A fact from Krampus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
This article 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 article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
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): Vlietbj.
About two years ago, we had a young teenaged exchange student from Southern Germany spend a short period with us. My daughter is fascinated by many germanic Christmas traditions and asked her about the Krampus. The young lady almost refused to tell us anything; she maintained that the Krampus is horrible. He comes into the home and steals Christmas gifts, regardless of whether the children are good or bad and is reputed to steal bad children in a canvas sack, tie it up, and throw them into the river! Definitely an unpleasant fellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.134.168 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't read the entire NYT article, but it's dated December 1934. The Anschluss didn't take place until 1938, the Austro-fascist regime that preceded it was at odds with Germany. Dollfuss banned Nazi activity and (after his assassination by Nazis in July 1934) his successor Schusnigg maintained that ban. TGGP (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about the intent and relevant accuracy of this page
First off, people here in Austria who I've shown this page were shocked. Partly because they thought that the Krampus was an obscure character restricted to rural areas. And secondly because, of course, no one in this modern age is whipping young girls or threatening to take children to hell. Austria is a modern society and such behavior would not be tolerated. In addition to being shocked by what they saw on this page, the Austrian's I talked with were puzzled at who would put such a page up and what their motivation would be.
So, with that in mind, I note that there is an increasingly common use of Krampus characters to promote events for financial gain. Indeed, I read an article in a local Viennese paper (can't find it now, darn it), that touts the success of the FIRST YEAR of a Krampus event and in which the clearly self-serving promoter says that they will do it again, and more, next year. Seen in this light, this is hardly a folk tradition. And, then noting the history of this page and how its current form was posted in mid-November, I wonder if the page itself was written as part of a PR campaign??
And then, there is a German language Wikipedia page - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus - that has substantially more content and that is far less titillating. How does it make sense for the English page to contain different content and not to refer to the far better German language page? At the same time, I suspect (from content and timing of the edits) that even the German language page has had significant input from event promoters.
Valuing the integrity of Wikipedia, I wonder what to do with these concerns? If I find the local paper that I refer to above, then I will add a section on the use of the Krampus for promotion. Without the reference, I hesitate to do that. I would suggest, in any case, that the Colbert Report is hardly a high quality reference and that the text referring to beating young girls (anyone really, of course) and threatening children should be deleted if it can not be substantiated.
@Ronewolf: "Wikipedia is a multilingual project. Articles on the same subject in different languages can be edited independently; they do not have to be translations of one another or correspond closely in form, style or content. Still, translation is often useful to spread information between articles in different languages." Wikipedia:Translation If it looks like a good article, you can request a translation. My own German ist nicht so gut. @ian.thomason, it would be better if there were some reliable sources covering the CR appearance; not that the appearance is in doubt (I saw it myself), but by way of establishing some sort of notability for the appearance. Absent that, possibly something like viewer stats would count, but that might be OR. Шизомби (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you talked to in Austria but during the so called "Krampuslauf" (parades) the Krampuse would absolutely run after children and whip them with either twigs or horsehair whips. That used to be the sole point for children to attend. For us kids that was always quite a thrill running away from them etc. They sometimes also carried large baskets on their backs in which they put the kids and carried them around for a bit. Nothing too serious mind you, not to the point of real injuries but painful if they caught you none - the- less. A few years ago they stopped that though now all the Krampuslauf is literally just a parade, no whipping, no running after kids just walking around for show.--FerociousFranky (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain how the Krampus is "incubus-like". I suspect that was written by someone who did not understand what an incubus is. I'm deleting the phrase. If someone can how it is valid, they should add it back.--Ericjs (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to demon-like as I didn't want to lose the whole sense of the sentence, and demon-like seemed appropriate and is at least less specific.--Ericjs (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of the Popular Culture items seem...dubious at best, and advertising at worst. Are the merchandising choices of some random t-shirt companies really relevant to this topic? — BevansDesign (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish movie "Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale," from 2010, may have been heavily influenced by the legend of Krampus. It is a story about a child realizing that Santa Claus is really a monster that takes bad children to eat them, as opposed to a nice man who brings gifts to good children.Vinzklorthos (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the article on Joulupukki, I'm not convinced that he was the inspiration for the movie. There's a small section on his "Dark Side" there (with no references), but most of the article is about how he is just a Finnish Santa Claus. The Santa Claus from the movie is much scarier, like Krampus.Vinzklorthos (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything known about the development of Krampus traditions? Does it derive from pre-Christian beliefs, or was it a later development? Has any research been done on the subject? It seems like that would be a valuable addition to the article. — Gwalla | Talk01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out this section for now. Of these items, none of the references provide any indication that they are notable occurrences of Krampus in popular culture. Cites are primary, and to non-RS websites like YouTube. The Interior(Talk)19:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section was originally in the Companions of Saint Nicholas article, where it had no references at all. While the section does not currently merit its own article based on 3rd party sources as per Wikipedia:Notability, there was no need to hide the entire section! (This looks like a 'throw out the baby with the bath water' scenario) Simply changing the wording regarding notability or moving them to external links would have been sufficient. I am going to add them back in the external links section without the 'notability' wording in a moment. -- Limulus (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was kinda hoping we could have a discussion about what was bathwater and where the baby is. I'm seeing mostly bathwater in that list. Which of these items do you feel strongly about? The Interior(Talk)01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend towards the inclusionist end of the deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia spectrum, so I don't know that I'm going to be much help if you're on the opposite end. I will say that a basic rule of thumb would be that the subject mentioning Krampus have an article (thus some notability is established). The most recent edit by Toofwess fails this and the CC-licensed image mentioned is NC (thus Wikimedia-incompatible ): I would cut that one. Two items that I added that are not associated directly with articles are the Grinch one and the Hitler one; they are interesting IMHO from an artistic standpoint, but we can probably cull those. The list is not especially long though and so otherwise I do not think it should be trimmed further. There is an essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content that offers this helpful advice: "Entries that make only passing reference to the subject can usually be removed." To the extent that I have not seen the "Supernatural" episode, I wonder if they make only passing mention of Krampus or if it became a plot point, so I should probably dig for a better ref on that; the others though seem good (as noted in the essay, "some references may be plainly verified by primary sources"; part of my work finding primary references on the others was simply to confirm that they were real. -- Limulus (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the Supernatural ref and its article again, it seems most likely that it is just a passing reference; will remove. -- Limulus (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning that up a bit. I like your image layout as well. I'm not really a deletionist, but I'm always a bit wary of IPC sections. They can get messy quite quickly with "crufty" type stuff (really obscure), it helps to have a notability threshold (which you've done). But this one is looking pretty good. I might make a stab at a better External links section, there is some really amazing YouTube clips of Krampus parades in some of the more isolated mountain villages.this one is out of this world! The Interior(Talk)23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I I don't edit wikipedia articles, because I am, frankly, terrified of doing so. So I will just leave a comment here, pointing out that (PvP) pvponline.com is doing a Krampus story arc. Not sure if that is notable enough or not. Maybe wait a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.223.111.62 (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot break anything, so feel free to edit! - the worst that can happen is someone will yell "U R DOINITWRONG!!!1!!1!" and revert back to the way it was. Hopefully, they will also link to the policy or guideline backing up their reversal so you know what you should look for in the future. See the flow chart in "Should you add it?" below for whether appearances merit inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom13:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple questions to answer before adding items to the "In popular culture" section:
1. Does the subject mentioning Krampus have an article?
(If no, is it reallynotable?) If yes:
2. It is more than a passing mention?
If no, it's only trivia, so don't add. If yes:
3. Do you have a reference for it?
If no, please try to find one first. If yes, please add! :)
Hmm. It's been a while since I had a look at this page. I notice that the IPC section was scrubbed from the article in November: [1] On one hand, I can understand that it attracts poorly-referenced edits. OTOH, a good chunk of the material being taken out (note [2]) probably shouldn't have been. Perhaps the trick here is that the list isn't so much 'in popular culture' in the generic sense as 'in North American culture'. I thus propose a much more specific section 'In North America' or such with i.e. Christmas-themed episodes of popular TV shows that prominently feature Krampus, though not necessarily in list form of course:
The National Geographic ref specifically mentions the American Dad episode. Rather than just wholesale blanking though, did you try ref searching first? If you did and didn't get any results you felt were sufficient, why not tag the section with Template:Refimprove section, Template:Importance-section or such? A ref was supplied for the 2015 now-in-production Krampus movie; what was the reason for deleting that? -- Limulus (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the ref provided did not support the significance of this particular movie to the broader topic - particularly given that the movie has not yet been released, it is unlikely to be informative to readers of this article. The broader issue of pop-culture content and the necessity of providing appropriate sourcing for said content has been discussed extensively on this page, so the burden of sourcing is on those who wish to propose such additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply doesn't justify the removal of the American Dad mention though as it is specifically in the NG ref: "In the U.S., people are buying into the trend with Krampus parties. Monday night's episode of American Dad, called "Minstrel Krampus," highlighted the growing movement of anti-Christmas celebrations." As it currently stands, there is not enough included to justify a whole section; I'm going to move that lone sentence to the lede. As the atmosphere here appears hostile to IPC mentions, starting a separate North Am. IPC list article is probably the best way to include this information. -- Limulus (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there have been insufficient sources to justify a section in the main article leads to the question of how there would possibly be sufficient sourcing to support a stand alone article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom19:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it is mentioned that "These runs may include perchten, similarly wild pagan spirits of Germanic folklore and sometimes female in representation"
Although it may happen that Perchten-costumes are used in Krampus runs, it shouldn't. Perchten are figures that are not meant to appear before the Winter Solstice (around December 21st) and no later than the "Perchtl-Night," January 6th (today's Epiphany in the Christian calendar.)
Krampus only appears around Dec. 5th, but no later than the Winter Solstice.
Both characters have different meanings and "tasks" in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpendruide (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alpendruide. Thanks for the new information. I'm the editor who added the content you are looking at. It sounds like we need another sentence to clarify this distinction in the article. I'd like to add it, or you can, but I'd like to supply a reference for the new info. Do you know of any good German-language sources that discuss this? I've been using all English sources to this point, and they are a bit thin. The Interior(Talk)18:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There were two reasons why I didn't enter directly into the page (add a sentence, as you put it.) First, there are so many articles where different contributors rip each others' heads off for editing, deleting, adding etc. I guess the backdraw of a feature like a wiki. So, I didn't want to budge in, and also would leave it up to you to formulate a sentence regarding my discussion point, if at all.
Secondly, and more importantly, I do not have a reference for what I mentioned. I am sure it is mentioned in some literature about these folk customs. However, most Austrians wouldn't need to read about that fact, it is somewhat "common knowledge." As much as I am aware that "common" here refers to a rather small region of this our planet. I couldn't say whether I know that from my parents, other kids, kindergarten, or school. As an (admittedly extreme) similarity, I could say it would be like asking for a book reference for a statement like "Christians don't go on egg hunts at Christmas." :) So, in essence, I am convinced that somebody wrote about that fact in a book; I just don't know of any.
BTW, on the German Wikipedia page about Krampus it is said that "Im Unterschied zu [den Perchten], die in den Rauhnächten laufen, gehören die Krampusse ausschließlich zum Adventbrauchtum." which translates to: "in contrast to the Perchten, who run in the nights between the Winter Solstice/Christmas and Jan 6th (= Rauhnächte,) the Krampusse belong exclusively to the Advent-customs." No reference there, either, though.
Unfortunately, what you say is sometimes true. Far from ripping your head off, I'm very glad to have an Austrian on the page. I'm a Canadian with no grounding in Alpine folklore - I wrote this article two weeks after hearing of Krampus for the first time. So it is a bit of an amateurish effort, and only uses English sources. I'll take your word on the common sense-ness of the perchten runs, I've added an explanatory clause. Please do go over the article for other inaccuracies, and maybe give me some pointers on areas that could be expanded. Thanks for your attention, The Interior(Talk)03:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The black and white newspaper illustration at the top of the page is, IMNSHO, a pretty awful one to be using as the lead image. When a bitmap image compresses down in size a lot of details are lost, so it's difficult to see properly. Heck, even when the image is opened at full size in another window it isn't the best scan. With the many, many postcard images available it seems like we could easily have a nice dramatic color representation up top. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some content was added to the "Origins" section describing Krampus as being part of some type of coming of age/spirit quest tradition. This is plausible, but it hasn't come up in any of my readings. Without a source it shouldn't be in there imo. I'm going to pull it for now. (Content here) The Interior(Talk)06:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to restore Nikkimaria's trimming of the IPC section. We really need to start requiring secondary sourcing to keep this section encyclopedic. The Interior(Talk)13:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As is the case Wikipedia-wide, secondary sourcing is not required on popcult items, since the item itself is the best (primary) source to verify the existence of the item. It is, however, a normal part of editorial discretion to eliminate those items which may be entirely trivial, which is why mass deletions of popcult items are almost never a good idea: each item should be discussed seperately and individualy. This being the case, which items do you object to, and why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're mistaken: secondary sourcing is required for popular-culture entries to demonstrate the mention's significance to the topic. Granted, some articles do not adhere to that practice, but that's no reason not to. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that you are incorrect. When information is added to an article, we require a citation to verify the accuracy of the information -- which in this case is fulfilled by the existence of the popcult item itself, which can be consulted for verification -- we do not require an additional citation to show significance, unless there is another issue, such as WP:WEIGHT - but that issue needs to be specifically raised and discussed between editors, and that has not been done here. That the information here regards popular culture raises some people's hackles, but it does not change the situation in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case: see for example WP:IINFO, which makes it clear that simply being verifiable does not mean a piece of information warrants inclusion and that such information should be contextualized with additional citations. Compare also WP:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assert that IINFO does not apply? After all, it specifically supports the statement I made above, and is linked from {{In popular culture}} (which also indicates that simple listings of IPC mentions are inappropriate). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, as this is not "indiscriminate information", it is highly focused on a particular subject in a specific context.
Since this discussion is still ongoing, I have reverted your unilateral removal of information from the article. Please discuss your intended deletions here so a consensus can be reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me get this straight. According to Beyond My Ken, the only policy that rules inclusion on IPC items is WP:V. So any mention of the beast, anywhere, that can be verified, can and should be included here. Is this a correct reading? This seems like the definition of indiscriminate. Imagine applying this concept to say, Canada, or Michael Jackson, or Cat. Even if WP:IPC is only an essay, it appears to be the only written piece of guidance we have that specifically addresses IPC sections. Why shouldn't we use it? I fail to see how these sections are exempt from the norms of inclusion for all other content, which do use secondary sourcing as a mechanism to help editors choose what should be included. The Interior(Talk)16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a reductio ad absurdum which misstates my contention, which is that normal editorial discretion and consensus should be used to keep popcult sections from growing like Topsy. I have no objections to eliminating truly trivial entries, I simply insist that they should be discussed when there is disagreement between editors. I'm open to specific discussion about specific entries, and suggest that rather then continuing to unilaterally delete those items (when they are, in toto, disputed), discussion be held here. I don't understand why it's so difficult to say "This item shouldn't be on the list because X" about each item that is considered to be objectionable, which would take a hell of a lot less time than has be taken up by this rather repetitive meta-discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen on this page, editorial discretion varies widely between editors. If that, and WP:V, are our only guiding principles, interminable discussions will result. It is dfficult to say "This item shouldn't be on the list because X" if "X" doesn't represent policy. X is then a value judgement, and that won't help us out much. E.g. "We won't include this because it is a share-ware video game" Reply: "But it a seminal share-ware video game, beloved by many", etc., etc. Requiring secondary sourcing avoids all this. The Interior(Talk)19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're anticipating a problem where there may not be one, but we'll never know until someone starts discussing specific objections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here goes: Beyond My Ken, can we please remove "* The Binding of Isaac, a 2011 indie video game by Edmund McMillen and Florian Himsl, features an opponent named Krampus. If the player successfully defeats Krampus, a lump of coal is awarded with a note saying "My Xmas Present"" because it is not a notable occurance of Krampus in popular culture? The Interior(Talk)20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it not notable? The character is clearly Krampus, and the coal as Xmas present connects it to a modern trope. Still, I don't want to appear to be a willful obstructionist, so I guess (somewhat against my better judgment) I'll agree to it going if you and Nikkimaria already agree - I think that would make a consensus. In the future, though, could you be more specific about why you don't consider something notable? A simple statement like "I don't think it's notable" isn't very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing whether something is notable or not based on my own opinions is a bit of a foreign concept to me. I always rely on secondary sources to do that, as does the rest of the community. I think you're going to have to make a policy-based argument as to why we'd use the new system here. I can't see it being efficient, or why we'd do it in the first place. Again, why not let the secondary sources do the work for us? The Interior(Talk)21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but I based my arguments on coverage in reliable, secondary sources. How do you go about it? Regardless, we aren't talking about AfD procedures here. The Interior(Talk)23:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to resolve this. Bmk, do you have more comments? Should we take this to a dispute resolution process, or go with the admittedly numerically weak 2:1 consensus that the IPC items should have secondary sourcing? The Interior(Talk)18:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite easy to resolve if either of you would actually discuss with a fellow editor the nature of your objections as to each item, instead of insisting on wholesale slaughter. Compromise could be reached, but one has to actually talk to compromise, and not simply cite (incorrectly) policy. I'm quite willing (as seen above) to discuss, and compromise, but someone needs to be on the other side of the conversation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have been quite clear about our objections to the content from the start - it is not supported by secondary sourcing. Secondary sourcing is the foundation our content is built on. This mechanism you are insisting on - that removal must be approved item by item by a single editor, and that notability must be argued item by item on the grounds of personal opinion - is not editorial policy, and verges on WP:OWN. Since you believe we are incorrectly interpreting policy here, please educate us. Where is your editorial system documented within policy? The Interior(Talk)04:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your conversation has not been about the items themselves, it has been a meta-discussion about policy, in which I have pointed out the error in your thinking several times, only to meet with some rather WP:IDHT responses. Since every entry fulfills WP:V, we should be discussing the entries themselves, and your specific objections to the material you want to delete, just like any other material that is a matter of contention between editors. I don't believe that is unreasonable, since consensus discussions are the backbone of the project. As for WP:OWN, don't be ridiculous, I care not about Krampus, but I do care that popular culture material isn't treated like a second-class citizen and is dealt with the same as any other material which is verifiable. Let me say, once again, that I'm more than willing to be swayed by specific arguments about specific entries, without limitation, but those arguments have to be made before a consensus can be reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing the following, as a start (more to follow later):
"The physical appearance of the Krampus in the book is quite different also, but he retains other similarities" - vague sentence, bordering on OR, unsourced
Medieval II point: this appears to be an unofficial mod and so is likely not significant, particularly absent secondary sourcing
Don't Starve - minor figure in recently-released indie download, no indication of significance
Binding of Isaac - minor figure in indie game, no indication of significance
Suburgatory: despite the title, most sources regarding this episode don't mention the figure at all - it appears to be only a brief mention in the show, not significant
Supernatural - again only a brief mention, as an example of an anti-Claus, minor instance with no indication of significance. Cited source gives a plot summary that does not mention Krampus.
G4: no evidence of significance, minor commercial appearance
D20 Monkey: no indication of significance
Something Positive: no indication of significance, description is OR without secondary sourcing
Sorry, it was not my intention to ignore you, I just got caught up in other things. I'll take a look at these more closely, and will restore any that I think are significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every figure that has some similarity with Krampus does not "another form of Krampus" make. This stuff needs to get off of this article and any comparison made needs to be backed with scholarship making that comparison. Otherwise it needs to be removed immediately. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone learned a little of a foreign language and insist it be used everywhere. The -us (singular) and -i (plural) thing is the only thing they know, and it's wrong most of the time. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed a lot of non-Krampus stuff that has accrued on the article. From Zwarte Piet to the Yule Goat, these aren't just reflexes of Krampus or variations on this figure, but rather—like Krampus—they're a part of a wider phenomenon of Attendants of Saint Nicholas in the folk practices of Europe, apparently particularly Germanic folk practices. Actually, we could solve this issue with a list article called List of Attendants of Saint Nicholas by region. Something to consider. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Similar figures are recorded in neighboring areas. Klaubauf Austria, while Bartl or Bartel, Niglobartl, and Wubartl are used in the southern part of the country. In most parts of Slovenia, whose culture was greatly affected by Austrian culture, Krampus is called parkelj and is one of the companions of Miklavž, the Slovenian form of St. Nicholas.[1][19]"
Carantanian (including Styrian) Parkl WAS the original "Krampus". Krampus is a replacement for Parkl, it is a later, Christian replacemend of Slovene, Carinthian (Carantanian) Parkl, which has nothing to do with new Christianity. They were actually entities (souls) of deceased people who are coming back to Earth... They are in company with a goddess called PEHTRA baba or also Kvatrna baba (Kvatre were special quarters, weeks in the prechistian Calendar, which have had 9 days per week instead of Babylonian 7) 7 was a number of the Underworld in Slovenia. Land of Babilonska kraljica (Babylonian snake queen); which is equal to Vedic "Patala") - "enemy" of Kresnik ("Perun") from 9th land... Nine means Devet in Slavic, DEV = Deus("godly"); "godly land", "deveta dežela"(which is equal to Norse Ygdrasil)= and second one (Parkl) was SMRT (Morana) (death). These 2 deities were later raplaced with "angels of death" or Parklji who were "shadows" of "saint" Nicolas... Nicolas is a mythological priest, who in fact never existed. In several areas was one of these deities also called Torkla in Slovenia... At several time, at night it was forbidden to sew.
sources: www2.24ur.com/bin/article_print.php?id=3150469
www.dormeo.net/clanki-dormeo/prazniki/razkrivamo-pomen-predpraznicnih-obicajev-2-del.htm?t=a
It is not GERMAN-speaking Alpine folklore. Correct is Bavarian-Austrian Alpine folklore. If it was German-speaking, it would include Switzerland also. But in Switzerland Krampus is unknown! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.163.239 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because YOU do not know, does not mean this information is inaccurate. Why don't you try reading through the article, go through different sourced articles that contribute to this article, and even maybe, just maybe, click on some of those links that bring you to the sourced information. Isn't that fun?! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am from Bavaria and the Krampus is a Bavarian/Austrian/South-Tyrolian folklore and very common in Southern Bavaria. But Krampus is unknow in OTHER German-speaking regions. Bavarian and Austrian culture, language and customs are one family and were only divided by politics. Krampus is very well known in the old parts of Bavaria, and Bavaria now is a federal State of Germany. So who says Krampus is not known in Germany, is very much self-centred. In other German federal states there are traditionally other figures which seem to be similar, but Knecht Rupprecht is not the only helper of Saint Nicholas, there is e.g. also "Pelznickel" in Baden-Württemberg. So may the user with the IP: 84.44.195.228 be a little bit more objective, accurate and not so self-centred. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.182.252 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the sixth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 842,714 views for the week November 29 to December 5, 2015. The attention was probably related to the December 4 release of Krampus. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the week December 6 to 12, 2015, this article rose to be the fifth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 638,373 views. That's an increase in ranking but a decrease in number of visits. The film made the list at number 16 with 408,136 views. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites a source from the 50's during the era of neo-paganism's emergence. These traditions have nothing to do with 'witch covens,' on the contrary pagan rituals and the like bare little to no link to 'witches' given that the majority of witch-lore is imagined circa 1920's during it's birth with Gardnerian 'wica' (later 'wicca') which borrowed wholesale from Freemasonry given that Gardner was a Freemason expelled for his ... antics with young underage girls, ironically the focus of his later wica born 'sex magic' sadly many people have polluted actual pagan history with modern imaginings, and this appears to be another instance. I recommend that entire section be removed as it is quite clear the author isn't talking about the krampus myth purely, nor does he have the foggiest what he's talking about as he's just making loose speculations and guesses, and admits such. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is reliable—this was published in Folklore. We need more from academic sources here, so feel free to add more. :bloodofox: (talk)
It was allowed in a reputable publication because it was written before the witch-cult hypothesis was debunked. The article was written in 1958, whereas the witch-cult hypothesis wasn't debunked until 10 years later, and was not definitively debunked until the 1970's. Witch-cult hypothesis#Academic reception: 1963–present It WAS debunked however. Claiming that Krampus is a preservation of "the horned god of the witches" is as irresponsible as if our article on combustion claimed that fire was caused by the release of phlogiston, or if our article on light claimed that light transmission depended on the lumoniferous ether. Like the witch-cult hypothesis these were both things that were taken seriously and allowed into reputable publications, and like the witch-cult hypothesis they have both been debunked and are no longer considered factual by scholars 64.121.1.13 (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As an Austrian I can assure you, that Krampus is not carrying a bathtub on his back. Instead he is carrying a "Butte" something that actually has no English word. It is a kind of oversized wooden bucket or wicker basket carried with straps on the back like a backpack. It was used since the mideveal to transport wood and for the grape harvest - for the latter it is still used today (in pvc though). The wooden "Butte" was also used to transport coal in the 19th/20th century and in some Krampus traditions (varying strongly throughout the alpine countries)he is actually carrying a bit of coal in his "Butte" so the children would be even more afraid of him putting them into it. Here is a classic greeting card with a wicker Butte http://www.therainbowhub.com/grus-vom-krampus-greetings-krampus/ and an actual photo of a wooden Butte: http://www.mikeswerkstatt.at/uploads/objekte/1311264279.jpg (the accompanying text on the site even says:" Suitable for Krampus and vintners alike": http://www.mikeswerkstatt.at/verleih.php?cat=5 (scroll to middle). Since I'm not a native English speaker I can't exactly write down how the text should be edited though.
TheStoryteller01 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Article is not precise enough. Most of the pictures shown are actually not Krampus (punishes kids as Saint Nicholas' counterpart) but so-called "Perchten" which are alpine winter demons representing the power of nature. Easily mistaken for each other but massive differences in terms of origin and meaning.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Which pictures are at issue, and what are you proposing they be replaced with?/wia🎄/tlk13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under heading "In Popular Culture" it reads (in part):
television- both live action ("A Krampus Carol", a 2012 episode of The League[25]) and animation ("Minstrel Krampus", a 2013 episode of American Dad![24]),
After League[25] please add before the final bracket:
and "A Merry Murdoch Christmas", a 2015 episode of Murdoch Mysteries
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. All the other ones have sources, so should this one. Or better yet, perhaps you should place this in the main article providing you have a source that backs up your claim. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Krampus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I've been searching for the origin of the Krampus, and according to the very own source which is used in order to justify it as a Norse word, it is from the German Language! He is the son of Hel from the Norse mythology, but his name is from the German Language!
Unless someone can get another source which could explain this, I suggest we change Krampus' origins as German Language and not Norse language.
Furthermore, in the Norse Language morphology, there is no case of a noun ending with -en. The only case where this is could have been possible is if it was a verb, and it would end with -e and not -en. So even if it did exist in the Norse language, it was not originated there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TsumiHokiro (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone slipped that in without anyone checking it (it's indeed obviously wrong). The provided source didn't even make the claim. I've removed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krampus, whose name is derived from the German word krampen, meaning claw, is said to be the son of Hel in Norse mythology. The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns. Diwakar jha (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are already too many pictures. They don't all need to be present. Second, formatting them as three separate galleries is even more problematic. On narrow layouts, they wrap oddly and create too many rows. It should be all one gallery not three. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more pictures then there were before, I've simply made it possible to actually see the images. And, the reason there are galleries is because most of this pictures were in the article, crowding the text, before I moved them into galleries. As I've asked on your talk page and on mine, please stop talking in generalities and tell me what the specific problem is so that we can work togethr to fix it, but stop making unilateral changes to an improvement to the article in the meantime.Again, I can't fix a problem until you're clear about what the problem is. Having 3 galleries is not a problem, it's simply a mechanical thing, the number of pictures hasn;t changed from before. Images have just been placed with similarly shaped images, and their sizes made so that they can be clearly seen. Tell me the real problem, and we can work to fix it - that's how it's supposed to work here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim there were more pictures, simply that there are too many.
You see the images by clicking through to them. They were set to a gallery of 175 by 200 pixels.
The specific problem is that the galleries they way you format them wrap improperly. On a large monitor, there were at most two rows before and with your method, there are always at least three. On a very large monitor, it would be one row. At 1024 pixels wide, which includes small monitors, many mobile phones and tablets you would have five rows of images, many with one image in a row. In the original format it was four rows, each with three images and one by itself at the end.
You're past three reverts now and the last state you left it in is the worst yet. The top row of images is 20 pixels high (at least in Chrome and Firefox). I won't revert because I would be over three reverts as well but suggest you do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should never require the reader to click through to see the content of an image. We should always present images in our articles at such a size that it's content can be seen and understand by the reader. If the reader then wants to see more detail, then they can make the choice of clicking through, but we should not force' them to do so. We are here to serve the reader and not to follow rules without thinking abou t what they mean.As for your specific complaint, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm looking at the galleries on a 1024 pixel wide monitor, and they look fine. I checked them on my son's 1080 monitor and they're fine. They're fine in Firefox, they're fine in Chrome, they're fine in Opera, they're fine in Safari and they're fine in Internet Explorer. Please check your installation to be certain that your looking at the images at a browser setting of 100% and not larger. If that's the case, the problem is on your end and not in the formatting of the galleries.I will not be reverting, as the gallery formatting is an improvement and allows the reader to actually see the content of the images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No we should never force an image to be an unnecessarily large size. The reason we have galleries is if there are too many images. This isn't imagpedia, it's a work for text, not images. But look who I'm talking to, an editor abuses both bold and italics against both MOS:ITALIC and MOS:BOLD.
Now that you have reverted and changed them to not use widths=20%, which was the revert I was telling you to do, the first row doesn't display unreasonably small in my browser. To say they're "fine" is subjective. I clearly stated the problem but you clearly don't know what the I'm talking about so I'll let other editors fix your edits when the see it. Otherwise, I'll do it. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "20%" edit took place after you had already reverted me twice. It was an experiment on my part, and was never supposed to be published. You, however, were complaining about the previous versions, and never made a complaint about the 20% version, which anyone could see what completely different from what I had done previously. If you had simply alerted me to that, I would have fixed it immediately, but instead you continued to make general complaints, despite my repeated requests for specificity. In fact, you still haven't verified that your browser setting is on 100% and not at a larger number, which might well cause the problem you reported. So that's not the formatting, that's -- as I said -- on your end.If you're going to continue to make complaints about images, you had better make sure that you're seeing them the way most other people see them. I'm always certain to use a plain "vanilla" system for that very reason, and I keep copies of multiple browsers around to check for compatibility. I want to fix problems when they arise, but I have to be told what, exactly, they are, and be sure that they're arising from my formatting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you left it looking like shit and then you blame me? Both of the browsers I've used to verify are always at 100% and I used web developer tools to view at various resolutions. The problem is entirely on your end. Stop blaming others for your poor-quality editing.
I'm not complaining about your images. Not one of them are yours. I'm complaining about the unnecessarily large size you insist on using. The problem is you've created two galleries rather than one and this causes them to display on too many rows when displayed on small resolutions and it causes them to display in two rows when displayed on very large resolutions. Already explained. Three times now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You caused the problem in the first place, and yes, they are unnecessarily large. Galleries already don't honour thumbnail size and now you're forcing a large size. Also, you have not solved the problem of two table rows that force too many rows on narrow display sizes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, please get your facts straight, because you're saying things that are not the case. Moxie was complaining about the accidental "20%" edit, reflected in the image on the right, which Ihave fixed, he was not complaining about your bugaboo, the formatting of images so they can be seen by the reader. Get it right, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what @Moxy: was complaining about. I saw the image. It was small but imminently clear. Unlike the mess you've made of the article with obnoxiously large images in two rows. And stop using both bold and italics. It shows your inability to read the manuals of style and your complete lack of taste. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The caption, "Krampus a Dobbiaco in Toblach", is not an WP:OVERLINK, it's a WP:REPEATLINK. Both used to be in the same section, but that changed a year ago because of confusion like this. First, Dobbiaco redirects to Toblach. Second, it's non-English and should be removed. Nice edit war though. Glad I stayed out of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Walter Görlitz, why do you think that we should only link those regions which are not countries? On my Talk page you cited WP:OVERLINK. As you also quoted, it states that "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked" and "location" is given as an example. While it might make sense deleting links to well-known locations (not just countries), it also includes locations like Northern Italy or Bavaria. Deleting only the links to countries and citing WP:OVERLINK is a quite strange interpretation of not linking locations. It may well be that, e.g., Slovenia is less known to many people (especially outside Europe) than Northern Italy, so deleting the link to the former one and leaving the link to the latter is questionable. In my view, either all links to well-known locations should be deleted, or all should be kept. The current solution gives undue weight to regions which remained linked. Cheers, KœrteFa{ταλκ}23:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe an earlier version of the article had all the locations linked, countries and regions alike, but it was object5ed to as OVERLINKing. Someone liked only the regions, and that version has stood up as the de facto consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, as as this articles is quite rarely edited (apart from the festive seasons when some users try to be funny), we cannot really talk about de facto consensus in this case. KœrteFa{ταλκ}00:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask @Koertefa: a question instead of answering. What nations or regions do you think need to be linked to "help someone understand the [Krampus]"? The guideline states that, "unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked". It then goes on to discuss various categories that can be easily overlinked. So to honour that concept, which nation or region needs to be linked.
I'll come at the question from a different direction as well. What is the likelihood that a reader is going to come to this article by thinking, "what's the nation in south central Europe? You know the one. During the Christmas season they have that Krampus thing. I know, I'll check the Wikipedia article because it'll be listed there and I can click through to the article on the nation."
I'll come at the question from yet one other direction. If a reader comes to this article, either by a specific search of the term or by clicking through one of the approximately 500 articles that are linked to it, and say to themselves, "I know nothing about Austria, Bavaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Northern Italy including South Tyrol, Slovakia or Slovenia, which of them should I click through to first to learn about it?" Remembering that they're linked in the opening paragraph. Remembering that we don't want to create a WP:SEAOFBLUE.
I await your response. If the questions are not answered, this will likely be the only comment I make on the subject.
While you deliberate, I'll comment, for the record, that I'd be fine deleting Bavaria and Northern Italy but South Tyrol is sufficiently obscure that it probably should remain linked, but for consistency, could see its removal as well. The process that I used to determine what should and should not be linked was a script that de-links only physical countries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First question: there are many levels of understanding a concept. At a superficial level, the concept of Krampus can be understood without talking about specific regions. On the other hand, since Krampus comes from *folklore*, it is quite relevant which people share this cultural concept. Therefore, for a deeper level of understanding, the regions (its people, history, geography, etc.) sharing this tradition are quite relevant for the concept.
Your second question is quite misleading: you might equally ask What is the likelihood that a reader is going to come to this article by thinking, "what's the region in the northern part of Italy bordering Austria? You know the one. During the Christmas season they have that Krampus thing. I know, I'll check the Wikipedia article because it'll be listed there and I can click through to the article." As you see, this looks quite silly even for South Tyrol. Furthermore, similar fictive sentences could be constructed for almost all links in the article, like "What was this authoritarian regime in Austria that served as a prelude to its annexation into Nazi Germany before WWII? You know the regime that also forbid some folklore traditions. Ohh, I have an idea: I'll check the Wikipedia article about Krampus, it'll be listed there and I can click through to the article." If we followed such an approach, we would have to remove most links.
Thus, in my opinion, linking all regions including countries would be the best thing to do, but as compromise, I could also accept removing all links to regions. KœrteFa{ταλκ}00:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Linking all regions and countries is acceptable to me, linking only regions is acceptable to me. Not linking any region or country is not acceptable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Linking all regions and countries is not an option.
I'm not sure I see how asking the question is misleading as that's a guiding principle behind knowing what to link and what not to. If the connection is sufficiently close, such an association will be made. If it's not, then there's no need to link. The absurdity of the concept simply shows that there's no reason to link any of those regions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article lead currently says "The origin of the figure is unclear; some folklorists and anthropologists have postulated it as having pre-Christian origins, and that in Norse or Germanic mythology, he was the son of the goddess Hel." This claim is cited to news.nationalgeographic.com, which in fact simply says:
Krampus, whose name is derived from the German word krampen, meaning claw, is said to be the son of Hel in Norse mythology. The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns.
In turn, National Geographic cites Encyclopedia Mythica, which is by no means a reliable source on the topic of Norse mythology, and is full of falsities culled from no where. In fact, because it's terrible, it is in fact blacklisted from this website (since 2010, see here also). If it was ever there, it appears that Encyclopedia Mythica has removed the bit about Krampus. Maybe they got an email from a specialist, who knows.
Because I wanted your explanation, since that given in your edit summary was not sufficient. Is there a discussion somewhere about the reliability of Encyclopedia Mythica? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that discussion in which you were a major participant, the decision appears to have been to remove EM from the blacklist and restore it to the whitelist. Am I incorrect in that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the item remains on the blacklist. I'm unclear on this matter, and it was now eight years ago that these exchanges took place. However, pantheon.org is most certainly an unreliable source that doesn't even support what National Geographic's news blog attributes to it. In short, I've outlined the problems with the National Geographic above. Please kindly revert your reversion. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's every possibility I will, but the discussion is not over yet, and there's no rush. If National Geographic News cites EM, how is Pantheon.org involved? I'm unclear about the relationship. And are you saying that National Geographic News deliberately miscited something, or made a major error, or what? I'm entirely unclear about what your claim is. Since National Geographic is without a doubt a reliable source, I don't see why National Geographic News isn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, looking at the source again, you're wrong in saying that NGN cites EM for the information that Krampus is the son of Hel. The link they provide is only for the phrase "Hel in Norse mythology", so the question of whether Encyclopedia Mythica is a reliable source or not is moot. The only question, therefore, is whether National Geographic News is a reliable source, and I would say that it is, so I won't be reverting. If you think that NGN is not a reliable source, start a discussion on WP:RSN and get a ruling there -- but be certain that you describe the situation accurately, as you did not do here. NGN is not relying on Encyclopedia Mythica for the information it reports about Krampus, it simply provides a hyperlink to that site for the reader to get more information on Hel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've taken a look at the article! Well, that's a good first step. If it's not relying on EM, then it's citing no one. And it certainly doesn't say anything about "folklorists and anthropologists". Off to WP:RSN we go. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had added a piece of information which I got from a National Geographic article claiming that Krampus was the son of the Norse goddess Hel, but it had been removed for being a dubious claim. I'm fine with this. However, it had been restored then deleted again by two other people. I foresee that it may become an issue in the future, and I wish to bring a consensus on whether or not the information is reliable and should be included. I personally believe that National Geographic is a reliable source, but I do know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Feel free to debate. The article in question is here. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131217-krampus-christmas-santa-devil/DiegoAma (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Here's the sequence of events:
DiegoAma adds the information from National Geographic News
Bloodofox reverts
I restore, and also integrate the information into the existing last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the lede, about pre-Christian origins (which is referring to the information in the "Origins" section)
Bloodofox and I discuss the edit here, and Bloodofox, at my suggestion, opens a discussion on WP:RSN
Galobtter, responding to the RSN discussion, removes the NGN information, but also removes the pre-existing "pre-Christian" sentence.
I restore the "pre-Christian" sentence, which, because it is summarizing sourced information from the body of the article, does not need an additional source (see WP:LEADCITE)
So the upshot is that Galobtter upheld Bloodofox's revert of DiegoAma's addition, which is no longer in the lede. The lede is back to where it was before DiegoAma edited it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to serve our readers, not to robotically follow MOS guidelines. If we present a lingish list of places, then it serves the readers that each of the places be linked, so that they can go to those articles without having to search the article for other links, or head to the search box. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not serving readings by inserting links that will not be clicked. I have no problems with removing all location links if that offends you, but the nations are well-understood by readers and it's a waste to include them.
New elements were added to the list, so there is no "status quo" per se.Is there some reason you're not willing to do what's best for the reader? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a STATUSQUO, no OVERLINKing. I'm not sure why you think that there was none. As is clear from OVERLINK, the reader is actually hindered by linking common terms (SEAOFBLUE) and they will not click through to the common nations you incorrectly insist on linking. No one is going to ask themselves, "what's that country in Europe, you know the one that borders on Croatia. I know, they celebrate Krampus, so I look up the Wikipeda article to find a link to the country so I can read about them." Seriously, how is a reader helped by these links? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just sth interesting here. was watching cnn this weekend and some artist from Abebo, Cote De Ivoire said sth about mask races and other contests in his village. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) PS It was African voices.[reply]
the text says St Nicholas wears the vestments of an Eastern Orthodox bishop, but in all the images he is wearing a Western-style Mitre. The other vestments are not clear but are not clearly Eastern.--142.163.194.149 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and the original author of the Krampus wiki keep taking down the information I provided which states that the information that is currently there on Wikipedia is wrong or incomplete, and when I provided the correct information showing that Krampus is the son of the Norse god hel, they remove my edit. Wikipedia can not take away from the truth, and sadly the information in the Krampus article is far from the origins or truth. 2606:9400:8B9F:D0C0:EC5C:994:D400:854F (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently removed a round of extremely poor additions to the article, presenting theory as fact, playing very loose with sources, and presenting very poor sources. To maintain quality here, we need to be very careful about what goes into this article and keep a close eye on it. Stick to sources from experts only, folks. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit WP:OR and intentional misrepresentation of sources regarding Krampus and anti-semitic imagery
Added by @Xirtam Esrevni:December 28 2023, until I removed it today, nearly a year later, the article had a section called "Antisemitic Undertones" and containing the following misinformation:
Krampus' appearance and features are characterized by horns, hooves, fur, hooked nose, beard, dark hair, fangs, and a long tongue. Scholars have noted that the hooked nose and grotesque features mirror the antisemitic images of Jews in historical central European art. Artistic representations of Krampus alongside Saint Nicholas further emphasize this contrast. For instance, early 20th-century Austrian postcards depict Krampus with a devilish appearance, contrasting sharply with the saintly, Aryan features of Saint Nicholas. This juxtaposition reinforces the "otherness" of Krampus but also subtly aligns his characteristics with historical antisemitic depictions of Jews.
To this was attached several references. There must be a lot of discussion about this with plenty of evidence, right? I mean, look at all those references! Well, let's see what they actually have to say.
First, as part of a broader discussion of goat-like figures associated with December festivities in Europe, this BA thesis says:
In the Central European folklore there is a goat figure called Krampus that seemingly originates from pagan harvest deities while it incorporates the medieval bestiaries’ view of the goat. Krampus, the evil counterpart of the Catholic equivalent of Santa Claus called Saint Nicholas, is an anthropomorphic, devilish goat that is seen accompanying the figure inspired by the patron saint of children at Christmastime. While Saint Nicholas gives the children presents, Krampus’ duty is to punish the misbehaving ones. Next to the patron saint of children, an allegorical representation of the good shepherd, Krampus can be seen as a metaphor of a sinner who refused Jesus like a goat turning away from him to the desert, choosing the darkness of the pagan wilderness instead of the light of the civilization. Although the Catholic church tried to extirpate the legend, it remained because it could be harnessed to emphasize the battle between good and evil. (p. 26-27)
This is the sole mention of Krampus in the BA thesis and it does not tie to antisemitic propaganda. Rather, Krampus is mentioned as part of a broader survey of similar figures in European folklore, such as the Scandinavian Yule goat, which horned Krampus does in notable ways resemble.
Next, there's this one from "Sacred Matter magazine", an online publication whose editorial board consists of two individuals at Emory University, one of them a PhD student and the other likely the student's advisor. There doesn't appear to be any kind of peer-review process or anything similar. The brief article, which doesn't cite a single source, attempts to tie depictions of Satan and, in extension, Krampus to "non-Christians" and anti-semitic imagery. However, the author must also admit:
There are no definitive statements that declare Krampus to be an antisemitic or anti-Judaic figure explicitly meant to juxtapose Jews with Saint Nicholas or align Jews with the Devil.
In reality, the entire introduced section is based on this source, presenting part of its conclusion as fact, when in reality it is a claim made on what is essentially a blog.
In short, this whole section is a sham: it appears to present a chorus of scholars but does nothing of the sort. It intentionally misleads the reader. The editor has intentionally abused and harmed Wikipedia as a project and had I not caught this, it would still be in the article today. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warner Bros is NOT the Studio that produced Red One. The correct studio is Amazon MGM Studios. This is located in the last paragraph under the category "In Popular Culture" in the last sentence. Confirmed in Google, Amazon, various press articles and IMDb.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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): Vlietbj.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Which pictures are at issue, and what are you proposing they be replaced with? /wia🎄/tlk 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. All the other ones have sources, so should this one. Or better yet, perhaps you should place this in the main article providing you have a source that backs up your claim. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)