Talk:Yule log

Folklore Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To CAGAR or not to CAGAR

I am of the opinion that the pooping log of Christmas does not belong in the same article with the traditional YULE LOG, other than as a SEE ALSO. The yule log is about holiday logs burned at Christmas time (Yule tide) OR logs having the NAME yule log. Other "logs" do not belong in this article except as referenced "see also". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.117.219 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Please

Even the bonfires of ancient times survived in the tradition of the Yule log, perhaps the most universal of all Christmas symbols. Can the author of this sentence please provide some evidence that the Yule log is universally recognized as a Christmas symbol--both to Christians and non-Christians around the world? As a Westerner of Christian background, I think of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and nativity scenes as major Christmas symbols in modern times. Not the Yule log. 71.113.154.193 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jul, the scandinavian word for Christmas

I miss a note about the similarity with the scandinavian word for christmas-Jul. This word is said to have led to the french word jolie and is mentioned when the bysantine court guard (varjags) celebrate christmas by dressing in furs and shouting Jul! Jul! Is there a a connection? (Regarding the non pagan influense mentioned by von Sydow it should be noted that the post-Weibullian tradition in Swedish history writing in practise says: if you have no written account on whateveer this is to be regarded as non-historic and should not be take inte account. Instead of just noting that no written period accounts exist and thus the feature is not proven, but a tradition. A big difference.) Sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.70.178 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Christmas tree?

The Yule Log, as a piece of tree set afire at midwinter to mark the soltice and the return of spring, is no different from the Christmas Tree. The former is Saxon, the latter German. In Lithuania, they used to go out into the forest and set a tree on fire. Shouldn't these articles AT LEAST be linked? Evertype 00:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yule Log?

Should this article merge with [Yule Log (TV program)]]? --Blue387 09:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Yeah, they are sort of the same area of subject...[reply]

I don't think merger is a good idea, the subjects are similar, but not congruent. I have a question of my own. Susan Cooper, in her "The Dark is Rising" series of young adult fiction says the yule log is from the root of the tree. Does anyone know anything about that? Mannykrasner@yahoo.com

About the Yule Log = Root thing

For what it's worth, I found this at snopes.com -- "It was unlucky to buy a yule log. Lucky ones were obtained from one's own land or from a neighbor's wood. Often a stump or a root (not necessarily a proper log at all), it was brought home on Christmas Eve and laid in the hearth." Krychek 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yule log or Yule Log?

The capitalization of "l" in "log" is random in this article, which is very distracting. Moncrief 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty Yule Logs?

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the only picture of Yule Logs found in this article are made of cake? Yummy, but not really appropriate. Also, what is meant by "The Yule Log, as a piece of tree set afire at midwinter to mark the soltice and the return of spring, is no different from the Christmas Tree." Hello? The difference is that one is decorated and the other is set on fire. Big difference, I think.

Recent Llewellyn Worldwide/Publications-derived additions

Recently a bunch of stuff from Llewellyn Worldwide have been added here. Much of this "information" is simply misinformation without any foot in actual sources or history. The company has an immensely overshadowing reputation for publishing all sorts of new age blather. Please do not add information here from these sources without first checking the sources Llewellyn gives (if they are given at all) and then citing those sources as the basis of the claim, then we can go from there, otherwise you are likely encountering someone's daydream being stated as fact. There's so much nonsense and confusion regarding this subject matter that we need to be particularly careful as to what is added here. I am always amazed how much information in these quarters gets passed off as "fact", ending up all over, and without a single foot in a historical source; this "Holly King" stuff is a prime example. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cite a source attesting to this unreliability, don't obliterate sourced material because you're going to make a claim that the source is no good -- particularly when your own sources include nineteenth century nationalists, many of whom had fairly dubious notions about national and ethic origins of traditions. From your user page it seems clear that you have a strong interest in Thor and Germanic paganism, which is fine, as long as you cite your sources when you assert the preeminence of these in European traditions. In so doing, don't defame sourced material on your opinion alone (or the word of "some administrator you talked to who is an expert", as you put it on my user talk), establish its unreliability as you establish anything else, with sourced material. If you can't, then take it at face value. Add your material, don't replace other material with it. Edit, don't destroy. Larry Dunn (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source that is not published by the company you dislike; I trust this will end your deletion of this (now multiple sourced) material. Add your Thor stuff, and please cite a source. Larry Dunn (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this information was there before it was apparently removed in a wave of vandalism. There are two sources in the information you removed. The first source is from 1865: [1]. Check it out. The second is from 1965 and is from H. R. Ellis Davidson. Yule has zero to do with Celtic polytheism and is instead derived from Germanic paganism, this is clear. It's just that Wiccan circles mix the two as a form of modern religion. The source you have superimposed over this is a book from 2007 ([[2]]) by Wiccan author Dorothy Morrison by an often criticized publisher[3][4] (both from the article about the subject alone - there's plenty more out there). This is very much an unreliable source. I am not going to edit war with you about it but this is obviously bogus. None of this has anything to do with Nationalism and neither do these sources. Anyway, about the administrator, I just asked them to look at the Holly King (myth) article as it's basically more new ageness masquerading as historical fact and they tend to edit a lot in those circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Larry, but Llewellyn books are pop-culture books without any scholarly standards for sourcing. No reputable writer would rely on them for sourcing anything encyclopedic. They might be useful when providing examples of pop-Wicca or fakelore, but that's about it. In the rare cases where one of their books may have footnotes, look into those sources. But, for the most part, Llewellyn books don't have footnotes. It's just not their thing. In general, Wiccan books should not be used as sources on folklore, anyway. Use folklore sources and academic writers published on University presses. Davidson, for example, is an excellent, scholarly writer on matters both Celtic and Germanic. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw the discussions at Yngvadottirs. First the tradition is as well known in Germany, as Christblock. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie mentions it. The explanation with ancient Norse/wicca sounds like a James George Frazer continuity story, which is, as a rule of thumb, always and everywhere wrong ;) Point is, the custom has been mentioned as early as the 11th century. People were allowed to get an extra log or block (ad festivum ignem, for the feast fire). Paulus Stephanus Cassel is imho on the right track, he relates to poor people being allowded or not punished to steal or get a log, but just on xmas, so they may not have had the time to hack it to smaller pieces. Serten II (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia

Croatians don't have a Yule Log. Yule log is mostly Serbian and Bulgarian tradition.

No work as long as the log burns?

I thought that was the origin (the modern/Victorian tradition). Like this site says,

http://www.noelnoelnoel.com/trad/yulelog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.190.237 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous Poor Sources Repeatedly Added to Article

Recently @1990'sguy: has added, and readded numerous unreliable sources to the Yule log, many of them from evangelical Christian publishers and authors without any formal background in folklore studies. Examples include the following:

Collins, Ace (2010). Stories Behind the Great Traditions of Christmas. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310873884.

As his page makes clear, Ace Collins is not a folklorist nor an academic of any sort, and Zodervan is a Christian publishing branch of HarperCollins.

Bowler, Gerry. 2005. Santa Claus, A Biography. McCellend & Stewart Ltd.

While certainly better credentialed than Collins, Bowlery is not a folklorist, nor a specialist, but is also happens to be a Christian interests author. This is a general audience book not subject to peer review, and another WP:RS fail.

Grimassi, Raven. 2000. Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 9781567182576.

Llewellyn Worldwide is a new age publisher that regularly publishes fringe stuff with zero editorial oversight. This is an RS fail.

Mosteller, Angela. 2010. Christmas, Celebrating the Christian History of Classic Symbols, Songs and Stories. Holiday Classics Publishing.

Obvious WP:RS fail (author's site). All that aside, appears to be self-published, which, under normal circumstances, would mean immediate removal–but here we are.

Weiser, Franz Xaver. 1958. Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs. Harcourt.

Catholic theologian with no background in folklore studies, nor any background, it would seem, outside of Catholic theology. Yet another WP:RS fail.

None of these are reliable sources and all of them should be removed immediately. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your identical comment at WP:RSN. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least these seem egregiously WP:UNDUE for the lead. The Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs in particular seems unequivocally WP:BIASED and therefore definitely cannot be cited without an in-line citation making it clear that this is merely Weiser's opinion, and Weiser's opinion absolutely should not be mentioned in the lead the way it is now. A work whose purpose is, in part, to "inspire fruitful celebration in the church" (from its own self-description) absolutely cannot be cited for statements of unattributed fact under any circumstances. --Aquillion (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking the article over, we already have academics making the point that it's unclear if the custom stems from Germanic paganism or if it was more recent innovation tied to the concept of Yule in a post-Christianized context. We have no need for random hits on Google Books to make this point, and certainly not to insert quotes from non-experts into the lead. I've added a bunch of new references from reliable sources—specialists—and I'll continue to flesh the article out. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus at WP:RSN to remove the sources/info from the article, with at least one other editor (User:Slatersteven) agreeing that it wasn't justifiable to completely remove those sources -- thus, I restored Bloodofox's removal of information. I have no problem with trimming the introduction or attributing the sources, but they should be kept, particularly with the lack of consensus to remove them. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every user told you there that the sources you used are not quality sources. I get that you're attempting to turn this article into an essay to promote a specific evangalical message—that's clear—but that simply isn't happening here. Inserting sentences like "the yule log symbolizes the battle between good and evil: 'as the fire grew brighter and burned hotter, and as the log turned into ashes, it symbolized Christ's final and ultimate triumph over sin'" into the lead from some guy you found on the internet named Ace Collins. This is undue emphasis on a non-notable figure with zero background on the topic. Add to that a bunch of other junk sources that happen to either contradict or simply repeat what every academic already cited in the article says? Nope.

The article makes it clear that it may have been an innovation, cited to reliable sources. It does not, however, present non-notable, non-expert individuals such as Ace Collins's personal beliefs as fact in the lead (see WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY). Are you Collins or related to him, hoping to drum up some sales? Whatever the case, find reliable sources—philologists, folklorists, any academic with a bakground in ancient Germanic studies—rather than random Google Book evangalist hits you happen to agree with. Do that and we can include them. Otherwise move on and stop wasting your time and mine.

Users who regularly edit in ancient Germanic studies topics may be interested in what's going on here and helping expand the srticle with reliable sources (eg. @Yngvadottir:, @Krakkos:, @Ermenrich:, @Katolophyromai:, @Alarichall:, @Obenritter:). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The poor sources repeatedly added are not an improvement to this article. Per WP:BRD, i have therefore restored the consensus version pending further discussion. Krakkos (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I concur, these were not an improvement. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Article content and sources

There is a clear consensus to exclude this material for being undue and for being based on unreliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this information and the corresponding sources be kept or deleted from the article? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:RS. The information is well-sourced, and since the Yule log is clearly a part of the Christian tradition, it is appropriate to cite Christian authors even if they are not pagan folklore academics/experts. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pagan folklore academics/experts"? No, the experts cited in the article are folklorists, experts on folklore. Some of them are also Chrsitians. Being a Christian does not make you an expert on folklore, Christian folklore or otherwise, but being a folklorist makes you an expert on folklore, Christian folklore or otherwise. Are you connected to one of these authors you're pushing so hard to get into the article's lead? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Numerous Poor Sources Added to Yule log to Promote Religious POV for further context. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious WP:RS fails, completely redundant, and clear WP:UNDUE. This again? The article covers everything you're trying to add already but with exprts, and user after user has now told you that these sources are poor and unacceptable. You are clearly trying to inject your POV into the article and/or have some personal connection to one of the sources you are trying to add. The article already makes it perfectly clear that the tradition may have come from innovation or may have stemmed from a pagan precursor with solid sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already rejected by a preponderance of interested editors. This looks like flogging a dead horse.William Avery (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for most of it. I looked up some of the sources and they certainly are RS from some respectable publishers: McCellend & Stewart Ltd (imprint of Penguin), Zondervan (academic publisher), Harcourt (an imprint of Houghton Mifflin and Elsevier who do textbooks) etc. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These "respected publishers" publish all sorts of fringe nonsense and material that violates WP:RS. Expertise is what matters, not what moves publisher units. None of these authors hold any reelvant expertise. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. See above discussion. Article should cite experts wherever possible. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations meet WP:RS as they are from reputable publishers. Additionally, the material covered by the sources discusses how the custom assimilated into Christmas celebrations, which were introduced to Europe after its Christianization. Excelse (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTEXT—context matters. Being a Christian author with a book deal does not make you an expert on folklore studies, whether it involves Christianity or not. Additionally, Llewellyn Worldwide publishes tons of fringe stuff. Also, adding some random guy's interpretation of a Yule log as a battle of 'good versus evil' in the lead next to commentary from scholars? Come on. "Additionally, the material covered by the sources discusses how the custom assimilated into Christmas celebrations, which were introduced to Europe after its Christianization" is also incorrect—the Yule log was not introduced, it was either a continuation of pre-Christian Germanic tradition or it was an innovation that somehow spread, which the experts in the article already make clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove entirely. Christian propaganda is not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Try Conservapedia. jps (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some *Opposesome. Seems to me that yes Christian experts would be valid in interpreting Christian imagery or tradition. That this is a valid inclusion. I am less sure about the Wiccan source and agree this is undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, these individuals are not experts in the history of Christianity, nor are they experts in Christian folklore—they are not historians of religion, folklorists, or philologists (unlike Rudolf Simek, an expert cited throughout the article and who also happens to be a Catholic). The individuals the editor wants to introduce are simply writers who happen to be Christian. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Weiser Doctor of theology, at least one other is a professor of history. Thats enough for me to say at least some pf this has some academic credibility.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weiser was a theologian, which is irrelevant to folk tradition. His interpretation, if it's notable not already covered by specialists, could be directly cited in the body. However, you really think the article should lead with a quote from Ace Collins about how, according to Collins but presented as simple fact, the log symbolizes a battle between good and evil? Come on, these are junk sources pushing an evangelical POV. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I am less sure about the Wiccan source and agree this is undue", I am not going to reply to you any more if you are not even going to bother to read it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Collins is not a wiccan source, but one of the evangelical Christian sources the user intends to add. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake you are correct, I apologize. He added a number of sources, and no Collins was not one of those I was referring to with " at least one other is a professor of history" hence why I thought you were referring to the "Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft" source. Gerry Bowler is a Professor of history.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bowler, who teaches at the University of Manitoba, is the guy making claims about Celts and human sacrifices. He's also an evangelical, which is likely why the above user plucked him from the ether, but his credentials as a historian make him far less of an issue in comparison to Ace Collins. That said, he's also out of step with the rest of the academics cited in this article, and they already discuss everything he's cited as mentioned beyond the bizarre stuff about human sacrifice. If we're going to include his opinions, they need to be directly cited as his opinions. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. This RFC was advertised at WP:FTN by Bloodofox in a highly non-neutral way (here). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Llewellyn Worldwide publishes lots of fringe material, and is one of the sources this user intends to add. It's entirely appropriate to mention on said notice board. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even remotely care. What I do care about is the violation of WP:CANVASSING. Appropriate passages include, "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. And "The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive): ... Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. It's a board for notifying other editors about discussion occurring about fringe subjects. We're discussing a fringe publisher. Explaining why a topic is fringe is necessary. Don't think Llewellyn publishes fringe material? Do please tell us why. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to wp:ANI, do not discuss it here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all. (via WP:FTN) Collins (2010) and Grimassi (2000) should not be used. Did not really look at Bowler (2005) or Weiser (1958), there is too much going on in that diff. Really, you can't just throw a bunch of quotes or random conclusions into the article, there is way to much of that in their already. Should be summarizing reliable sources and building content, not just listing them. Any quote or in text attribution of a source is WP:UNDUE until you find other sources quoting them or highlighting their conclusions. Horrible article, reads like a bibliography.—eric 20:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: If no better sources are found, it probably isn't of enough scholarly interest for Wikipedia... If they exist, they also likely report about the beliefs in ways that may be more suitable. In either case, it would be another matter if the lead can also include it. I can find other sources that generally agree with these claims, but from another religious propaganda organization (articles by anonymous authors). —Paleo Neonate – 09:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove based on these sources, which are fringe. Guy (help!) 13:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per PaleoNeonate's reasoning, basically. I'd also say that judging by publisher is an incredibly imprecise means of evaluation; that some other imprint of a company has made respectable books isn't really a stamp of approval for those in question here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Those sources simply aren't reliable. HAL 333 22:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is true that Evangelicals have a fun time justifying their adherence to the secular religion of "Christmas" as being rooted in Christianity. I mean, obviously, Christmas is a Christian holiday, but the lengths to which the adherents go to retcon all Christmas traditions that are documented by the WP:MAINSTREAM to have pagan roots is a bit laughable. Saving Christmas is worth a watch just to see what kind of arguments abound in these areas. jps (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - The content fails WP:UNDUE and the sources fail WP:RS. Adding this material is not an improvement to the article. Krakkos (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I don't have any new arguments but this is clearly based on unreliable sources and is UNDUE. And I have found very reliable academic publishers publishing material that includes some amazing fringe, so I'm not impressed by the names of publishers. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Most of the sources doesn't seem like reliable sources on either folklore, Christian history, or European history. Neutrality^talk 17:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.