Talk:Fakelore/Archive 1

Paul Bunyan
I think the comment about Paul Bunyan at the beginning of the article is a tad misleading, if one reads the article the linked footnote points to: "Scholars have long debated the authenticity of the Bunyan tales. In his 1940 article "Paul Bunyan, Myth or Hoax?" Carleton C. Ames argued that there was little evidence the stories were widely told among loggers before appearing in print. However, interviews with retired lumberjacks turned up good evidence that Paul Bunyan stories had circulated at logging camps in the U.S. and Canada in the 1880s and '90s and possibly earlier."--Jorj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.126.130 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2006‎ (UT)

Star Wars
Wouldn't Star Wars be considered fake lore?--sparkit 16:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fiction, but it's not marketed as fact - David Gerard 15:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I kind of get where you're coming from, "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" does come off I suppose to the gullible as being mythic. Perhaps in a thousand years people will talk about star wars like we talk about zeus now. Who knows? There sure are a lot of fanatics, we even have a starwars temple in the form of conventions and a holy place like Skywalker Ranch. But I think fakelore is specifically myths perpourted (sp?) to be true by people in the past. Like quetzecotle. You could make up a god of drinking blood from hollowed out skulls called Traxtilottl who was worshiped by an offshoot of Mayans or Aztecs, dig up some old records and retranslate them. Shit reminds me of the galactic library from Brin novels - how much of our myth was made up by eccentric anthropologists?Sanitycult (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Eostre and NeoPaganism
I removed a good bit of Neopaganism bashing and an odd little story about the Eostre - Easter Bunny connection. The connection was quite clearly drawn by Grimm, in some detail, and I had never heard of this alternate explanation before. Likewise the 'faggots from Inquisition' theory was described as >false< rather than (more accurately) >unproven<. This should be an article about what fakelore IS... not a platform with which to denounce the beliefs of others. CBDunkerson 16:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Grimm merely speculates on what Bede wrote about Eostre, without adding anything new to the picture. The modern neopagan myth of Eostre is the fakelore in question - it was engineered purposefully to tie in with the Easter Bunny tradition, rather than being a genuine tradition in itself.Cavalorn 21:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Grimm did a great deal more than 'speculate on what Bede wrote'. Things he included; documentation of the 'Ostern hare', identification of landmarks associated with Ostara/Eostre (Osterstube, Austerkopp, Astenburg, et cetera), other related traditions (Ostara moon pastries, Easter dawn ceremonies, easter plays, the ostara-sax, et cetera), etymological analysis of the Eostre/Ostara relationship, documentation of historical reference (Einhart's 'Life of Charlemagne'), et cetera. Saying that he 'added nothing new to the picture' is simply untrue.


 * The claim that Eostre was reverse engineered into the Easter Bunny tradition is itself a clear example of 'fakelore' at work. There's overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. I'd look up the link cited as 'proof' of the opposite claim... but it doesn't go anywhere. CBDunkerson 22:05 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that Grimm doesn't add any new *data* about Eostre herself, because there isn't any, and admits such; everything he produces is speculative. The only information we have on Eostre comes from Bede, and it's a single sentence.  Even the existence of the Goddess is disputed.  Eostre isn't recorded as having any hare-like characteristics.  It seems that what you consider 'overwhelming historical evidence' strikes others as desperate and unconvincing.


 * I won't deny that there are apparent links between the name Eostre and the festival of Easter, but as I said before, the fake *LORE* at work here (which is the point) is the story in which Eostre finds a bunny and gives it the power to lay eggs. That is a modern, made-up myth, produced in order to support the idea that the Easter Bunny tradition derives from Eostre.  As such, it fits the definition of fakelore - a made-up legend, created according to an agenda and passed off as an inherited tradition. Whether or not Eostre existed, and whether or not the Easter Bunny had anything to do with her, that specific story is a good example of fakelore.Cavalorn 08:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You say that Grimm doesn't add any new data without addressing the list of such which I included. How is Grimm's citation of the clearly related 'Ostaramanoth' as the 'old form' of the month name in Charlemagne's Germany not constitute 'new data'? It is independant verification of Bede's Eostremonat... and the Ostara myths that Grimm collected also confirm that this was the name of a goddess of some sort. Further, Grimm provides an explanation for the origins of the Easter Bunny which predates that which you are 'disproving' here.


 * My problem with the 'fake lore' you are citing is that I've ONLY ever heard of it in the context of a straw-man to knock down the Eostre > Easter Bunny connection. Who constructed this story? WHY did they do so given that we have documentation from Grimm and 18th century German immigrants to the US of the Easter Bunny's connection to this goddess? I agree that the story is 'fakelore', but there's REAL lore which provides the same conclusion. The point of the article is that 'fakelore' is meant to create a false conclusion, but in this case the conclusion is at least >likely< true if not certainly so, and the 'fakelore' seems to have been constructed specifically as a strawman to discredit the more substantial evidence. CBDunkerson 13:30 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you follow the link I provided, in which Grimm's work is critiqued? The author would certainly disagree with your assertion that the conclusion 'is at least likely true if not certainly so.' To quote from it: 'Then he suddenly treats Ostarâ as the name of the goddess - but look as hard as I can, I can find no evidence for this sudden leap of faith that translates a plural festival name into a singular personal name.  He even connects her name with Latin 'Auster' - a _masculine_ noun meaning "the _south_ wind". This seems to me a very desperate attempt to find external verification.' This is a far cry from confirming that Ostara was the name of a Goddess, as opposed to the German name for an already Christianized festival of Easter. To quote from the article again, 'Grimm has to admit that there is no other evidence from Germanic sources for this goddess.'


 * With all respect to your personal experience and what you may or may not have heard of, the fakelore here (the story of the goddess Eostre giving a bunny the magic power to lay eggs) definitely arose in the last 10 years or so, following the neopagan upsurge. Having managed a pagan bookstore for those years, I was able to watch it happen!  Fakelore is not necessarily meant to lead to a *false* conclusion, but to support a *theory* with fake oral traditions.  One of the most infuriating aspects of fakelore is that it muddies the genuine research.


 * As I said, Eostre may or may not have existed, and the Easter Bunny may or may not be linked to her. That's a matter for historians to dispute.  However, the 'One day the Goddess Eostre found a bird frozen in the snow, saved its life by turning it into a rabbit, but left it with the magic power to lay eggs and that's where the Easter Bunny comes from' story is a purposefully engineered modern myth based on the prior assumption that Eostre was a genuine goddess and that the Easter Bunny has a genuine connection to her.


 * I am *not* saying that there is no link between Eostre, Easter and the Easter Bunny. I believe that's unproven.  However, fakelore that assumes that this link is fact, and then concocts stories on that basis in order to *buttress* those theories and reinforce the beliefs of a particular religion,is a different matter.  If you're in doubt as to the actual circulation of the fakelore (which I'm glad to see you agree *is* fake) then just Google for Eostre or Ostara and the Easter Bunny.  You'll come up with quite a few pagan sites presenting the tale as if it were genuine.  It certainly wasn't put together as a straw man.


 * Heck with it - here's a search I prepared earlier! Cavalorn 11:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong about the story appearing in the last ten years. It was described as an old story in Sarah Ban Breathnach's 'Nostalgic Suggestions for Re-Creating the Family Celebrations and Seasonal Pastimes of the Victorian Home' (ISBN 0671784080) back in 1990. I've been searching for the origin, but haven't found anything definitive. It is commonly attributed to an old German myth. The 1990 reference is the earliest I've found. Do you have any references as to it being a recent invention? CBDunkerson 23:05 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, the 'ten years' observation was a little off. I've never seen the story attributed to an old German myth, however; one would think that if it was genuinely so, Grimm would have incorporated it into his work. Since he didn't, the chances are that it was, as I maintain, a modern invention. I wonder if Ms. Breathnach made the story up herself. She seems like a New Age type of author.Cavalorn 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * == When exactly was the English historian Venerable Bede proven to be a liar? ==


 * The English historian Bede doesn't produce this story of a transformed bunny. All he mentions is a name: Eostre.  Over the years, people like Grimm have attempted to find connections between Bede's Eostre and the various Easter traditions.  Grimm's research tries to link together disparate elements in the belief that a common orgin informs them all.  So, when in the last 16 or so years a 'pagan legend' of a magically transformed bunny appears which states these connections as fact, and has never appeared before in print, it has to be seen as fake, simply because it is too good.  It's like finding something that claims to be the personal diary of Jack the Ripper.  Contrast Grimm's painstaking attempts to reassemble a lost legend from scraps of folklore with this allegedly genuine tale of the Eostre Bunny, which - if it truly were a genuine German tale - would have been an absolute godsend to Grimm.62.3.232.140 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Until somebody updates the world of this "news", anyone who makes a claim of Easter = goddess Eostre being a fakelore is himself inventing a fakelore. A Wikilore or a Wikifakelore to be precise. Wikipedia is fast becoming the biggest inventer of fakelores in history unless somebody puts a stop on it. There is nothing wrong with having ambivalence or doubt about a historical record, however doubt or uncertainty is just not enough to justify extrapolation and upgrading of doubt into proven-falsehood. Anything that deserves to be called a fakelore is just that: FAKE.

Cavalorn you are completely out of line. You wrote: ''I am *not* saying that there is no link between Eostre, Easter and the Easter Bunny. I believe that's unproven.'' You "believe" that it is what? If the Historian Bede's account is not enough for you, then tough luck!!! Your "belief" that it is not proven has no relevance. What is relevant is that a historian has made a historical record that the two are connected. That excludes any chance of anyone making a legitimate alligation that it is fakelore. You may not "believe" it but you just have to learn to live with that. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that Bede lied. We don't have a duty to assume that he lied.--JustTheFacts 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Bede doesn't even mention the Easter Bunny.  Do some research, 'just the facts'!  You obviously don't grasp what is and isn't being presented here as fakelore.  The Olde Pagan Tale of Eostre turning a Bird into a Bunny is fakelore, a modern concoction.  Nobody's saying that Eostre herself is fakelore, or that Bede lied. Cavalorn 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints' Relics
"some popular saints have duplicate body parts claimed to be in different locations. " - Taken in context, this seems to mean that, come the Rapture and Bodily Ressurection, there will be a good deal of pushing and shoving, to the tune of "That's mine. No it's not. That toe is mine. No that's his. You're wearing my spine, give it back..." and so on. I wonder if someone has written a book about tiis. It would be an awfully funny story. --Auric The Rad 01:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Apocryphal Gospels
Isn't the information about the apocryphal gospels a little rediculous? The apocryphal gospels might as well be as authentic as any other biblical texts. Eldamorie 03:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory?
Isn't the term "fakelore" more academic hate speech than a technical term or accepted categorization? I think that in original usage, "fakelore" suggested malicious intent to mislead and manipulate by manufacturing and mis-stating history or mythology. Unfortunately, it is being (mis)used to denigrate minority beliefs and opinions, especially religious beliefs and opinions. --SC Witch — Preceding unsigned comment added by SC Witch (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 September 2005‎ (UTC)


 * "Fakelore" has a very specific use that has nothing at all to do with denegrating a religious belief. It refers to the promulgation of back-dated "just so" stories to "explain" various aspects of culture.  As such, it is related to spurious etymology. Dogface 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This illustrates yet another problem with the 'fakelore' concept, it seems nobody can agree on exactly what it is. For instance, one of the biggest supposed examples is Paul Bunyan. Yet Paul Bunyan was not created or "manufactured" by any lumber companies. They certainly added to the lore, but they did not create it. So therefore by Dorsons own original definition Bunyan is not "fakelore" because he did exist as an oral tradition and that oral tradition was not made up or lied about. Yet Dorson continues to cite Bunyan as the biggest example of so-called fakelore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Neopaganism highlighted, page order, list, scope
I just swapped the Christian and Neo-Pagan place order. In terms of either influence or alphabetization, I'd say Christianity should get the earlier mention.

I'd also suggest that this whole list of examples needs some examination. Some seem to be clearly examples of Folk etymology. Others are simple propaganda. Fakelore, like Folklore, needs a narrative.

Finally, the article seems to suggest that fakelore is an United States phenomenon, and primarily carried out by two classes of religion. That strikes me as an odd impression for someone attempting to research fakelore to come away with.

Dorson's book on the subject, as an aid for further research is: Folklore and Fakelore: Essays Toward a Discipline of Folk Studies, Harvard University Press (1976). Jkelly 23:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel and Bahamut
I was wondering, there seems to be a common belief circulating around that posits that the angel Gabriel is (by gender, or by spirit) female. I can't see any substantial evidence for such a belief being "correct", to put it that way, and my very extensive "A Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels", a book which does not include New Age, etc, info; and was written in 1966, makes no mention of such a belief at all, whether in the entry for 'Female Angels' or 'Gabriel'.

There is also a common belief amongst many that Bahamut, from Arabic mythology, is originally a king of dragons.

While the latter is explained in the Bahamut article as being a product of modern fiction, more accurately D&D, being accepted as mythical, the former completely alludes me, and I seem to being unable to find any sources for such a belief. One thing is that in the, bear with me here, popular manga Angel Sanctuary, as well as the Megami Tensei RPG series, Gabriel is shown as being female. I find this strange, as Angel Sanctuary seem to be built on not-too-uncommon angelological and demonological info; the same goes for MT, as it is commonly accepted by its fans and its critics for its extensive research in mythical as well as religious lore.

Now, Bahamut is okay enough, but I wonder, should we mention that particular part about Gabriel here, as, while I think it's a cool idea and all, it's not really factual, as well as it's non-mythical. Satanael 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gabriel is also female in the RPG In Nomine - don't know if that's a source or a symptom. DenisMoskowitz 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't see how it would become so pervasive a belief. I've seen (albeit New Age) books on angels that narrate Gabriel as female. Although I think it should be taken with a pinch of salt, it's still an intersting "phenomenon" nonetheless. Satanael 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Portrayal of the Archangel Gabriel as female is not at all widespread. The mainstream interpretations of the Archangels are that they are all "male"--at least in the West.  Games like "In Nomine" and sources like a single manga are hardly "widespread" in the larger context of Western culture, no matter how common they might be in the relatively tiny geek subculture.Dogface 13:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That "Unverified" tag
17:02, 13 March 2006 User:Leflyman applied an Original research/Unverified tag to this article. User:Leflyman has not contributed any previous edit to this article. May we inquire whether User:Leflyman has any specific issue here? Or just on a general principle.--Wetman 07:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would remind the editors here that adding things that they think are bits of fokelore and are factually inaccurate, but that no reliable source has ever called "fakelore" is in violation of No original research. This isn't the place to make our own judgement calls about things.  Jkelly 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What fakelore is
I'm about to cut most of the examples from the list. I realize this is drastic, but as Jkelly actually pointed out over a year ago, the examples have major problems. Most of the things listed are not fakelore at all; anyone trying to find out about fakelore from this page would be hopelessly misled. Fakelore is not folklore that is not true -- after all, most folklore is not true. Fakelore is fake folklore. If I make up a story and claim that it's a traditional tale handed down for generations in the Appalachians, that's fakelore; if I claim it really happened to my grandfather, that's just a lie. If I take a story that really *was* handed down and rework it for modern tastes -- maybe changing the ending or combining it with some other story -- then publish the result as "a traditional tale," that's also fakelore.

The reference to urban legends in the lead may be what's causing confusion. Someone at some time may have misused or reinvented the term fakelore to refer to urban legends, but they're actually an example of real modern folklore. They may not be true, but they truly are stories that are passed around from person to person; no one is falsely claiming that they're passed around from person to person.

Washington chopping down the cherry tree is something said to have really happened to Washington, so it's false history rather than fakelore. If it's become a traditional story people tell each other, rather than something read about in grade-school history texts, it might even be considered real folklore. The story of Pope Joan and the claims about the square dance are also either fraudulent history or real folklore. Traditional stories about saints that never existed are definitely folklore. The claim that the word estrogen comes from Eostre is more like folk etymology. The anti-Catholic fictions mentioned are simply propaganda and have nothing to with folklore, real or fake.

False beliefs about tradition, like the connection of Easter with Ishtar and the notion that Santa Claus's colors come from some shamanic practice, are at least arguably fakeloric, but they're not what's usually talked about as fakelore. In the literature, fakelore always seems to be an actual manufactured story, song, or ritual, rather than just a bogus theory. You could even consider these ideas about Easter and Christmas to be modern folklore, much like urban legends. We as Wikipedians shouldn't be making our own judgment calls about questionable cases like this -- that's original research. The Christian example has already been sitting around under a request for sources for months, so I'm going to cut that now and add a dispute tag to the Neo-Pagan section.

"Grandmother stories", as described, are fakelore. The story about Eostre changing a bird into a rabbit is definitely fakelore. However, the first known source for the story doesn't sound very Neo-Pagan, and apparently a version of it appeared in the children's magazine Cricket. Even if many of the people who believe it's real folklore are Neo-Pagans, labelling it "Neo-Pagan fakelore" seems questionable, and the claim that it "illustrate[s] how some neopagan fakelore works backwards from a presumed origin" is original research.

I'm leaving the "Neo-Pagan" examples that are at least arguably fakelore with a dispute tag for right now, but they all need sources not only establishing that the accounts given are true, but also describing them as fakelore, and I'm not sure any such sources exist (note the zero Google Scholar hits for fakelore Eostre, for example). If good sources aren't found, they should be removed.

I'll work on adding examples from published, scholarly sources. There are plenty of good ones, none of which have anything to do with Neo-Paganism or Christianity. I'm not sure why an article on fakelore needs to mention Neo-Paganism or Christianity at all, except that it was originally created as more of a "things some Neo-Pagans believe that aren't true" page than anything else.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing of what's left
Added extensive quotes from Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today. Other books have mentioned this (I'm pretty certain Bonewits has written about it extensively somewhere or other, and of course Kelly), but I think this may be sufficient. If you agree, perhaps we could take the POV flag off the section as a whole, and instead request cites on the specific points in the sub-sections that still need sourcing.

I also think there's no need for specific Neopagan or Christian sub-sections. Either something is fakelore or it's not, no matter what area of belief it comes from. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The existence of grandmother stories is really well-sourced now, but are these sources calling them fakelore? I think it's important to avoid giving the impression that folklore scholars are criticizing these stories, when that doesn't seem to be true.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Neopagans just refer to these as "grandmother stories", which is an independently developed synonym for fakelore (or one kind of fakelore). If that's true, and if it's made clear, I don't have a problem with just having tags on the other two items.


 * No problem with removing the Neopagan header for now either, although as the list gets longer again it may need to be split up somehow or other.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any sources specifically calling "grandmother stories" "fakelore". I know I've heard them called such, but tend to think it was online and colloquial, rather than in any particularly reliable source.  I would concur that "grandmother stories" is an independently developed synonym for Neopagan fakelore, especially as the phrase is sometimes used to refer to fake origin stories that aren't just about being taught by grandparents.  --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Can someone rewrite the sections regarding "neopagan" beliefs about christmas, easter, etc. Regardless of whether the stories ARE attributed solely to neopagan nonces they should not be written in such a way to bash neopagans because of it. Cheers. ...in America! 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is loaded with NPOV. For instance, the quote, "The government employed many talented writers and musicians in these efforts. Notwithstanding the agenda, their products were often of considerable artistic quality."

That is all opinion, not objective fact. I'm taking the liberty of removing and editing all the stuff like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note the article in the Enzyklopädie des Märchens (German)
Bibliography and second part is online. Users unable to read German should be able to recognize some bibliographic data in English. They will also note that the article doesn't speak of neopagan beliefs ... (I can assert this for the first part which I have in book form) --Historiograf 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions
New material includes links to sources.24.168.227.29 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources don't have anything to do with fakelore. It looks like you're using ideas in these sources as building blocks to develop an argument of your own, which is original research--something you're welcome to do on your own blog or website, but not here on Wikipedia.  In any case, dragging the article onto unrelated subjects like psychoanalytic writing about cosmogonies does a disservice to readers who are trying to understand fakelore. —Celithemis 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Including cosmogonies in the article was to illustrate how stories originate from sources which draw upon a vast array of influences, many commonly shared for centuries the worldwide. Jacob A. Arlow, M.D. describes well how even modern scientists share similiarities with ancient mythmakers with the example of astrophysicists, who with all their complex tools and precise, formal methods of discovery, when attempting to explain the 'birth of the universe', are inclined to use simple, figurative language which ultimately  "resembles metaphorical elaborations of childhood concepts of procreation," a very primitive, familiar, and 'traditional' kind of explication.  The point being that the essential element of 'mythmaking' is the nonliteral style of communication, not adhering strictly to the basic meaning or form of an original conception, but subjecting it to interpretation, alteration, or elaboration.  Therefore, all myths, fables, and other forms of folklore, can be described, in essence, as 'fakelore', reproductions, not exact facsimiles, of a primary abstract idea or belief that evolves, develops, and sometimes transforms into something altogether different.  Making distinctions between 'folklore' and 'fakelore' may prove to be more complicated than decoding and categorizing DNA sequences.  Good luck.24.168.227.29 16:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are lots of folklorists who find the folklore vs. fakelore distinction unhelpful; that's touched on in the controversy section already, but it could definitely be expanded and there should be some mention of it in the lead. That needs to be done by summarizing the existing literature about fakelore, though, rather than forging a new connection between fakelore and one particular set of psychoanalytic ideas about myth. —Celithemis 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find the concept of "fakelore" to be problematic. Folklore is something that has always originated from multiple sources, finding the the exact source other than for pure interest is irrelevant. As long as people repeat it and there is a certain amount of credulity as to whether it happened or not, whether it originally came from a multinational company or a little old lady in a shack means nothing. This whole arbitrary practice of labeling some folklore more "authentic" than others is pretentious, pointless and self-serving. Also, Dorsons remark about how written sources "hopelessly muddied the lore" is inane beyond description. By it's very nature folklore (and folktales, fairy tales, legends, etc) is inherently muddled because it results from multiple retelling by multiple people with different agendas and styles sometimes over the span of centuries. Think of what happens to the original message at the end of the party game "Telephone." Same with folklore. Anyone who has read a lot of fairy tales will know exactly what I mean. Why Mr. Dorson finds written sources to have some unique property in "muddling" the lore is beyond me. You can't muddy what by it's very nature is inherently piecemeal.

By the way that last comment by Hoffman is hilarious. How was the lumber companies using Paul Bunyan as a spokesperson manipulative? Would he have felt better if the Communists had used Bunyan as a spokesperson to manipulate people into supporting Stalins forced labor camps? Hoffman sounds like a academic socialist, and like all such types they see every efforts of persuasion (especially if it's by "capitalists" and excepting their own propaganda efforts of course) as "manipulation" when all it is fellow human beings trying to convince other human beings of something, which by the way everyone rich and poor does every day about a million different things and in a million different ways. It's hardly sinister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pregunta
So, "fakelore" is when someone pulls something out of their rear and claims it has been passed down for generations? So then, if that new story actually DOES get passed down for generations, let's say, for two hundred years after today, does that mean it would then actually qualify as real "folklore"? And how long does a myth have to be around to qualify as genuine "folklore"?Rglong 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fakelore and Paganism
Fakelore is not limited to "Grandmother Stories" within the modern Neopagan movement, but also the creation or adaptation of texts and myths to meet a specific belief. (See Alexander, Timothy. (2007) A Beginner's Guide to Hellenismos. Lulu Press. page 14 ISBN:1430324562)--151.201.147.150 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ossian?
Wouldn't the Ossian poems of James Macpherson make a good candidate for inclusion in this piece on fakelore? Certainly not everyone accepts that he manufactured them, but there seems to be a good deal of suspicion that he did.Winterbadger (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Christmas Day Parade?
How is a parade (mentioned in the last paragraph of the article) an example of any kind of lore? Camillofan (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer-- is it truly fakelore?
I haven't seen evidence that anyone tried to pass off Rudolph as anything but an invented character or a Christmas story. Is there anything out there claiming that Rudolph is an old Christmas myth or folk tale? If not, calling him "fakeware" may be exaggerated-- "It's A Wonderful Life" and "A Christmas Story" seem to fall in the same category of new stories becoming part of the Christmas tradition, and we wouldn't call them fakeware. There are about 400 Google hits on "Fakeware" along with with "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", but many of them are copies of this page; the only RS referred to is a much-copied dead link to Lucy Rollin, a children's literature specialist. CouldOughta (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "fakelore." It was a Christmas story given out by Montgomery Ward as a free promotion. That it was entirely a literary creation was well known from the beginning. Rudolph is no more fakelore than He-Man or Harry Potter. I removed the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)