Talk:Fakelore

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fakelore redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Folklore

This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles

Linguistics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles

Culture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles

Archives

1

Kalevala

Why does Kalevala get a mention? Lönnrot clearly told what he was doing when compiling the book, and he included the original versions of the poems for comparison in the Old Kalevala. How does this count as fakelore? --Slaphead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.245.97 (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]

Filling the gaps etc.

Might be a good idea to add a word or two about how the very fakeloristic nature of many neo-pagan Slavic practices has a lot to do with the lack of sources about the original Slavic pagan practices, especially when compared to Scandinavian and Irish mythologies, which are well documented--109.196.118.133 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Multiple articles

Can someone just give Slender Man a wikipedia page already? We have enough information on the guy. --98.92.20.68 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. Even the section on it in this article does not have enough citations. I'd even go as far as contending that the subject is not WP:NOTABLE. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slenderman's status

The page on Slenderman includes an opposing theory to being categorized as Fakelore; it is instead postulated that it is "Internet Folklore" due to how it evolved through the telling of stories between multiple people over time. At this point, it is so fragmented and developed, it might be considered as an example of how Fakelore can become Folklore. Misancybil (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ix Tab

Recently a DiegoAma (talk · contribs) added a section on Ixtab ([1]). Does the cited source explicitly refer to this entity as an example of fakelore? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What source? They appear to have copied the notes out of the original article without bringing the actual citation.--tronvillain (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only plausible source on the Ixtab page seems to be: Reyes-Foster, Beatriz M., and Rachael Kangas, “Unraveling Ix Tab: Revisiting the “Suicide Goddess” in Maya Archaeology”. Ethnohistory 63-1 (2016):1-27. "Fakelore" appears nowhere in it, nor does their analysis appear to fit the definition. --tronvillain (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, so I removed my edit. I presumed that Ixtab fit the definition given on the page, but I realize that wasn't enough qualification.--User:DiegoAma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this out and revisiting it with me, folks. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples and Original Research

Currently none of the examples included in the article demonstrate that the sources employed here refer to their subjects as fakelore. As the concept is itself controversial in folklore studies (which the article makes clear), unless we have a reliable source referring to this or that as fakelore, including it on this article constitutes a violation of WP:OR and therefore must be removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly when I looked at it earlier this week. But there are just so many bad articles I've been working on other ones. Thanks for taking this one on. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! I know that feeling. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]