Talk:Folklore studies

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kingsarahjeffs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]
Horrible article. I am no good at doing things Wikipedia style so I was hoping someone could help me. First of all folkloristics is sometimes, even often, known simply as folklore. For Wikipedia it is convenient that we use folkloristics as the main article but we also need something in the disambiguation page for folklore to point here. Another term for folkloristics is ethnology (see: ) but the page on ethnology does not reflect this at all and is purely concerned with ethnology in the anthropological sense. There needs to be some kind of reference to this article. Are there any folklorists here at all? I am a graduate student of folkloristics but I would prefer that someone whose native language is English would handle rewrite this article. If no-one can be found here I'll try to find someone to do it.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What a long undifferentiated list. Can anyone select out the most important names, work them into a paragraph and retitle the list "Other folklorists include? Or can a one-line synopsis of the named folklorist's contribution be added to the name? I'm not competent, or I'd do it myself. --Wetman 05:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and doesn't "folklorist" also refer to oral historians and compilers of folktales, not just theorists? I'd expect to see Zora Neale Hurston and Américo Paredes on the list...--Rockero 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very unsatisfactory. 99% of this article is covered by Category:Folklorists. I suggest merging to Mythography and making this a redirect. --Guinnog 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fear that the distinction between folklore (the popular repository of folk knowledge, tales, herb lore, etc.) and mythography (literally: "the writing of myths") (myths being the tales that connect a people to their past (and often their future), their lands, and each other--much more frequently an oral tradition than a written one) might be lost if such a merger is carried out. Please comment.--Rockero 10:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is currently a bad article. Someone shouldimprove it, remove the unnecessary biographical information and go into more detail analysis. Mythography is a different discipline. Just because the article is bad now doesn't make it redundant. It needs expansion not removal.leontes 04:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is redundant because there's already a category for it. I'm removing the list since it already exists in a far superior state, and then the rest of the article can be debated over (it's just a list of "references" now). Radagast83 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Against. Without question this entry needs to be improved, but Mythography and Folkloreism are two distinct disciplines. Ionesco 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Noticed the proposal to merge mythography and folkloristics and 2 opposes on this page. Agree it is merging two topics and already too broad, if anything narrow it not broaden into covering mythography as well. I think consensus reached to taking off the merge idea now. Goldenrowley 03:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality of content
Very inadequate and incomplete. It needs a summary of the history of the discipline which begins in Europe with J. G. Herder and the Grimm brothers (known for fairy tales and dictionary). Here we have two lists limited to North America. Folklore studies have an interesting history in the British Isles and continental Europe and are particularly strong in the smaller nations established from the 19th century on e.g. Scandinavia, eastern Europe. Here they got well supported by the goverments of those countries.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Program


University of:
 * (Canada)
 * (Canada)
 * (Canada)
 * (Canada)
 * (Canada)
 * (Canada)



Counter Views
This section is far too long, unclear, and loaded down with jargon to the extent of being unreadable my a non-expert (i.e. sastriya-loukika, exonym, subject-position). The sense I get is that this is an argument that concepts like folklore and anthropology are dehumanizing and probably somewhat racist. That's not an unreasonable argument, but the problem is I don't even know if that is the argument. There's also the fact that the section attributes this to "Cultural Study" scholars, but the only article referenced is by a fellow named Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay of the Indian Statistical Institute. I'm not saying this person is not a legitimate academic, and it seems he does write in a cultural studies vein, but without more references showing his view is representative of them, I think this point should be attributed to him personally, not him as a voice of Cultural Studies. Kevin Corbett (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

title of article
Why is this article called by something which the very first sentence admits is the less usual name? Why not call it "Folklore Studies"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Agree - visited this talk page only to make the same point. Weird. 86.163.23.215 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

In writing this article I had to choose between several names, all of which were used to describe the study of folklore. The first sentence does not say that "folklore studies" is more common than "folkloristics", it says it is also used for this field of studies. In response to a flag that the article was too focused on American folkloristics, I then added the common names for the field used in Britain. In selecting the term folkloristics as primary, I created redirects from other terms which were applicable. In the note_1 included in the top paragraph, I reference the discussion between Dundes and Bronner during 1970s - 1980s about the best name for this field of studies. If the experts can't agree, I find it understandable that we might also want to examine the terminology that works best. Smithriedel 21:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Per this ngram and this ngram, folklore studies is the dominant term in both British and American English. Doremo (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So another user has moved the page from Folklore studies to Folkloristics again. I'm just here to review redirects so I'm going to confirm the redirect as "I guess it works", but I'm leaving this note to explain why this change has happened in case anyone is wondering what happens and wants to revert.  originalmess  talk 04:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've moved the page back to the more common term because the move was not discussed. Doremo (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Article Converted to Personal Essay
It looks like a wave of edits has converted this article into a personal essay. While it needed to be rewritten, this isn't an improvement: it violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS at just about every corner. I'm going to be reverting the previous version back but there may be material that we can pull from this version with the appropriate checks in place. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am reverting back to the longer version. It is not a personal essay but instead contains valuable information on the history and current understanding of the field of studies. I was very careful in rewriting the article from the original one to include all real facts and information from the original one. The lists included in the earlier version were moved to list pages, as is appropriate. I would suggest that we start with the longer version, and anything that feels like personal opinion we talk through one by one. The field of Folkloristics is not Mythology, which I see by your personal page is your specialty. Perhaps we need to start with that clarification. Smithriedel 12:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I will again refer you to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Next: this article has all the hallmarks of a personal essay and, in its current state, belongs on a blog, not on Wikipedia. The article slips in and out of the imperative ("Compare this to brushing your teeth"), long sections contain no references, primary sources are used throughout. The article contains a bizarre section called "Hijacked by the Nazis". Opinion serves as fact throughout. For some reason there's a repeated, major focus on American folklore. The article contains phrases such as "In Scandinavia, intellectuals were also searching for their authentic Teutonic roots" and "This law also marks a shift in our national awareness; it gives voice to the national understanding that diversity within the country is a unifying feature, not something that separates us." Yeah, okay.


 * Next, you write "The field of Folkloristics is not Mythology, which I see by your personal page is your specialty". Gee, you don't say. You might want to dig a little deeper into user's contributions before making general statements like that one.


 * Finally, to sign your talk page posts, use ~.


 * I'm tagging this article for a rewrite. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Article Content, Recent Changes
The article slips in and out of the imperative ("Compare this to brushing your teeth"), long sections contain no references, primary sources are used throughout. The article contains a section called "Hijacked by the Nazis". Opinion serves as fact throughout. For some reason there's a repeated, major focus on American folklore. The article contains phrases such as "In Scandinavia, intellectuals were also searching for their authentic Teutonic roots" and "This law also marks a shift in our national awareness; it gives voice to the national understanding that diversity within the country is a unifying feature, not something that separates us." Is this OK? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Summoned by bot. I think rather than an RfC, this would be better addressed by listing each of your points of contention and then opening up the conversation for editors to discuss. Meatsgains (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be very willing to respond to specific issues in the article and make corrections. Bloodofox has already given a short list to start on above; I will either make corrections that he has suggested or give reasons why the text is shaped as it is. Currently on another project, but I will pick up the comments as soon as possible and add my discussion here. I do maintain that this topic belongs in the portal Folklore, not Mythology. Mythology is a different field of study and needs to be handled in its own article. Smithriedel 14:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are corrections and comments to the specific issues raised by Foxoblood above. I am very glad to continue to improve this article given appropriate input.

•	The article slips in and out of the imperative ("Compare this to brushing your teeth"), This imperative has been changed into a statement. It should be alright now.

•	long sections contain no references, I have frequently used a footnote at the end of a paragraph to reference the text above it. That seemed better than trying to footnote each sentence with the same reference.

•	primary sources are used throughout. I would need to know where this represents a problem. As sources, I have used multiple standard textbooks on the subject area. These I do not consider primary sources. •	The article contains a section called "Hijacked by the Nazis". This section was added in response to a flag on the article that it was too focused on American folklore. This new section describes the historical development in Germany, where the profession of Volkskundler was taken over by the National Socialists to justify and shore up their political agenda. It has taken decades for the field of German Volkskunde to recover from their connection with the racist ideology of the Nazis. •	Opinion serves as fact throughout. I would need specific examples of this. I have used extensive footnoting to document where the different viewpoints come from, referencing well-known academics across the field.

•	For some reason there's a repeated, major focus on American folklore. I addressed this criticism by adding references to the fields of Folklore in Great Britain and Europe. “It became established as a field across both Europe and North America, coordinating with Volkskunde (German), folkermimne (Norwegian), and folkminnen (Swedish) among others.” This is an indirect quote from Brunvand, Jan Harald, ed. (1996). American Folklore, an Encyclopedia. New York, London: Garland Publishing, pg. 286. Each country will have its own specific issues to investigate. I assume that the entries in the wikipedias in each of these languages will be more specific about the challenges in their particular regions and countries.

•	The article contains phrases such as "In Scandinavia, intellectuals were also searching for their authentic Teutonic roots" I have added a reference for this statement.

•	"This law also marks a shift in our national awareness; it gives voice to the national understanding that diversity within the country is a unifying feature, not something that separates us."

In the text, I have added reference for this, which is taken from the mission statement of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithriedel 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed all the specific issues that were raised about style of the article. If there are no more comments or concerns, I will remove the flag at the top about a complete rewrite in a few days. If there are concerns about this, please add them here to the discussion. thanks, 14:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Smithriedel
 * As I've requested these problems be addressed and they still remain, I'll soon be preparing for a total rewrite of this page that meets WP:GA standards. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 external link on Folkloristics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426044413/http://folklore.usu.edu/what.aspx to http://folklore.usu.edu/what.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New WikiProject: WikiProject Folklore
Please note that Wikipedia now has a WikiProject focused on improving the site's coverage of folklore and folklore studies, WP:Folklore. Interested editors are invited to participate. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German "Volkskunde" and the Nazis
Folklore was mostly appreciated by young and weak national states without much of an acknowledged common tradition. In these countries folklore often became loaded wirh the task to shape a common feeling of belonging (notwithstanding the fact that folklorists were more apt to describe particular local findings). This is why folklore played a major part in Germany before the founding of the national state (Empire, 1871) and then again after 1918, when the weak Republic of Weimar had to reestablish a common feeling of belonging. Forerunner in this was the catholic Center Party with its high influence on cultural policy and, regionally, universities. This explains why after 1918 folklore was established at the universities and a very far-reaching and expensive research project was developed: the Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde. Atlas-folkloristics was basically identical with the historical-geographical method, but transferred the method from narratives and songs to different matters like customs and material objects. But Atlasses were from organizational reasons more limited than fairy-tale research, and so the neighbouring states - like Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden - began their own Atlasses. The scientific start in the Weimar Republic reached its peak in the Mid-Thirties, when two handbooks and a dictionary appeared, but above all the first comprehensive book about methodology: Adolf Bach's "Deutsche Volkskunde". Bach is the most modern thinker here, relying heavily on experiences in linguistic and cultural geography, but also introducing themes which in those days were much debated internationally, like collective mentality and genetical differences (two paths which seemed to lead nowhere and were left after the war).

Now what's the impact of the Nazis? For a part, the Nazis simply followed the Weimar tradition. In their first years, they made some political improvements, which were duly hailed by some folklorists. On the long run, most folklorists looked at the "politisation" of the universities as a nuisance. The Nazis were not much interested in folklore, they preferred branches like historical demography. The Atlas project was bluntly finished with the least care possible. German folkloristics had reached a certain peak in the Mid-Thirties, but even if German and Nazi institutions had some influence in foreign countries, they didn't attempt to make known the scholarly handbooks, dictionaries or Bach's methodology - the one and only book of the 1930's which was propagized internationally and shaped the image of folklore in Germany was a quite marginal publication: Matthes Ziegler: "Volkskunde auf rassischer Grundlage" (1939). Rheinvolk (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Folklore studies
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Folklore studies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "esquiremag": From Babaylan:  From Philippine mythology:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What are the characteristic of Folklores
The 4 characteristic of Folklores

41.114.248.156 (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Tone of article.
The article frequently uses language that is not in keeping with the encyclopedic tone of voice used in Wikipedia articles. For one, The language is often too flowery. Here are some examples: “(This law was added to the panoply…, Then came the 1930s…, this country represents a trove of cultures rubbing elbows with each other, mixing and matching into exciting combinations as new generations come up.)” I also noticed at least one example of weasel words: “ The United States is known as a land of immigrants…” Although I may be mistaken, and I apologize if I am, I think this is a possible area of improvement with the article. Isvaderlynn (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)