Talk:Kelpie: Difference between revisions

	Kelpie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 15, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology FA‑class Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I haven't seen the term - always just "kelpie".....just sayin'......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced in the first citation. Eric Corbett 23:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Walter Scott's poem - see pages 298-300. Not sure if it helps with the question below but on p. 300 Appendix - the short paragraph that starts: "It is believed in Angus ...." "... attributes are selected as are appropriate to the scenery." Or am I just making the waters even muddier? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better in the article now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there's gotta be a quote somewhere distinguishing the former's often mischievous nature vs the latter's uniformly bloodthirsty one. I can add something from Katharine Brigg's Dictionary of Fairies but not quite contrastive enough...will peruse again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different authors differ in their accounts, which is what we've tried to convey in the article. There's really no universally accepted definition or description of a kelpie. And as some of the folk tales we've included, in particular the kelpie on the island of Barra demonstrate, the kelpie wasn't universally thought to be bloodthirsty. Eric Corbett 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Hundred Years in the Highlands by Osgood Mackenzie, page 235, says: The story of the celebrated water-kelpie—it was sometimes spoken of as the Each Uisge, and at other times as the Tarbh Oire; Westwood only mentions the Each Uisge once in passing when she's discussing the Water bull. An overall standard definition is pretty much as elusive as the creatures themselves. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Breton's illustration of Orobas, High Priest of Hell [1] is often used as a depiction of a kelpie. I know it isn't one (obviously, they don't exist...I mean, I know it was never meant to be one), but it seems a pity that, when it is constantly described as a horse spirit, there are only images of romantic watery nymphettes and a line drawing of something that could be a depiction of something similar. Could you not include the Breton image with some explanatory text or would that be a breach of the OR rule? Belle (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Extensive searches were undertaken by several editors with considerable experience in sourcing suitable, correctly licensed, images - Orobas has no connection whatsoever with kelpies so it would be inappropriate for the image to be included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently I swept through this article and found all sorts of issues: Links to an amateur website about "the paranormal", an inter-Wikipedia "reference", a note on werewolves that wasn't in the reference cited (and was also rather confused), a reference to the pseudo-science of cryptozoology, "Myth", "fable", and "folktale" used as synonyms, a title was employed, modern nations were referred to as ancient in one incident, and "folktale" was written as "folk tale". I even took the time to check up on a variety of the references used, and I expanded from a reference and added a quote from it, as the original write up from it was also rather confused. Personally, I've got a background in folkloristics and I've written a ton of related articles, and all of these changes were thoroughly commented on in my edit summaries. However, this was all mass reverted [2] with the explanation of "unsourced, DABs". Nothing "unsourced" was added; in fact, unsourced material was *removed*. DABs can easily be fixed. So what's the deal? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is that this article is on the front page today after having recently been reviewed favourably by independent editors.[3] There may be errors or deficiencies in the article despite that. However, since there is a general consensus that the article is in good shape, it is not appropriate to make major revisions right now. Please raise issues on the talk page before doing re-writes. Also, as you will see, petty vandalism has been going on today, as is usually the case. This makes it especially difficult to deal with constructive changes at this very moment. I'm sure in a day or so's time the editors of this article will be very pleased to have your knowledgable contributions. Thank you for your help on this. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a thoughtful response and I appreciate that, your reversion edit summary was insulting ([4] ("children came out for playtime")). The reversion consisted solely of my edits and no vandalism. Regardless of how many editors have seen this article, it was passed with clear problems. This appears to be an example of an FA article that needed a little more time in the cooker before being featured. The reference to cryptozoology and some of these other problems should have been caught at the very least. As for it being on the front page right now, until it's locked, it's still perfectly editable; editors just need to look at what they're reverting before they do so. Sometimes these articles benefit a lot by drawing the attention of specialists by way of this process. I mean, at the end of the day, we're here to improve the article, not blindly revert all edits to it until a few days have passed, aren't we? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the edit summary which, as I can now see, was not appropriate (or suitable under any circumstances). I am sorry about that. However, there had been a number of vandalism edits that several people had been trying to revert, sometimes not realising the extent of the problems. The reversion I made, although it undid some of your work, also restored the lead section, which had been entirely removed. My reversion covered a large number of edits and reversions, some good, many bad. People have to work hard to keep main page articles from being ruined and so problems like this can arise. Thincat (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and it may be of little comfort to you but the substantive edit I made (adding a reference) has also disappeared in the mêlée! I'm not surprised (this has happened to me before when I have made main page edits) and I am certainly not blaming anyone. I shall restore it in a few days' time. Thincat (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted to the original copy this morning was because there had been a number of edits - not by Bloodofox - which introduced unsourced information. I have since been out for the day and have only just returned. As Thincat states above, we will be more than willing to consider some suggested edits when we can go through each suggestion slowly. I have again reverted to the original copy. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see that some of these have been instituted. I still disagree with the reversions; this stuff really should have been caught before this got to "featured" status. Now that things have calmed down, I'll go back and adjust the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the article:

"The kelpie has counterparts across the world, such as the wihwin of South America," Do not exist such thing like wihwin in any country in South America. But do exist Iara!: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iara_(folklore) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iara_(mythology) Why my fix of the kelpie article was cleared?

• Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, so your edit was reverted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted your addition of this material and left an explanatory note on your talk page. Please do not add it again as it is not referenced. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you reply. But "wihwin of South America" is not referenced too! 03:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.145.227.231 (talk)

It is correctly referenced in the body copy - see ref #9. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was because this person was an IP User from Brazil, with imperfect command of English, but the way you marginalize this user's contribution doesn't seem to do justice. The user does make a valid point that there is no "wihwin of South America," and you should have shown good grace and conceded that on his/her prompting, you did make the correction to "Central America".--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil: I am re-inserting the Rose reference, which unlike the Varner reference (which requires a subscription) provides readily available information about the wihwin, which I have added as a quote in the ref. Please do not delete it again. --Thnidu (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Varner reference is a reliable source; the quote from Rose about the wihwin is not necessary as this article is about, and should remain focused on, the kelpie. I am therefore reverting it. Kindly respect this and do not change it. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil: I've just thanked you. That's for the fuller explanation. But please restore the redlink. As I understand policy (not looking up the page now, mobile editing is already enough of a pain), there's nothing wrong with a redlink to an unwritten page of reasonable notability. --Thnidu (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: Okay - I have restored the red link meantime; however, I personally hate red links unless there is a strong likelihood an article will be generated because I feel if there is sufficient notability at the very least a stub should be created. I'll ping Drmies as he can often magic sources "out of thin air" and American mythology is really not something I know about. There is already the passing mention in Varner plus the Rose ref - which, by the way, I can't see even when logged into my Amazon account and trying to utilise the 'Look inside' feature - but hopefully if at least one more reliable ref can be found, a very basic stub can be created to turn the red link blue. I'll see what more I can do in the morning (it's late here). SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Kudos for editing on a mobile - I struggle even on my iPad, let alone my iPhone![reply]

@Sagaciousphil: Thanks. —I can't imagine why you can't see the Google Books link... say, you said "Amazon": did you try the link I put? If it doesn't work, try this fuller one:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GKrACS_n86wC&pg=PA394&lpg=PA419&dq=wihwin#v=onepage&q=wihwin&f=false

I found plenty of sources with a simple Google search for wihwin. --Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did try the links. The problem is that Google doesn't show the same thing to everyone - this essay briefly explains it; sometimes Amazon can give a bit more access so I often check there as well. I will try to create a very basic stub for it this morning but the emphasis is on basic/minimal as I have no interest in the wihwin at all (and to be honest, I don't really think the onus is on me). SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my 08:23, 3 July 2014 edit of the Kelpie#Etymology section was reverted, apparently on a kill-on-sight policy, without real examination of what I was trying to accomplish, but I will list below the issues and flaws I was trying to address. --Kiyoweap (talk)

1. Gaelic etymology was unsourced.

   → Neither OED nor Mackillop was inline cited, and I chose to use Skeat's original paper. Perhaps you meant Harper's Online Etymological Dictionary at the end of parag to somehow point back to the first sentence, not sure, but some kind of fix was needed.

   What I meant by "inline citation" was a footnote after the first sentence to eliminate ambiguity. But if you are asserting OED is your source, it brings up the another issue. OED isn't as quite endorsing about Gaelic etymology as you, and in fact, your phrasing is frankly near verbatim to what's given in Harper's. Downplaying OED's skepticism and changing the nuance in this way is non-neutral POV. I feel that my edit that discussed Jamieson's kalb "calf" suggestion, countered by Skeat's Gaelic proposition was more balanced, though wound up being rather verbose. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Then it would be as well to say what you mean. Unlike you I do not consider myself to be a superior source to the OED, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of its etymology. Your claim that the phrasing is "frankly near verbatim to what's given in Harper's" is frankly ludicrous, and I will treat that with the contempt it deserves. Eric Corbett 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   (←) You aren't addressing the issue with your wild accusations. I am not refuting OED as a source, rather, pointing out that you are not sticking to the OED source. The OED, to paraphrase, states that [an unnamed lexicographer] has suggested an etymology based on Gaelic cailpeach "heifer", but corroborating evidence is lacking for this. This is clearly more skeptical tone than you put it. And I should think it plain to anyone's eyes that that your wording, "..but it may be derived from the Scottish Gaelic calpa.." is much closer to Harper's "..perhaps related to Gaelic colpach.." than the OED.--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Paper was cited using chapter heading name instead of paper title

   →Carlyle's paper (Transac. 1788) was cited using the chapter heading "An introduction to an Ode of Mr Collins," but the paper's title (according to Contents) is "An Ode on the Popular Superstions of the Highlands,.. etc."

   →This mistake also propounded another omission, and the actual title of Collins' ode fails to be mentioned anywhere in your edit. Done--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Collins' poem "manuscript.. from around 1759" not accurate

   →In OED online, "a1759" does not stand for "around 1759" but "ante 1759". The OED print edition gave a "1747" date, which made me enquire what the situation was. "Before 1759" just meant some time before the poet's death, and I preferred the "1749" date is given by Carlye's paper. Several books of within the past five years or so also give "1749-50" as date of composition.

   Corrected. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

   As I said, I prefer the 1749 date, with recent literature shifting terminus ante quem to 1750. However, if you are adamant I will just sigh and let you have your way. Please correct the "published some time before 1759" mistake you have introduced, then cross this item out, with a {{done}} mark. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)--correction on years, added by Kiyoweap (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Done--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. 1993 date of DOST arbitrary

   →I'm not sure about the exact publication dates for A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, but Part XVII "Judge— Knot" 1957?, Volume 3 H—L 1963 and 1967? so giving a date of some later edition seems arbitrary, and I preferred to just omit it.

   Addressed now, with a link added to the definition in the online edition of the DOST. Eric Corbett 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

5. then spelled kaelpie

   →This reads as if everyone spelt it that way at that time.

   As this is the first recorded use of the term then everyone did so far as we're concerned. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. Place names Kelpie hoall and Kelpie Hooll

   →"place names" (in the plural) is misleading. These are two variant spellings of one place name (singular) from the same record. Both your Margaret Scott's website and DOST (http://http://dsl.ac.uk) use the singular. Also note that Ms. Scott's spelling differs with "Kelpiehooll" found on DOST online, so this may need verifying in print.

   Whether or not these two place names refer to the same location is irrelevant, they are two place names. Place names are now consistent with those given in the DOST. Eric Corbett 06:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

7. Harper's Online Etymological Dictionary

   →I'm not exactly sure why this source has to be brought in, attached with a blurb of Mr. Harper being the founder in the body of the article, you need to explain to the rest of us. I guessed that it was because its content was a knockoff of what the Oxford English Dictionary had to say (even sharing the same intiials!), except this site was freely viewable and not subscriptions only.

   As it's really nothing to do with etymology I've moved that sentence to the beginning of the following paragraph. Eric Corbett 06:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me be brutally frank with you Kiyoweap. You are clearly wasting not just your own time here but more importantly mine. Added to which it's rather difficult to take seriously the comments of someone who would leave glashtyn in the state that you have, so why not go and tidy that up instead of trying to pick nits here? Eric Corbett 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I do agree I am belaboring mostly minor points. But if I expended such labor, I was only indulging your collaborator Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs)'s request to take up the points in the Talk Page. So for you to call them time-wasting and nit-picking is hardly warranted. In hindsight, on the smaller fixes, I might have broken them up piecemeal into a series of minor edits. So that is what I'll do for the smaller corrections from now on. I'm adding a strikeout and a {{done}} mark to the issues I feel you've addressed, but the others I feel you have dodged them.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap, I initially suggested you try to discuss matters here as your first edit did not make sense; in an attempt to be respectful I simply highlighted the DAB link errors etc in the edit summary when I reverted. I have reverted an edit you made to the article again this morning as once more you are introducing harv errors. In response to your comment above: "I prefer ... However, if you are adamant I will just sigh and let you have your way.", please note that your preference does not come into the equation, especially as you appear to prefer articles to resemble this. Also your veiled accusations of close paraphrasing etc are offensive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent revert Sagaciousphil, I think we can dispense with the pettiness. Fact is, the article in the Celtic Magazine was being cited using an erroneous volume and year (III, 1875), but when I corrected the {{citation}} I forgot to fix the {{Harv}} (actually {{sfnp}}) alongside, causing a break-link. Sagaciousphil might as well taken a minute to do the global change himself, but instead, he reinstated the erroneous issue year, I suppose, just so he can air his snide remark on my incompetence. I question the general propriety of this type of revert, using flimsy excuses such as Dab link or syntax to justify it, and it boggles my mind that Sgaciousphil could expect anyone at the receiving end to take it as a gesture of "attempt[ing] to be respectful." Be good enough to recall that bloodofox (talk · contribs) has already expressed his displeasure at being subjected to the same sort of revert tactic.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox is even more incompetent than you are, so his displeasure is of no consequence to me, or I dare say Sagaciousphil either. Eric Corbett 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of identifiable issues, which I tried to address with my edit.

• Incosistency in the old version as follows: "Lewis Spence define[s] kelpies as spirits living beside rivers..", vs. "every sizeable Scottish body of water has a kelpie story associated with it," citing Spence. Since Spence doesn't endorse Kelpies inhabiting lakes, I added in Graham as source on this and modified the statements.
• Kelpie's habitat rivers vs. lakes: I placed J. G. Campbell, Briggs (folklorists already appearing in article) into camps of opinion on this. Mackillop's dictionary's neatly solves the inconsistency by saying that the stream-only viewpoint was superseded by any body of water later. I think Ron Black (annotated edition of J. G. Campbell) provides better explanation.
• My edit has virtually deleted out statements attributed to John Gregorson Campbell, as I saw them as misrepresenting JGC's stance. Saying he "considered kelpies..relatively benign creatures [who] would rarely harm humans" hardly concurs with his acutal statement that "the kelpie .. devours women and children." As a mater of fact, JGC actually mitigates each-uisige's children abduction, saying it is an exaggerated bogeyman story ("pious fraud" "to silence a refractory child") that the adults tell to scare children. So it makes me skeptical about the assessement that Each Uisge is much bloodthirsty creature than the kelpie (stated by Cas Liber above and occuring in the each uisge article). JGC's gives a kelpie and mill story, but this is from Shetlands and turns out to be very similar to the "nuggle" stories from the Shetlands already given the article (citing Karl Blind); it seems iffy to me if this alone is any basis of what JGC thinks of kelpies in general. Another small point: in JGC's article thoroughout "water horse" is equivalent to the Celtic "each-uisge", not "water horses in general".--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder how many folks the folklorists spoke to and whether we'd have a different bunch of tales if they'd spoken to folks in different villages....but enough idle speculation. I don't claim to be any sort of expert by the whole mischievous kelpie vs decidedly bloothirsty each uisge stuck with me from childhood. I must admit I wouldn't say JGC is mitigating the each uisge's activities in explaining a source for their origin though. I think clarifying what authorities say which is a Good Thing, FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]