Talk:The Song of Hiawatha

Moving
I'm moving this to The Song of Hiawatha, because:


 * The name of the poem (e.g. as it appears on the title page of the book) is not "Song of Hiawatha," but "The Song of Hiawatha."


 * Naming conventions says:


 * Use the title of the work as the article's title, following all applicable general conventions.


 * Naming conventions says nothing about removing initial Thes


 * An Allpages query on The shows that many articles have names that do begin with "The."

there are probably more people who can quote Strong's parody in full than can quote eleven consecutive lines of Longfellow's original
 * Really? I never heard of this parody until I just now read it here.  RickK 01:10, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... OK, maybe an exaggeration. Although I believe the number of people who can quote eleven consecutive lines of "Hiawatha" would be very small.
 * Actually I'd welcome hard evidence on the curve of popularity for the poem. My own greatest familiarity with it is from Disney cartoons, probably made during the 1940s, involving things like camping trips by Donald Duck &c. in which the narrator intones the lines about the shores of Gitche Gumee in a mock-solemn tone as a preamble to canoes capsizing and so forth. This suggests that a portion of the poem was a cultural universal in the first half of the century. I don't believe it's taught or read today. Did you ever encounter it in school? I did not. Have you ever tried to read it? Dpbsmith 11:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Results 1 - 61 of about 142 for "by the shores of gitche gumee" "stood the wigwam of nokomis" (including the exact first and last phrases of the opening lines of the familiar passage)

Results 1 - 33 of about 46 for "fur side inside". (0.31 seconds), most of which are partial quotations of the parody.

Dpbsmith 11:23, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note that the Milkanwatha parody is actually book-length, over 100 pages, not just the eleven lines commonly remembered. The original Kalevala in Finnish has a more complex tetrameter pattern but translations generally use a stricter trochaic tetrameter. "... the meter comes not from the Kalevala, which Longfellow couldn't read--he didn't know a word of Finnish; it comes from a German translation which converts the octosyllabics of the Finnish into trochaic tetrameter, a pounding meter in German. You know the one that Heine used unrhymed for so many poems." Ahazred8 13:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Son of a gun! I have to admit I thought you might be, um... well... anyway... www.abebooks.com shows many available copies, one being


 * The Song of Milkanwatha: Translated from the Original Feejee by Marc Anthony Henderson, Professor of the Feejee Language and Literature in the Brandywine Female Academy


 * Strong, George A., Rev


 * Book Description: Cincinnati: Tickell & Grinne, 1856. A parody on Longfellow's Hiawatha, with additional amusing poems at the back including one entitoed "The Cigar Smokers" and "Selections from 'Mawde'" Second edition, originally issued in 1856 as "The Song of Milgenwater". 12mo. Half-title.


 * Other listings show the whole book as being 144 pages total.


 * And it must have been pretty popular and successful, too, as a third edition was released in 1883. I wonder if I can get a copy via interlibrary loan. A hundred-page parody of Hiawatha. Hard to believe. Personally I had trouble getting all the way through "Hiawatha's Photographing" (Lewis Carroll's parody). As for The Song of Hiawatha itself, fuhgeddaboudit.


 * I guess they didn't have any reality TV to watch back then.


 * I think you should put your information in the main article, Ahazred8. What's the source of your quotation about "the one that Heine used unrhymed?" Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Longfellow as also influenced by the Kalevala's story-line; for example, Hiawatha's farewell, as he bids his people good-bye and sails away in his canoe after endorsing Christianity, is lifted directly from Vainamoinen's departure at the end of the Kalevala.169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)David Schlaefer

The Song of Milkanwatha
Well, my library couldn't get it through interlibrary loan and I was perishing of curiosity, so I ordered a used copy. It must have been very popular because they are plentiful and relatively cheap; mine, a "reading copy" in "fair condition" cost $15. It is the second edition, published in 1856, and I'll be putting something about it in the article here.

But the reason I'm putting this here is that the "fur-side inside" passage does not match the versions that are commonly anthologized. In Carolyn Wells' A Nonsense Anthology, it appears as follows, under the title "The Modern Hiawatha," attributed to "anonymous:"


 * He killed the noble Mudjokivis.
 * Of the skin he made him mittens,
 * Made them with the fur side inside,
 * Made them with the skin side outside.
 * He, to get the warm side inside,
 * Put the inside skin side outside;
 * He to get the cold side outside
 * Put the warm side fur side inside.
 * That's why he put the fur side inside,
 * Why he put the skin side outside,
 * Why he turned them inside outside.

The passage, as it appears on p. 27, of "The Song of Milkanwatha," Second Edition, said to be published in Cincinnati by "Tickell & Grinne," 1856:


 * In one hand Peek-Week, the squirel,
 * in the other hand the blow-gun&mdash;
 * Fearful instrument, the blow-un;
 * And Marcosset and Sumpunkin,
 * Kissed him, 'cause he killed the squirrel,
 * 'Cause it was a rather big one.
 * From the squirrel-skin, Marcosset
 * Made some mittens for our hero,
 * Mittens with the fur-side inside,
 * With the fur-side mext his fingers
 * So 's to keep the hand warm inside;
 * That was why she put the fur-side&mdash;
 * Why she put the fur-side, inside.

And that's all there is to the mittens.

So: was this improved on by later writers? Or was it, perhaps, improved on by "Henderson" himself (when in the 3rd edition, published in 1883?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Ojibwe words?
Cut-and-pasted from User_talk:CJLippert so we can continue here...

Presumably, the point of the table you added is to show the accuracy or lack of accuracy in Longfellow's use of Ojibwe words? Or to show evolution of the language?

In any case, I'd be happier if you cited a source for the material in the columns headed "Ojibway" and "Ojibway meaning." Looking at your user page I'm guessing it's probably the Freelang Ojibwe Language Dictionary, which is fine, but it should be cited. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Freelang can be cited, but so can any number of works by Fr. Baraga, or Nichols & Nyholm or Bloomfield or Cuoq, or Larry Smallwood at my office, or Joe Chosa who regularily features Ojibwe-language lessons in the local newspaper, or any other Ojibwe-speaker! Saying needing to cite the word is like saying cite the source of the word "word". It is silly. Now, if studies have been conducted where the words were compared and constrasted, then the study author would be cited. If someone have done an etmological analysis, then that analysis is cited. For a simple example such as the one being placed, no citation is needed. If you really, really want a citation, cite myself! If you look at the table, you will notice there are words that are not in the Freelang, or definitions that are not in Freelang, or word forms that are not in Freelang. I am pulling this from my own personal experiences (but it's not my sole personal experience, since even my neighbours would have had similar personal experiences) from using the Ojibwe language and living in the geography where Longfellow places this edda. If anything, when this table becomes complete, it will be a wikisource. CJLippert 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This needs some further discussion. I accept your expertise, but you need to figure out some way of WP:CITE citing sources for this. You should certainly list the reference sources you used in compiling the list. As for "pulling this from my own personal experiences from using the Ojibwe language" I think that's a problem. I don't think you should include any words that are not from published sources because of the policy prohibiting the use of Wikipedia for publication of original research. Maybe what you need to do is compile the table in Wikisource first, then reference it in Wikipedia with yourself as the source. I don't know. I don't want to be unreasonable, but you somehow need to solve the problem of citing sources for this material. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * P. S. It is usually the contributor of material who assumes the responsibility for citing sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've entered an RfC using this language:


 * This is not a dispute. This is a friendly request for advice. What is the best way to cite sources for a table contributed by an Ojibwe language expert which pulls together information from multiple published sources and his own experience? Is there a way to keep this material, comply with policy, yet not require that an individual source be given for the meaning of each individual word? 17:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have posted a question in the Wiktionary on how to batch upload. If the batch upload can be done, we can link each of the provided Ojibwe words in that table to the Wiktionary entry.  As for the resulting grammar, the article on the Ojibwe language have done a very good job in summarising scholarly works.  However, yes, miigwech for asking for advise at the RfC.  The feedback will be very beneficial. CJLippert 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm.....?! It appears that the RfC has been deleted without us getting any advice.  Shall I repost? CJLippert 19:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)d


 * I'm sort of at a loss as to what to do here. I am convinced that your table is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies of no original research, verifiability, and citing sources. Wikipedia does not have any mechanism for certifying the competence of contributors, and in theory does not permit the inclusion of material that rests only on the authority of the contributor.


 * I don't want to be a jerk about this, which is why I haven't deleted it. I don't suppose I could convince you to place this material on an external website and replace the table with an external link to that site? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, having it on a different site is not a problem, if done correctly. If there is a site dedicated to all things "The Song of Hiawatha", then that would be the most appropriate location.  If it were just the Ojibwe language, then I could ask the webmaster at First-Ojibwe to list the Ojibwe words as a FAQ somewhere at that site.  Another possible place—and this may even be a more-inclusive appropriate place—would be Native Languages since this particular site deals with all Indigenous American languages and cultures.  I'll ask them about this and let you know.  On a similar issue as the one we are encountering, I wonder how other under-documented Native American Oral history materials are handled, since they are often verifiable, just not verifiable through a written documentation, being oral history they are not considered original work and citation often is an individual through verbal communication and the confirming proof being another individual through verbal communication, with the citation disappearing when those individuals pass away unless trasmitted to a new generation of Oral historians? CJLippert 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability means "verifiability of the source" (does the article correctly represent the content of the source), not "the information is true." The problem is that Wikipedia cannot reply on the authority of its contributors because Wikipedia does not pass judgement on its contributors, and readers have no way of judging it either. Not only do they not know the credentials of contributors, in most cases they don't even know the real-world identity.
 * I think the websites you mention would be ideal, because there is a reasonable presumption that the people running those websites would be in a better position than I, or than our readers, to judge the reasonableness of a contribution. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm going to ask people about this at the Village Pump. That may reach a wider audience. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See Village pump (policy)/Archive T. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, saw your notice on the Pump. This probably does violate NOR, but as long as it's derived in a relatively simple way from its source material, and that material is cited, and the contributors to this article are cool with it, I think it can stay. That's just my opinion though. Deco 00:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, currently it doesn't cite sources... and as you see above, CJLippert says that "I am pulling this from my own personal experiences (but it's not my sole personal experience, since even my neighbours would have had similar personal experiences) from using the Ojibwe language and living in the [region]." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find an official source like a dictionary or study of the language to back it up that would be great. Observations based on personal experience alone generally require additional support. Deco 01:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To substantiate CJLippert's table with verifiable sources:


 * There's the Freelang dictionary you mentioned, Dpbsmith, as well as the books:
 * Nichols, John D. and Earl Nyholm. 1995. A Concise Dictionary of Minnesota Ojibwe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, and
 * Rhodes, Richard A. 1985. Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. --Whimemsz 02:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Whimemsz, but here are the problems: 1) Excluding Freelang because it is a living document and I am one of its current perpetual editor and major contributor (nearly 40% is my research work and I have edited 80%), the Fiero orthography was chosen because it is that standard for international communication... which you will not find in any of the documents you cite. 2) Though many of the words can be found in all of those dictionaries, you will not find all or all forms.  You would need Fr. Baraga, Cuoq, Mrs. Schoolcraft and de Josselin de Jong to confirm these words exist but they all use different orthographies from the Fiero and they don't fully gloss the words (for example, Baraga lists "Manâbisi.  A kind of small swan; pl. -wag." which will tell you that the word exists, but it doesn't tell you that it is specifically "maanaabizi(-wag)" to mean "Red Swan").  In addition, there isn't a table for systematically converting one of the old orthographies into the new.  3) Some words reqire knowledge of grammar.  Valentine can be referenced for that, as well as Baraga, Sefirath, and Cuoq, but they only talk about generalities.  4) In addition, the details come from the winter-time aadizookaanan, which are purely oral and publishing of these aadizookaanan are greatly frowned upon.  Hearing these aadizookaan is a first-person experience.  I can drive 3-hours across Wisconsin to go to Michigan and I can ask someone an Ojibwe community there and I will get the same general stories and description (though the specifics may be a bit different here and there).  Consequently, this particular topic is strikingly abscent of written materials. The table was put there because people often write to me asking me if the word really exists and I keep on telling them they do but the Longfellow didn't use all Ojibwe words, and some Ojibwe words he gives only half (not sure if this was Longfellow fault or some typesetter's fault that had Longfellow get hold of only part of the word)... but to do a survey of why this is the case would be "Original Research" thus not allowable, so I presented both the full form and the next-smaller unit word.  So, in this case, listing the dictionaries and grammar books will not "cut the mutard" since the source material is an oral source and not written sources.  And because it is an oral source, I have experienced first hand by listening to them, and because it is of a common-knowledge oral source, not only my neighbours would have heard these aadizookaan but anyone who is around an Ojibwe community during winter would have heard these aadizookaan as well.  If you look at the table carefully, you will notice some words are missing.  Those are the ones I don't know and have asked around but I have not recieved their oral confirmation.  The oral confirmation process is rigorous.  The process is much like that in front of a Beth Din.  So essentially from my perspective, this is really an issue of written citation vs. oral citation; and the source material at that point becomes myself.  If you really want to see other examples of oral citation manifesting on Wikipedia, just go to any pages dealing with Tribes; I guarantee not everything is tracable to a written source, but for the ones I have seen, I can say that they are orally accurate, while those not orally accurate have been edited to make them accurate, not only by myself but by others as well (ahh, Wonderful World of Wiki-wiki Work!).  Anyway, I got an e-mail response from Native Languages who don't understand why this is an issue since they understand that this is an oral source and oral sources are not original research and it is a self-citation; however, they will be creating a table on their site, and if it looks good, they said they would be willing to host that chart since they have the space.  I should see the draft in a few days, and then after that, we can remove the table from here and list the External Links CJLippert 07:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be an ideal solution. As for "not understanding why this is an issue," it's not an issue for them, it would not be an issue for a journal or a book or any print publication. It is not an issue for any situation where the article is the sole contribution of a small number of identifiable authors; where the identities and credentials of the authors and editors are known to the reader; where it is understood that the editors take some responsibility for vetting material; and where the result of that process is that the source has a well-defined reputation, ascribable to the editors.
 * It is a problem for Wikipedia, which is quite different from traditional reference sources.
 * Thanks for your understanding. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems to me that if it is hosted by http://www.native-languages.org, it does not need to be removed; the external link can be added as a source citation. In effect, it seems to me that if you publish it on website that is run by subject-matter experts, it is no longer original research and is no longer unsourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, it seems to have worked out for the better for the list to be at the Native Languages site. When making that list, I only used the words Longfellow had in his "Vocabulary", but it seems the Native Languages site team have identified other Indian words and phrases Longfellow uses that weren't listed in the "Vocabulary" section, and was able to further identify Dakota words.  CJLippert 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate here, but why should the meaning of a contributer's words be subject to verification? Wouldn't that be like me questioning the words "based", "on", "the", "legends", etc., that are in the intro to the article? Does the author need to provide dictionary references to verify that those words mean what he(?) intends them to? Of course not...we all know what "is" is, right? If we all spoke the Ojibway language, would there be any question about the words? Applejuicefool 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember the purpose of the verifiability policy. It is to allow an ordinary reader who is not expert in a subject area to verify that assertions made in an article can be traced to a reliable source--one to whom contributors are not anonymous and one to which contributions are reviewed.


 * If we all spoke the Ojibway language, we would not want or need an encyclopedia article to tell us the meaning of an ordinary Ojibway word. In fact, it is policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles the deal solely with the meaning of a word are regularly transWikied to Wiktionary. So, if we all spoke Ojibway, the content of the table would probably not be eligible for inclusion.


 * The fact is that this is the English wikipedia, relatively few of us speak Ojibway, and the content is therefore not self-verifying.


 * If a Wikipedia article said something about the use of English words in, say, Shakespeare&mdash;or Chaucer&mdash;then, indeed, since most readers are not experts on archaic English, such a fact might well be subject to the verifiability policy.


 * The article said Jiibayaabooz means "spirit rabbit." How do you know that's true? In Wikipedia, you don't know the identity, much less the credentials of the person inserting the information. And you probably don't know it yourself. How else can you be assured of the reliability of the information other than by a source citation to a source that, unlike Wikipedia, is authoritative in itself?


 * See also Reliable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. What percentage of Wikipedia users should be able to understand words in an article to make validation unnecessary? I mean, there are certain English articles on Wikipedia that are incomprehensible to me...a native English speaker. For instance, the article on vector space. I recognize the article as English, but this particular branch of English is not one that I have explored before. So I don't understand the language used, and yet I notice that there are no references on the article at all! What if somebody went through and made this whole thing up? How can we be sure it's not an elaborate prank? Because math genii say so? Why should the Ojibway language need validation, but not mathematics? Applejuicefool 06:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

math parody
i know that there is a mathematical poem, with hiawatha as the main character, that is mocking statistics, but didn't found a reference on this page. i've heard a translation and also saw few people quoting it in the web. i'll try to google it out and maybe provide more info. --194.50.85.1 11:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"description"??!!
sorry guys, but the section called "description" is absolutely insufficient!!! please give a substantial account of the contents before loosing yourself in endless lines of "analysis"... thank you!!! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube links
Please be careful with the YouTube links. We can't link to copyright violations. For example, Al Bowlly's performance of Ray Noble's "Hiawatha Lullaby" is still under copyright. We can't link to YouTube copies unless verifably uploaded by the copyright holder. Yworo (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Same with the links to the Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Access to visual material
The Verifiability policy cited by User:Yworo in a recent edit is all about textual information, not about providing a source of visual information. The 'solution' proposed for the Frances Anne Hopkins oil painting mentioned in the Artistic Use section admits that it is legally accessible - as Yworo has found out by implementing it. (The painting is also notable as cited in a scholarly source here). The solution proposed by Yworo was cumbersome and bureaucratic. Allowing a reader to access the illustration at the sole online source would have been easier. The guidelines on verifiability are there to make sure the article is sound but not, I argue, to hinder access to legitimate visual material. There are many personal sites on the web that carry such material with the aim of providing information otherwise difficult to come by. In this case, I consider interpreting the policy to cover visual sources that are out of copyright as questionable and I should like to see what others think. In my experience, WP administrators are prepared to review policy if they think this helps readers and the quality of articles. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many parodies excerpted
Readers can get the idea of parodies of the poem without having five included on the page. That is overkill.Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I liked them, I don't think five is too many. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-natives should not support this. I don't like ANY parodies on this article at all. The original narrative by Longfellow is based on the oral history of the Native Americans he interviewed. There was/is no written history in those times before the White Man. Yes it is a long story, with facts hard prove, but IMO the entire Parody section should be removed. It borders on racist. There is a sincere lack of oral history left in Native American Culture. If Natives object then that is one thing, but non-natives should not be editing these stories. --2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Native American Response
Has there been any comment or criticism of this work by Native Americans in the 20th century? If so, I think that should be included. Thanks. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Song of Hiawatha. 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/20110629174012/http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=6291 to http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=6291

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) 18:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claims
The following quote seems highly speculative to me and somewhat pejorative to the memory of Longfellow:

"It is likely that, 20 years later, Longfellow had forgotten most of what he had learned of that language, and he referred to a German translation of the Kalevala by Franz Anton Schiefner."

Why is this forgetfulness on the part of Longfellow "likely"?

The above line seems to suggest that Longfellow had a bad memory for languages, and that this bad memory is common knowledge (since the quote is not attributed to any one person but is stated as a general truth). The quote should be either removed or attributed to some specific person, along with an explanation of why that person drew this conclusion. Perhaps the conclusion is based on the supposed lack of Finnish influence in the Hiawatha poem, but surely Longfellow's supposed forgetfulness is not the only possible explanation for such a lack of influence. 204.111.28.75 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's attributed to precisely one person -- but it's a pretty substantial source . Expanding would be worthwhile. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I am rather surprised at the claim that Longfellow would have learned Finnish in Sweden. The other languages he is said to have studied during his year (1835) in Europe -- Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Icelandic -- are all Germanic and fairly easy to grasp if one speaks German, but Finnish is not an Indo-European language and the whole grammatical system is completely different, not to mention the vocabulary. He might have picked up some words and perhaps an inkling of how the grammar works, but I doubt he could have learned to understand or read it, let alone pronounce it, in that time.

One important feature of the Kalevala measure that is not found in translations is that it is not merely in trochaic tetrameter but in alliterative trochaic tetrameter, i.e., all or most words in the same line begin with the same phoneme ("letter"). For instance, the very beginning reads:

Mieleni minun tekevi

aivoni ajattelevi

lähteäni laulamahan

sanoja sanelemahan

sukuvirttä suoltamahan

lajivirttä laulamahan

Sanat suussani sulavat

puhe'et putoelevat

kielelleni kerkiävät

hampahilleni hajoovat

In most lines the first word is a noun and the last one a verb. Note the absence of articles and prepositions; Finnish does everything with endings. It would be interesting to see a translation of the Kalevala into a Dravidian language such as Tamil or some Inuit/Yupik language as these are closer (though not related) to Finnish in their grammatical workings than Indo-European languages are.--Jarmo K. (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It is beyond idiotic
It is beyond idiotic that many passages or texts of Hiawatha parodies are included in the article, but not the text of the original poem, which is surely in the public domain by now. 2601:200:C000:1A0:F9EE:8C71:A15D:5FFE (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree.  Parody is not worthy of WP.    If you disagree, then parody is free to go up against Einstein's Theory of Relativity (for example).  WP should not be a forum to promote parody. 2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)