User talk:Filksinger

Welcome!

Howdy, Filksinger, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
Find everything in the Directory.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Introduce yourself at the new user log.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Jo e I 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to Do When You Are the Source

When I was attending Cascadia Con, the producers of the show Charlie Jade encouraged the audience to download the entire series via Bittorrent, as a way to promote the series in the US.

So far as I know, this is not recorded anywhere, and thus I have no proper source. How may I go about offering a proper citation?

If there is no published source, it would violate the policies on verifiability and original research. —Centrx→talk • 10:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also make a note of it on the talk page, so that a person editing the page at a later date has the option of looking it up, to see if there are any sources yet. That way, when it is verifiable, the information is ready to be posted. Not at all necessary though. -- Sir Escher ^talk 10:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your assistance. Unfortunately, I believe it will have to simply stop there, as I am reasonably certain that this statement was never recorded in any publication, and is unlikely ever to be so recorded. I, of course, have no intention of becoming a reputable source and creating an article about, for example, Charlie Jade, just to include a simple observation. Seems a pity, but then again, I suppose I agree with the policy. Filksinger 10:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would http://www.cascadiacon.org be sufficiently reputable for the claim that Cascadia Con was the site of the US premier? I don't know how "reputable" it would be considered, and is arguably "self-serving", but it appears to me to be sufficient. Filksinger 10:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the main page for Cascadia Con, and given that it is the top result of 113k ghits, I would consider it a reputable source. It may not be reputable enough for a controversial fact, but it is fine for a fact like that. Looking at the criteria for reasonable sources, there is nothing that would preclude using it as a source. -- Sir Escher ^talk 11:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. That is about what I thought.

Klausjagen

I have created a stub for the Swiss festival of Klausjagen. I also just discovered that there is a German version in Wikipedia with similar, but not identical, information. While I do not have the time now, should I attempt to make them "match up"? I do not know German, per se, but automated translation combined with working from source material makes almost all of the page readily translatable.

you should take care not to use German Wikipedia as an authoritative source; you can let yourself be informed by it, but you shouldn't take it at face value. That said, I do not see any contradiction between de:Klausjagen and our Klausjagen at a glance. Specifically, the information that St. Nicholas was interpreted as the victim of the chase (as opposed to leading it) should be considered unsubstantiated. It's on the klausjagen.ch page, true, but that's just a website and not a reliable ethnographical study or anything. We'd need some reliable sources before we can consider the information in our article authoritative. dab (𒁳) 21:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you may have it backwards. As the klausjagen.ch page is the home page of the people who actually perform the klausjagen, I would consider them authoritative on what they are currently doing, i.e. expelling St. Nicholas. However, the claim that it derived from early pagan tradition is not clearly supported (particularly as they do not claim this is a fact, but rather as something which is widely believed). I also note that you said that the Church got the practice banned, and later accepted it as a tribute to St. Nicholas. Neither of these is supported in any of the source articles. The Church disapproved, but the government banned it, and the reason given in the articles is not related to the Church. Neither do the source articles say that I found that the Church ever started accepting the festival in any way, though we can likely assume that it doesn't object too much in these times.

Should we move this discussion to the Talk:klausjagen page? Filksinger 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accept klausjagen.ch as a "reliable source" to be sure, but it is certainly a bona fide writeup, albeit unsourced. It makes the following points [1]

the Klausjagen likely originated as a Germanic pagan fertility cult (the "fertility" is pulled out of thin air, but it is clearly one of the larger group of customs summarized (by modern/romanticist scholarship) as Wild Hunt)
the Christian missionaries failed to suppress the custom and attempted to give it a Christian rationale instead
Nicholas of Myra was highly venerated in the Ealry Middle Ages, and proved a suitable integrative element
even this "Christianized" Klausjagen often got out of hand and was banned 1732 (and restricted on several other occasions)
in the 19th century, non-traditional instruments were used to simply create as much racket as possible, only in 1928 was the "traditional" look restored.

The German text does not imply that Nicholas is in any way the victim of the chase, and it seems that this is just an artifact of the (rather clumsy) English translation. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the custom "likely" descended from such pagan customs. Unfortunately, "likely" isn't what your edit to the page says. You wrote "The procession has its roots in pre-Christian traditions involving the chasing of wild spirits (compare Wild Hunt)." "Has its roots" is quite a bit different than "likely has its roots".

Further, none of the sources actually says that this claim is true. The Pulse of the Planet article (arguably the most authoritative, as it is a publication of the American Museum of Natural History) states "may", not "is". The Klausjagen homepage states this is "likely" (in the English version of the page), or "wohl" ("arguably", in the German version), not fact. As you yourself pointed out that they are not authorities, and themselves only claim that this is likely true, not is, I believe it would be incorrect to state that this is a fact. At best, we could claim it is (as the source info says) "likely".

I might also note that there is no indication that the church tried to Christianize the Klausjagen. The website indicates that they likely tried to Christianize an old pagan celebration, and speculated as to which one it might be. The Church, however, is described as trying to replace the celebration, not Christianize the existing ceremony, only to have their icon chased by youths from the area. Later, some Christian elements other than St. Nicholas may have been added, but the only one specifically mentioned is the Iffelen, which were not added until the 19th century, long after it was banned. It also does not state that the Church attempted to add or in any way indicated approval of the Iffelen, or any other part of the ceremony, other than St. Nicholas himself.

As to what the webpage is or is not authoritative on, I can only say that I definitely consider the society that actually holds the event, and their webpage, as authoritative on what they consider themselves to be doing. If the people who organize an event say, "This event is about X", then I assume, barring substantial evidence to the contrary, that the event is about X at this point in its history. So, the question becomes, "Are they claiming the event is to pretend to hunt, chase away, or remove St. Nicholas?" If they do claim that, then that is what they are doing; otherwise, not.

As to the translation, I don't speak German, so I'm at a disadvantage. The German text does refer to one "Hansueli Hodel" holding the position of "Umzugsleiter", which Google translation tells me means "removal leader", but a deeper look indicate that this may merely mean "procession leader". Other references to the "removal" all use the same base word, "umzugs", and thus do not clarify this point, as it can also mean "procession" in each case.

However, it is also clearly stated that the specific people who come up behind St. Nicholas are "Klausjagers" ("Klaus hunters", "Klaus chasers", or possibly (unlikely) "Klaus fighters"). In addition, the name of the event, "Klausjagen", also translates directly to "Klaus chase" or "Klaus hunt". Without further evidence to the contrary, it seems to me this implies they are chasing or hunting Klaus.

Lastly, the web page suggests that the practice started with youths chasing the St. Nicholas figure.

I admit it is possible that the English translation is so bad as to be flatly wrong, the word "umzugs" should be read to mean "procession" and not "removal", the word "Klausjagen" means "hunt or chase (of or after something unnamed) led by Klaus", the word "Klausjagers" means, "hunters or chasers led by Klaus" rather than "hunters or chasers of Klaus", and the tradition changed from chasing St. Nicholas to a chase led by St. Nicholas. It seems unlikely, though.

To find out if the English translation is accurate on this point, I have written the society's publicity handler to request a clarification. Presumably, they know what there web page is supposed to say, and can tell us if the translation is correct.

I still think this discussion should possibly be moved to the Klausjagen Talk page. I am reluctant to move it without your approval, however, as I don't know the protocols for moving someone else's writing to a different location. If you do approve the move, you may move it, or tell me it is OK and I will. Filksinger 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]