Talk:Farb (reenactment)

Etymology
I provided the true origin of this term. The business about "Far be it for me to criticise," while widespread, is incorrect, as my research shows. - Jonah Begone


 * This is extremely specific. I question the encyclopedic value of this as a separate article.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"This is extremely specific. I question the encyclopedic value of this as a separate article." - I see your point, but does it help if you think of farbs as being people rather than simply a word? - Jonah Begone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Farb as a word, is pretty generic. I think the Urban Dictionary defines it best; simply an inaccurate reenactor. It can be utilized as a noun, verb, or adjective, depending on its application. As with any derogatory word, its function can easily be swayed depending on the nature of its usage! "FARB!" What does that imply?

Also, in the Origin explanation, should the reference to the German word be Farbe? Or is the spelling Farb used correctly in this sentence? Msctrojan (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has marked the statement that it may come from "the German farbische, manufactured" as dubious. I've provided a source for that claim, and since the author of the source appears to be a Wikipedian (infrequent contributor), I've left a request on his talk page requesting comment. cmadler (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the response I got:

You ask about the origin of the word "farbische" in my book on reenacting. I have gone back to my dictionaries of German, and agree that this is probably not a proper German term. what I suspect is that when I toured a printing plant, I mistook the term for applying the inks and dyes to creating the finished product. Years later, when I wrote my book, this confusion remained. Farbe means color, and I may have also mistaken it for a shortened version of "fabrik" or "fabrizieren", which is to manufacture. In short, I goofed by relying on my memory instead of checking the Duden. Hopefully, I won't "duden" it again!

Hadden (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I am removing that claim from the article. cmadler (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Authenticity (reenactment)

 * I'm opposed to the proposed merge. Although farb and authenticity are related, and might be considered opposite ends of a continuum, they are not the same topic. It's a bit like merging War and Peace, Hatred and Love, or any other such antonym pair. cmadler (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the proposed merge was made over a month ago and no one else has expressed an opinion on the matter, I've removed the proposed merge banner from the article. cmadler (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Honoring fallen comrades
I am aware that wikipedia had no way of knowing, but the person in the photogragh you are using has recently passed away. He was a well-liked member of the reenacting community here in Virginia and I feel that it is in bad taste to continue to use his photogragh. As the word spreads, I am sure you will be getting messages from many others that feel the same. Whether it is a representation of the term or not is irrelevant when it comes to honoring the memory of a friend.MichaelBeck67 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Respectfully submitted, Michael Beck
 * Thank you for your comments. I can certainly appreciate the desire not to have a recently-deceased comrade associated with a derogatory term. I would suggest that the best way to get this photograph off Wikipedia (or at least out of this article) would be to provide a replacement photograph that does as good a job or better at illustrating the topic(s). So if you have a good photo that you have taken of a suitably farby-looking reenactor, you could upload it to Wikipedia. Or if you know someone with such a photo, you could encourage them to upload it. If you need help with uploading an image and inserting it in the article(s), let me know. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another idea would be to upload a version of the photo in which his face is pixellated, blurred, or otherwise obscured. cmadler (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize this is an old post, but I thought I'd post an idea in the event that this problem might still be resolved. In my neck of the woods, you rarely hear "farb" applied to a person but rather to objects (i.e., in the case of a 21st century object in camp: "get that farb off the company street," or "that's one farby cap.").  So, I think the photo could be replaced with objects rather than a person.  It's unfortunate to make someone the "poster-child" for farbiness.  Especially someone who's passed on relatively recently.  I'd be willing to set up a photo of something like a farby cap vs. an authentic one if any interested editors of this article feel it's appropriate. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, in theory, except that this article reflects the sources used, and suggests that the term relates first and foremost to the individuals and secondly to the material they use. So an image of an individual (such as the image in question) is preferred over an image of just material. cmadler (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo
1. Cigarettes did exist (maybe not in their current form) in the Civil War. 2. It is cruel to say someone is farby because of their weight. A different picture (such as a reenactor in tennis shoes) is advisable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Images
Could someone more familiar with this topic and photos caption the images? Also, um, did the folks in the first photo give their permission to be included as "uber farbs" here?  Volunteer Marek  17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to come up with a caption for the photo of the people, but I can't explain the vehicle image. FWIW, I posted a note on the uploader's commons talk page last week regarding this . cmadler (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This made me laugh and it's definitely an improvement.   Volunteer Marek   17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The terms "circus cannon" and "comedic skit" are certainly personal attacks and not professional scholarship. In addition, the information listed under the jeep is incorrect in that there does exist photographic evidence of Second World War jeeps armored in a similar fashion. The cannon description is also incorrect in that it is not a recreation of a German "Big Bertha" cannon but represents a captures Soviet M1927 75MM Infantry Support Gun. Also, the reenactor who owns this equipment has not given his permission for it to be displayed here. Thank you. Bujin Karyu (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the language was non-encyclopedic. Coupled with the photos being of identifiable people or pieces, I agree with your concerns and removal of the images and text. —C.Fred (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a citation is needed for the claim that 1:1 replicas built with inauthentic materials made to appear authentic are not farb. I would argue that "armoring" a vehicle with plywood painted to look like real armor is certainly farb. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The difficulty lies in the subjective nature of the topic. Each individual will have a differing opinion of what constitutes farb and thus a definitive citation would be by its very nature fraudulent. Perhaps the particular paragraph should be edited to note that "progressive" reenactors would consider such things farb while others would not. Bujin Karyu (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that being farb is not subjective, there are national organizations for all reenacting time periods that set forth guidelines on what is or is not acceptable. FARB tagged items and individuals trace back to reenactors that are not (and don't want to be) members of a recognized organization (or an organization that cares) that sets and enforces standards. As to "progressive reenactors" this seems to be latest buzz word for those that want to loosen accepted rules of the organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwpagan (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a counterpoint to the above statement, one must take into consideration that various national organizations exist for the same time periods and have differing rules as to what is required of members as well as what is considered farb. In addition, there are locations that have no national organization to speak of and therefore the idea of what constitutes farb is left up to the individual reenactor. To complicate matters, due to the public perception of certain military reenactment groups (such as the Confederacy for American Civil War or the Wehrmacht of World War II) there are certain national organizations that will not accept certain impressions, leaving these reenactors to decide amongst themselves what constitutes authenticity. Again, this should serve to highlight the subjective nature of farb. I may also add that you seem to have confused the term "progressive" with "mainstream". Bujin Karyu (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we're full circle at the issue that there is opinion about what is and what isn't farb. If there are multiple national organizations, then there are multiple standards—so anything that isn't absolutely 100% authentic could be, according to some organization's definitions, farb. That brings subjectivity into play: whose standards are being applied?


 * The best way forward, then, is to look for secondary sources about farb. The Wargames book might suffice—I don't have a copy in front of me, so I can't assess it. The other option would be to look for newspaper and magazine stories covering reenactors and what they've reported about farb. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This would appear to be an ideal solution, however the most likely outcome would be, again owing to the subjective nature, that citations would inevitably conflict with what is considered to be a definitive explanation of what is farb. Therefore, a neutral and objective standpoint should remain one that states that there is disagreement amongst reenactors as to what constitutes farb, as this entire discussion seems to have indicated. Bujin Karyu (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wang
http://www.livinghistory.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30346 is the term in the UK.

FWIW a backronym is almost certainly NOT the original meaning. Most likely is from an English or German source. Farbe - sounds sensible, but so could fabricated or some relationship to this. As things are now a folk etymology is what we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.138.16 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo as of October 2015 - Original Research
The main photo at the beginning of the article, with the three civil war reenactors standing around the small cannon - the use of the photo, and the caption for the photo, assert that these reenactors are "farbs". Since what constitutes a farb appears to be a matter of subjective judgement, and this photo is the original work of a Wikimedia contributor, the judgement of "farbyness" of the people in the photo does not come from a reliable secondary source and is therefore unverifiable original research that "illustrate[s] or introduce[s] unpublished ideas or arguments." Note the policy states "image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)