Talk:Folklore studies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quality of content 

message: I think the following content should have its own articles.
* List of publication on folkloristics or just a folk literature --75.154.186.99 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Counter Views 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. originalmesstalk 04:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  title of article 

message: 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? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Article Content, Recent Changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject: WikiProject Folklore 

message: 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)
thread_title:  German "Volkskunde" and the Nazis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Folklore studies]] 

message: The 4 characteristic of Folklores 
41.114.248.156 (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the characteristic of Folklores  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tone of article.