Talk:Krampus

Zwart Piet

I see that in many of the images, the krampus has Zwart Piet's roe, the small bundle of twigs used to whip the baddies with. : ) 217.166.94.1 (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Whipping children on Christmas seems to be a common element to most of the Companions of Saint Nicholas, disturbingly enough. Шизомби (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Austrian Civil War?

There was an Austrian Civil War against fascists and German Nazis??????? 76.199.11.114 (talk) Semper Anon —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

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)

Concerns about the intent and relevant accuracy of this page

I want to note several concerns about 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 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The mention of the Colbert Report is that it was mentioned in the Colbert Report, nothing more. I'll see what sources I can find for the article after I get home from church (the most recent issue of National Geographic covers Krampus a little). As for Krampus being a folk tradition, I have [Christmas in Ritual and Tradition by Clement A. Miles], as well as that National Geographic. By the way, I'm from the American South, and I've never eaten squirrel. In fact, a handful of my relatives are the only people I know of that have eaten squirrel. But, the article only says that squirrels are eaten, not that it is common. More later. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Incubus-like

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)

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)

Popular Culture entries

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)

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)

As I recall, that movie is based on Joulupukki. -- Limulus (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Origin of the tradition?

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 | Talk 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a few decent sources out there, but I'm thinking that the best ones are probably in German. The Interior (Talk) 07:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture section, Dec 2011

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I suppose the price of IPC sections is cruft vigilance. -- Limulus (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 Doom 13:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Should you add it?

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 really notable?) 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! :)

-- Limulus (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Krampus and Perchten

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 21^st) and no later than the "Perchtl-Night," January 6^th (today's Epiphany in the Christian calendar.) Krampus only appears around Dec. 5^th, 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)

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)

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 6^th (= Rauhnächte,) the Krampusse belong exclusively to the Advent-customs." No reference there, either, though.

So, that's why I thought I mentioned it in the discussion page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpendruide (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Image

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)

Feel free to redo the image layout, I for one am not married to it. There's a good pool of images to choose from, more on commons.The Interior (Talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Coming of age" paragraph

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)

IPC cleanup

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)

This has been reverted with the rationale that the discussion is ongoing. Well, let's discuss then. The Interior (Talk) 03:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nothing on WP:IINFO applies here, and WP:IPC is an essay. It appears to me that you are treating popcult information are some sort of "second class citizen" of information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

I assert it because none of the three statements there apply here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The general explanation regarding indiscriminate information applies here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So you've never participated in an AfD? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've implemented these changes, and have also removed the subheadings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Non-Krampus Figures

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)

I agree. Are yout referring to the "Other names" section, or the "See also"? The Interior (Talk) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am, yes. As well as any other unfounded, unsourced equations. This was an issue over at Baba Yaga some time ago, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Plural

Question, what would the plural version of "Krampus" be exactly? 184.44.4.44 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Krampus is a name. It's like asking what is the plural of "Fred."