Talk:Invented tradition

Merger proposal

I propose merging Fakelore into Invented tradition. Fakelore a subcategory of Invented tradition, and as both articles are relatively short I believe it wouldn't cause article size issues. ~~~~ BetweenCupsOfTea (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

An unregistered user coming from multiple IP addresses in the 240B:C020:4XXX block has been editing disruptively, so I have requested semi-protection for this page. --Macrakis (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

About the martial arts in this page

Inoue Shun, the English title of the book "The Invention of the Martial Arts" is miss translated. In original Japanese, it is "武道の誕生" It can traslated as "the birth of BUDO". It is not saying that "traditional martial arts of japan(Bujutsu)" is invented traditions. BUDO(combat sports for physical education) and BUJUTSU (combat technique) is clearly different things and separated but they are translated as both "Martial arts" in English and it becoming problems. Since most of traditional martial arts of japan is not invented traditions,it must avoid misleading 240B:C020:4A0:FEF7:AC25:EEF3:D739:D77 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Judo is as the creation of Budo/Bujutsu (phisical education) from the Bujutsu/Jujutsu (traditional combat teacniques).

Inoue Shun, the English title of the book "The Invention of the Martial Arts" is miss translated. In original Japanese, it is "武道の誕生" It can traslated as "the birth of BUDO". It is not saying that "traditional martial arts of japan(Bujutsu)" is invented traditions. BUDO(combat sports for physical education) and BUJUTSU (combat technique) is clearly different things and separated but they are translated as both "Martial arts" in English and it becoming problems. Since most of traditional martial arts of japan is not invented traditions,it must avoid misleading 240B:C020:440:77C:AD4E:A1DE:9555:3B9 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Eisteddfod

Eisteddfod should probably be mentioned. It is taken to be "ancient Celtic bardic and druidic tradition" but was essentially invented from whole cloth in the late 18th century, and is not a survived continual tradition from ancient-to-medieval festivals that are also given this name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The turtle ship of iron covered roof is invented tradition

Iron-cladding Pros and cons

16th century Korean turtle ship in a depiction dating to 1795 The belief that turtle ships, specifically their roofs, had iron cladding is controversial. No clear evidence exists that the ships had iron cladding. Generally, contemporary sources remained silent on the construction of the turtle ship to the point that "even conceptual estimates of the design are seriously handicapped by limitations in the knowledge we have".[1] Pertinent material comes mainly from two sources, Korean and Japanese war records:

Contemporary Korean records Primary Korean sources are generally silent on the matter: Admiral Yi Sun-sin himself makes no mention of an iron-clad roof in his comprehensive war diary, although in a war report submitted on June 14, 1592, he refers once to "iron spikes" protruding from the roof:

…under the threat of the coming Japanese invasion, I specially built a turtle-boat, with a dragon-head mounted at the bow, through the mouth of which one fires cannon, and with the back (roof-deck) studded with iron spikes (against enemy boarders). The crew inside can observe the enemy outside, but cannot be seen from outside. The ship can push into several hundreds of the enemy and cannonade them …[2]

Yi Pun, nephew of the admiral and witness of the war, mentions briefly in his biographical record that the upper part (roof deck) was covered with planks studded with bladed spikes, but gives no further details concerning the materials used.[3] Contemporary Japanese records

One Japanese record of Ship-Battles in Korea includes a description of a battle as experienced by two Japanese commanders on July 9, 1592, three weeks after Yi Sun-sin's having described the features of his turtle boats. The relevant part reads: …About 8 o'clock in the morning the enemy fleet (Yi Sun-sin's fleet), composed of 58 large ships and about 50 small ships, began to make an attack on ours. Three of the large ones were blind ships (turtle-boats) covered with iron.[4]

Toyotomi Hideyoshi had a written request sent to Tokugawa Ieyasu for iron plating to help "counter" the Korean navy. Some interpret this to be evidence of iron cladding on the turtle ships, but it may simply be a reference to the need for better Japanese vessels to counter the Korean ships. Later sources

The only contemporary depiction of the Turtle ship, the one commonly referred to as the first picture, comes from the Complete Writings of Admiral Yi, edited for the first time two hundred years after the war, in 1795.[5] The brushwork departs in important aspects from the war records: While the hexagonal structure of the deck may give credence to the view that the turtle ships featured iron roof plates, the unexplained absence of the documented iron spikes have raised doubts, leading to complaints about the "lack of realism in the brushwork of literati" which "has introduced questions as to the authenticity of the records".[6] Also, near the end of the nineteenth century, under the threat of the French navy, Korea officially commissioned the building an ironclad ship "just like the turtle ship." The official's design of the ironclad ship proved, however, too heavy and failed to float.[7] A drawing from 1795 of Admiral Yi's turtle ship shows a distinctive hexagonal pattern, strongly implying that something has been laid out over the wooden planking.[8] The iron-cladding of the turtle ship, if it existed, arose from vastly different fighting techniques than that of the nineteenth century ironclad. While the ironclad featured armor covering the sides, and later also all around, to protect the vessel from enemy shells, the iron roof of the turtle ship served the function of preventing Japanese soldiers from boarding.[9] 240B:C020:4C2:AA2B:80DB:8688:AE50:B421 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This may be an invented story, but in what sense is it an "invented tradition"? --Macrakis (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is korean nationalisit is keep on pushing those fake information of turtleship for the nationalisim of Korea, as the traditional ship of Korea and this turtle ship has significant roll for Korean Nationalisim as anti japan victimhoot nationalisim. 240B:C020:4C2:6DA6:15A:215C:9423:1464 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fake information" is not the same thing as an "invented tradition". --Macrakis (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Wicca should be included in this article

I can't imagine a more common and widespread, at least here in the U.S., form of invented tradition than Wicca. 2602:306:C4CE:B769:5969:398A:E4BF:29F6 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Add topic Aboriginal Australian "Welcome to Country" ceremony

should we add the topic of Aboriginal Australian "Welcome to Country" ceremonies? As these are an invented tradition from approx. years 2000-2010. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Are these ceremonies presented as "genuine traditional" in serious works? Of course, there are plenty of ceremonies invented as stunts to attract tourists and of course all kinds of legends are concocted to sell merchandise. Probably it is a subject of separate ariche or section, if there are scholarly sources that discuss the phenomenon. --Altenmann >talk 00:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge from pseudo-mythology

user:Bloodofox suggests that the article pseudo-mythology does not have right to exist. --Altenmann >talk 23:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's the same topic as this one (this article covers "fakelore", invented folklore, and mythology is a genre of folklore) and there's probably nothing there that is salvageable anyway (for example, I've recently removed claims that the reconstruction *Ostara is "pseudo-mythology", which is incorrect: we have an entire article on this matter at Ēostre). I see no reason to include what is shell of an article while this one exists. If there's anything remotely salvageable there, it should just be brought over into this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Opppose. The article pseudo-mythology has many referecnes that use the term and you have to provide solid refs that pseudo-mythology is called "invented tradition". Otherwise conflating the two concepts would be original research and anybody coming to the article ""invented tradition" will legitimately delete anything what was "brought over into this article" on the ground that the sources cited do not discuss the concept of "invented tradition". --Altenmann >talk 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. I do not consider myself an expert in the subject, so my opinion is based at what is seen at the first glance: the texts are quite different. I can readily change my vote if convinced that my POV is wrong. --Altenmann >talk 23:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This article also covers Fakelore, which was merged into it. It's the same topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There are sources that put the two as synonymous, e.g., "Richard M. Dorson coined the neologism "fakelore" in 1950 for the inauthentic products which don't occur in oral tradition and which aren't obtained during a fieldwork. He claimed that the inclusion of these inauthentic products in folklore as if they were genuinely traditional would harm folklore studies. Many articles were written on this issue following Dorson's argument and different neologisms such as "the invention of tradition", "pseudo folklore" and "folklorismus/ folklorism" were coined due to varying approaches. ". --Altenmann >talk 23:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Invented tradition, fakelore, "pseudo-mythology"— It's all the same concept: Invented material presented as if it is traditional. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, but there are differences. Something tells me that invented kilts and invented gods are in different categories. After all, we have articles on both "chair" and "office chair". --Altenmann >talk 00:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There would need to be reliable sources that support the idea that X, Y and Z are all the same concept. Ways of doing that could include:

• Find reliable sources that argue this to be the case.
• Find reliable sources that discuss any of X, Y and Z and discuss them in the same way (e.g. very similar language, similar sources, ...), so that in any text, X could be replaced by Y without changing the meaning of the text.

I once overheard a surprisingly heated discussion about whether "paradigm" and "world view" are the same concept. The opponents were using the second approach, so trying to prove that the terms were interchangeable. I never found out how the argument started. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Mythology is just a subgenre of folklore and this article covers fakelore, which is invented folklore. That includes myth. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

But how do we know? Northernhenge (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking how do we know that myth is a genre of folklore? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

All of it really. In this discussion we’ve had

• pseudo-mythology
• pseudo folklore
• fakelore
• invented folklore
• invented tradition
• folklorismus/ folklorism
• mythology is a subgenre of folklore

any of which could have debatable meanings. It’s not our place here to create our own universe in which all these ideas are well-defined. Wikipedia depends on using reliable sources, and articles need to show how their content reflects the sources. This is all some distance from my expertise, so I’ll leave the room now, but – whatever the subject – reliable sources trump our individual impressions of what things mean. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"Mythology is a subgenre" is a basic fact. I suggest a foundational understanding of folklore studies before injecting yourself further into this conversation. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Mythology is a subgenre" is a basic fact. - disputable. There is plenty of serious titles named Mythology and Folklore. Therefore I would hold off the accusations in ignorance. Yes in Wikipedia mythology is in category folklore. But I've long learned not to trust wikipedia. The basic distinction is that mythology is typically associated with beliefs of religious kind, while folklore is with mundane things. Of course, one may say these overlap, because mythological beings can easily act in tall tales by fire. Still, scholars draw the the distinction. And it would be unscholarly to say they are all the same. --Altenmann >talk 01:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yikes! I was apparently wrong to expect more from you. No, you shouldn't be trusting Wikipedia, you should be trusting introductory books on folklore studies and turning to experts. Intro courses to folklore studies contain units on myth and so do introductory textbooks. Get the very basics first. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a good desxription: "myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that are ostensibly historical though often supernatural, explaining origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon". I.e., myth is a fundamental component of folklore. And it make sense to treat mythology separately. After all, we have separate articles Myth and Folklore, which is, wikipeida say "includes oral traditions such as tales, myths, legends, proverbs, poems, jokes, and other oral traditions". --Altenmann >talk 01:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Folklore consists of numerous genres. Myth is one of them. In fact, this isn't difficult and this is very basic folklore studies stuff, like day one stuff. You're expected to know what you're talking about here. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you are so entrenched in imagined belligerence that you failed to notice that right above I wrote exactly the same. The only disagreement between you and me is that I maintain that there is no benefit to put all eggs in one basket. Yes I aint no expert but by gut feeling says that Pecos Bill tall tales are of ilk different from Anapilis. --Altenmann >talk 02:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Your statement "'Mythology is a subgenre' is a basic fact. - disputable." above is not doing you any favors. You wrote it, you got the response you should have expected. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

When you read the title of studies "Mythology and folklore" then you would assume people draw distinction, right? And I don't care why. I am not in a position to argue with these professors, I just note the fact that for some experts it important to draw distinction. The whole human culture is basically folklore. --Altenmann >talk 16:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. IMHO invented traditions are quite practical and are used for solid purposes like nation-building (cf. Neotraditionalism (politics)). The pseudo-mythology IMHO is the domain of inventive researchers creating new deities due to the paucity of the true mythological sources. This is similar to, say, the New chronology (Fomenko) and (usually) is of little interest to the powers that be. Викидим (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This page also contains fakelore, which includes all forms of folklore. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)