article I've been working on today is disc brake. What "academic" sources do you see for that? Eric Corbett 23:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Digging around, as I'd expect, I'm having a hard time finding him cited by academics. Chances are his work is just represented on the internet due to the availability of self-published stuff on sites like books.google.com, a lot of which, of course, wouldn't make it to a library. It happens. I do pull up a bunch of stuff by a Gary E. Varner, but that's not helpful. If someone can find otherwise, I'd be interested.
Well, I don't know much about disc brakes, but I do know plenty about folkloristics and associated fields, and in this case there is a formal, academic study of this material with a long history (folkloristics). Presumably, as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says, we'd be referencing authorities on the topic rather than self-published enthusiasts. Some qualification would be nice before we cite statements like "the origin of the belief in water horses that preyed on and devoured humans may be a reflection of the human sacrifices once made to appease the gods of water". In other words, we're just citing some guy on the internet; his opinion is neither notable nor authoritative. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not mine, so I guess we'll just have to wait until someone else chips in. I'll simply point out that Gregorson Campbell is also cited rather prominently, and he was just a minister to a remote Scottish parish. Eric Corbett 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but Campbell died in the late 1800s, and his work Superstitions of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is valuable because it is a primary source ("collected entirely from oral sources"; title page of cited 1900 edition) that subsequently saw university press publication. Back then, in the 19th century, folkloristics as a discipline was hardly what we know it as today. For example, we no longer use the term "superstition" in folkloristics (but rather folk belief) and nationalism is no longer a guiding factor for its collection. Campbell's work is a far cry from a non-academic's self-published opinion on the internet in the year 2014. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a rather curious definition of "primary source", and no matter how you spin it Campbell is not an academic by your criteria. Eric Corbett 01:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Campbell collected data from the field, in this case 19th century Scotland; the data that he collected constitutes a primary source. This is notable and important, which is why it saw reprint. Further, like I said, folkloristics is a very different field today than it was then, but that data is still useful. This other individual, Varner, processed this data on the internet in 2014 without peer review and without a relevant academic background, which makes him both a secondary source and well into the "questionable" area that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources warns against. For reasons outlined above, he's not notable, and, in my opinion, the weight that this article gives his work and opinion—it's even in the lead—is really inappropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Obviously the best solution here would be to find another source for the argument that the kelpie can be regarded as a memory of human sacrifice. I just scoured JSTOR and had no luck. And I'm disturbed by the juxtaposition at this blog archive page, where the notion of human sacrifice comes up in association with the mermaid/siren, but not the kelpie/water-horse. However, the bibliographies do contain some intriguing stuff; my eye is drawn to: Harris, J. M. (2009). "Perilous Shores: the unfathomable supernaturalism of water in 19th century Scottish folklore". Mythlore, 28 (107-108). Looking further ... Yngvadottir (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Gedžiūtė, Audronė, and Jadvyga Krūminienė. "SEMIOTINIS BANDYMAS REKONSTRUOTI MITINĮ KELTŲ MODELĮ: ŽIRGO FIGŪRA." Respectus Philologicus 18 (23 (2010): 191-201 - available in pdf via Google Scholar (to me at least), in English. This trips some of my fuses, but appears to be a peer-reviewed article. It refers to the context of human sacrifice but instead proposes that kelpies are mythical mediators between the living and the dead. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Józefów-Czerwińska, Bozena. "Other Worlds–Relics of Pagan Beliefs in Polish Folk Culture." Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Historica Special 2 (2010): 215-221. A similar theory, in an explicitly Polish context this time. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not at all what's obvious to me. Eric Corbett 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: "Well, we're all here working on this article together, with goal of making it a quality article." It already is a quality article. Show some respect. It has already gone through the vigorous FAC process and passed. OK, you state it's not a worthy source. An alternative? Would the article be better off without citing Varner?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Let's get something straight here. As is clearly shown in the citation, that Varner book was accessed via Questia, which claims to host "more than 78,000 online books from reputable commercial and academic presses" containing "high-quality, scholarly research". If Questia isn't to be trusted in its choice of material then why has WP collaborated with them in offering free subscriptions? Eric Corbett 18:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the source. I'm calling out Bloodofox for picking holes in it without suggesting an alternative. And I'm asking him why he thinks the article will be an improvement without the Varner info and source.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld:, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when this article hit the main page, it had references to cryptozoology—apparently it was not detected that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience—and also had a variety of other problems. No offense, but a "vigorous" review would have detected that. Some of these problems are ongoing. For example, it turns out that we have essentially what turns out to be just some guy on the internet's opinion in the article lead as if his conjecture was anything but... some random guy on the internet's opinion. This article should not have reached FA status in the form that it was in. For my part, I've personally authored many similar articles, and where there's an issue, I know that I appreciate being notified. There's no disrespect intended in that; we're all collaborating here in our spare time, after all!
Anyway, there's a lot to be said here, it's probably just not being said directly regarding kelpies specifically, and thats probably the issue (which I believe @Yngvadottir: is saying above). There's an ongoing cluster involving water + (undead?) woman and horse + water being/deity/semi-deity that can be found in Europe among, at least, Indo-European language-speaking peoples. There's the famous case of Poseidon, for example, where we have the horse + water motif well represented. More widely, horse sacrifice is a very Indo-European motif, as is associated with horses in general, such as the iconic divine twins. What we might find out there is scholarly commentary on this stuff, rather than the usual 'well, they're pagans, so they made sacrifices and stuff, so it might have had something to do with that' commentary that we're getting here from a non-academic source. This would certainly enrich the article. But there's no need to fight over it. However, consider this: If the observation isn't being made by specialist academics, then there's probably a reason for that. We shouldn't be turning to poor sources simply because they've said something about it, otherwise we'd have all sorts of nonsense on our articles. Our North Germanic articles would just be filled with all sorts of random crap from the internet. Consider: Stormfront as a source, anybody? Certainly none of us want that, but I've unfortunately seen posters there that have just as much background as this guy has—and this is exactly why we need to stick to academics.
@Eric Corbett:, seems like it's because Algora stuff is available through that database, and that isn't saying much; it doesn't seem to be being vetted for quality. Better to stick to something like JSTOR or Project MUSE if we want academic stuff articles in this field. I'm surprised we're not finding more regarding the topic on these sites, personally. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons I have not edited mythology/folklore articles (which is also a bunch of stuff I really like) as much as other stuff I do is the difficulties in finding sources. Just sayin' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I also felt Varner was an unfamiliar name and a weak source to pin points of facts on, and that article artificially inflated his status to "folklorist" to justify his heavy use. Varner book is Google previewable [10]. Below are the points the article cites to Varner, which I have already provisionally changed in the article itself. I applied {{FV}} (failed verification) tags for a lack of template on a {{nkwhorea}} "not kelpie, water horse or each uisig}} situation. For a couple, I have found alternate authorities, though Varner didn't footnote his source. I think the horse sacrificehuman sacrifice comment deserves nixing (by reason of minority opinion, fringe theory, undue weight, POV), since it is apparently only sourceable to Varner, despite user:Yngvadottir's efforts.

A list of footnotes cited to Varner vs. replaceable citations of original sources:

  • [16] (a) "wihwin of Central America" → {{FV}} Varner says "Water Horse", and cites Porteous who says "resembling a horse", neither src explicitly says "kelpie" so the info should move to water horse.
  • [16] (b) "black horse" → {{Harv|Gregor|1881|pp=38, 67, 237 (index)}}
  • [16] (c) "hooves are reversed" → {{Harv|Blind|1881|pp=200, 194n}}
  • [16] (d) "water weeds in their hair" → {{FV}}. Varner quotes MacCulloch, "piece of water-weed in his hair" but explicitly in reference to the each uisge.(Cf. "detected by its horse-hoofs and by the green water weeds or sand in its hair." {{Harv|Campbell, John G.|1900|p=204}}
  • [16] (e) Pan (god) association → I would replace this, but that's a matter of another section.
  • [40] {{FV}}. "as with cinematic werewolves, a kelpie can be killed by a silver bullet, [and it becomes] turf and a soft mass like jelly-fish", citing Spence. but the latter is clearly talking about "the water-horse of the Western Highlands (each uisge)" (which he says "must be differentiated from the kelpie") so this is another factoid that needs to move to the each uisge article.
    Thread moved to #Each-uisge below
  • [48] horse sacrificehuman sacrifice association. Tagged as {{Undue-inline}} as GRV seems to be sole citable source.

--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Some mythology-stuff has precious little analysis. If Varner was one of many, and his opinions extreme, he'd be easy to discount. But the material is pretty conservative really - none of it is extreme..and if anyone else can find some analysis that might be helpful. Regarding sacrifice - material is circumscribed to Varner and not particularly far out on a limb, noting world analogues of waterhorses I don't have a problem with either. Spence I'd take another look at. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) added caption, template fix --02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So, if we're not sticking to academia and anyone we find online is okay enough, what do you say we get some Stormfront commentary on all of our Germanic-related articles? I mean, are you saying that any information is better than no information at all—regardless of the source? Surely that can't be what you mean. I say we stick to the academics, people trained to handle this material, rather than a self-proclaimed "folklorist" who obscurely self-publishes and has no academic background in this field. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe what Cas Liber is suggesting is that a section like /*Origins*/ answers a fundamental question and saying something about it is better than nothing. But is that really so? I feel an urge to use the following analogy:
Story of a dubious origin story
You're at Christmas dinner one evening, attended by a foreigner who is a Buddhist, who asks "Why you put star on Christmas tree?" And the host stands up an spins this incredible yarn, and ends by saying "and I got that from my Uncle J.J., who attended seminary school for a year and a half. I think the world of my wise uncle." The host's story goes on awhile, there is a burst of applause, and the foreign guest is looking credulous.
Now if Bloodofox or myself were sitting next to the poor deluded guy, we might have got around to telling him that the story about the origins was particularly cockamamie, not believed outside the J family. But we hadn't been invited.
I hope you're catching my drift. Dinner quickly adjourns 21 minutes later, and Cas Liber, Dr. Blofeld and the others, all slap the Buddhist on the back saying what terrific story the host gave, real Featured Article stuff, you should tell them to everybody. So the Buddhist attends the World Interfaith Conference the next day, repeats the story about the origin, most of the Christians in attendance cringe, but a few are taken in, and all the Muslims believe the story now.
You need to shake this illusion that an article has to have an origin story. If academia is silent on it, silence it should be. Maybe some of you need time to digest this, I don't know. Anyway, as far as WP guideline goes, the horse human sacrifice origin story has so far been shown to be attributable only to Varney, a tertiary source with little name recognition. This is WP:UNDUE weight enough in the body of the article, but placement of this lone opinion in the lede paragraph is even more blatant WP:POV on Eric Corbett's part. At the very least, there should be unanimous agreement on taking fringe opinion(s) out of the lede. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, nice analogy, though analogy it is...am thinking.....(tic tic) ...back later to this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Varner revisited

Right then, better open more discussion on this (have moved section to bottom so we can keep all discussion on this together) - on the balance of things I still think leaving this in is prudent as there is a real dearth of analysis or camaparative out-of-universe discussion on folklore items, and the claims aren't particularly outlandish. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cas Liber: Actually I feel "human sacrifice" does raise WP:REDFLAG, and better source than Varner is warranted under that provision as well.
Okay, sure, what Varner does is link "human sacrifice" fuzzily to some generic "water horse/monster" somewhere "around the world", and that in itself is not implausible. From that, are you saying the broader "water horse" ancestry should apply automatically to the kelpie subspecies? But this isn't biology, so you can't make that leap, you know. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Multiple editors mostly discussing each other, not the article NE Ent 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's very clear to me is that what's happened this evening with this article and the somewhat related undine article are quite simply attempts to provoke me into making a response that would allow any admin to invoke the automatic 72-hour block authorised by ArbCom last month. Nothing at all to do with Varner in other words. AGF be damned. Eric Corbett 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Worry not Eric, fortunately not everything is about whether or not it offends you. I actually had no idea about the ArbCom situation (seriously, I haven't been around much), but it's hardly a surprise given the pattern of Eric's schoolyard potty mouth towards other editors combined with his dramatic threats to quit Wikipedia at the slightest glint of a probably well-deserved block. That's no way to do business and we could all be very friendly here without that attitude. So let's drop it because it leads nowhere; I've edited here for around a decade now and extensively worked on thousands of articles—the only thing that works is having a modicum of respect.
But this isn't about Eric Corbett. It does actually has everything to do with Varner. While he is certainly an enthusiast, Varner is certainly no "folklorist" unless all it takes to be a folklorist is calling yourself one, but folkloristics is an academic field. Varner has never published anything on this topic in any peer review venue that I can see. Anyone can publish with the same publishing "house" Varner is using. As far as has been ascertained, no one else is making this typical bystander commentary ('maybe it was neolithic... or human sacrifice!') that Varner is making. Right now it's spotlighted on this article like it's some kind of leading theory, whereas in reality it's just some fringe commentary by some guy on the internet with no qualification to make such a claim. There are plenty of untapped works by folklorists that are out there that simply require a trip to a university library, but their absence here surely doesn't mean we have to find some guy on the internet and call him a "folklorist" like he's some kind of expert on the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have very limited unstable Internet access at the moment hence my absence for the last couple of days. Bloodofox, please rein in your attacks on Eric and stick to discussing the article. Thanks. As I have emphatically stated previously there is nothing wrong with the Varner source. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made no "personal attacks" on Eric, who above implies that I'm a part of a conspiracy to "provoke" him into being blocked (I suppose some of us are given the luxury of not being responsible for our own actions around here) and to which you predictably make no response. But, yes, I hear that you've stated that you're OK with the reference, but this doesn't change the general problems with it and how we're referring to an amateur enthusiast as a "folklorist" and placing his theories before academics in the field in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What would you term this then? "Eric's schoolyard potty mouth" SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is already established that there is nothing wrong with the Varner reference. Anything further from either Bloodofox or Kiyoweap without offering new evidence is purely disruptive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Be so kind and drop this charade that there is some formed consensus on the integrity of Varner as source. A few of us clearly have dissenting opinions on this.
And yes, there certainly are flaws to be pointed out in Varner's brief 2 pages.[11]
Let me start off by reminding you of the insult hurled at me above: "it's rather difficult to take seriously the comments of someone who would leave glashtyn in the state that you have,", which is laughable, given that your "reliable" Varner blunderingly misjudges glashtyn as being Welsh. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's be specific. Two of you, working in cahoots, have questioned the reliability of Varner, yet it passed muster at FAC. Have you considered the possibility that you might receive a more sympathetic hearing if you actually did some quality work on mythical creatures yourself instead of leaving them in the state you left glashtyn in, and learned how to moderate your tone and do something other than criticise the work of others? Eric Corbett 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Questioning a source is fine: it should be part of the process. If we can do this without playing the man (the editor, not the author), that's fine. But Bloodofox, I find it difficult to even respond in this thread because a. I do not wish to tacitly endorse your personal attacks (yes, that's what they are) by participating and b. I do not wish to turn this into yet another back and forth about what editors say about each other rather than the subject matter. So I have a proposition: you strike what you know is uncalled for, and then maybe we can make progress. Eric, please leave glashtyn be: Kiyoweap left it two years ago. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    And look at the state he left it in! These so-called experts ought to be leading by example, but I've yet to see a decent article from either of them. Eric Corbett 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but doesn't Bloodofox have GAs to their credit? Anyway, my point is really that this is water under the bridge, if we choose to make it such. I think that Kyioweap suggested alternate sourcing above, so perhaps...but I'm waiting on Bloodofox to make a move. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Have you looked at any of those GAs? Very few would pass muster today, little more that start-class articles. Eric Corbett 19:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    And let me make one final point, as I see no profit in further debate with Kiyoweap or Bloodofox. WP doesn't demand that sources are "academic", simply that they're reliable. If either of those two want to make a case that Varner is unreliable, and in particular that the material sourced to him in this article is significant enough to argue over, then let them try and make it. So far all I've seen is petulant bitching. Eric Corbett 19:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NE Ent for collapsing. Was mostly OFFTOPIC clutter and reiterations. Readability suffered.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

Varner unreliable

I want to preface this by saying, that the burden is really on the party backing the challenged source to "demonstrate" its "qualifications" (as per WP:RS). However, these editors have shifted the burden of proof to this side. That said, I can indeed show Varner being unreliable as a source in his subchapter on the "water horse":
  1. Varner misstates the Manx glashtyn as being from Wales;
  2. Varner gives muddled reading of Lewis Spence descriptions from J. Gregorson Campbell's tales, thus losing consistency with the original tales. In the tale where the water horse is shot with a silver coin, the aftermath is that it goes away and plunges in the lake. It does not subsequently turn into a jellyfish-like mass, as that happens in another tale when the smith attacks with his iron. It is not clear that shooting with the silver killed it, and Spence does not say so either.
  3. Varner muses that it is a wonder that "water kelpie" stories could reach Central America and become the wihwin, when there was never any contact around the world between that area and the Celts, but this contains another factual blunder. As Bancroft points out,[12] the horse wasn't introduced into the Americas until the Europeans did, unless you're talking about the Pleistocene period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyoweap (talk • contribs)
I agree. It's 2016 and this Varner stuff still needs to come out. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed 2016, but so what? Eric Corbett 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's also the rest of the sentence. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
You really are beyond tiresome. Eric Corbett 12:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Cryptid?

I was just wondering if the Kelpie would also be classified as a cryptids as well as there were purported sightings of it? If so then the WikiProject Cryptozoology banner should be added here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: No, it should not as it is not appropriate. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Shapeshifter gender

With consideration for the article's two graphics (both depict a female human) and the articles text (which notes that "kelpies are almost invariably male" with many supporting points), I wonder if any knowledgeable editors could find and replace at least one of these images with one which is either equine or human male. (We should retain all images here in a Gallery, rather than 'remove'.) At present, there is an unexpected chasm between the images and the text, which hints at a possible bias of display. If there is a historical origin for this discrepancy in art, the article could use a textual section detailing why the depictions are female which would offer context, even if the folklore strongly suggests the human form ought to appear as a male. DAID (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Article is in a bad state, needs review or rewrite

This article is in a terrible state: Many of its sources are from the 18th and even 17th century, and their reliability even for their era do not appear to have been vetted. This article covers an entity from folklore, and requires reliable discussion from specialists in this topic, ideally from peer-reviewed items produced by folklorists. Currently, that's definitely not the case and could use a source-by-source review, if not a total rewrite from the ground up using only modern reliable sources composed by folklorists. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering the above, as well as the issues brought up that are now archived[13][14][15], and that the two FAC nominators are no longer active (and are therefore not maintaining it), it may be worth looking over the article again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

MYTH WHITE SEA PONY

The myth of the white sea pony is about a white horse the waits by the ocean shore for people and when people see the white stallion the climb aboard the horses back the the white horse dashes into the sea with the person on his back and turns into a bloody black horse with sharp teeth and hooves and drowns the person on his back and eats him/her and that person will be to never be seen again. 68.184.47.219 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC) btw there is no kelpie this is the real story

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelpie/Archive_2&oldid=1003865620"