This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcharlton19. Peer reviewers: Jcharlton19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giezellebriseno.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's an anecdote you might be able to verify and add in: "No less impressive is the case of Iceland, where masses of verse have been preserved by no other means than that of oral tradition. William Craigie quotes a pertinent case. 'Another set of rimur composed by the same author (Sigurður Bjarnason) in 1862 has had a remarkable history. No manuscript of these has been preserved, but a younger brother learned them by heart at the age of fifteen, and at the same time noted the first line of each verse. Fifty-five years later, in Canada, and without having gone over them in his mind for thirty years, he dictated the whole of them, to the extent of 4000 lines, and they were printed at Winnipeg in 1919. This is not only significant for the history of Icelandic poetry but for that of some other literatures, where the possibility of such feats of memory has been gravely questioned by scholars of the present day.'"
Source: p117 of
Chaytor, H. J (1974). From Script to Print; an Introduction to Medieval Vernacular Literature. Folcroft, Pa.: Folcroft Library Editions. p. 156.
ISBN
0841435423. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help) , quoting p32 of
Craigie, William (1937). The art of poetry in Iceland. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we have more on: "The theoretical development at present may be the construction of systematic hermeneutics and aesthetics specific to oral traditions." at least some references please Szczels 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we get specifics on what needs sourcing/refs? Not helpful just to say "unsourced". DavidOaks 13:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What are good sources for reading about this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giezellebriseno ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the recent addition to the "Milman Parry and ALbert Lord" section --
"An excellent example of Parry’s work in recording oral tradition can be also be found in the recent (1998) book ‘Noah’s Flood – The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that changed the World’ by William Ryan and Walter Pitman published by Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.."
The comment does not say what oral tradition is referenced, nor does it give a page number, nor yet is it the most obvious source for Parry's field recordings. But maybe with a solid citation and explanation of the relevance of the pages it should be restored. DavidOaks 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oral history is certainly a distinct field with distinct methods -- very inappropriate to merge. Oral literature is a better candidate, but because it's organized by ethnic, linguistic and geographic divisions, and is not generally regarded (yet) as being primarily the province of oral traditional theory, a link under "see also" would seem more appropriate (same for oral history). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidOaks ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
There was some confusing material in the "oral history" article that really referred to "oral tradition", and was placed in the article based on the archaic usage of "oral history" to refer to "oral culture". I deleted it there and am pasting it here; if there is something useful it should be re-incorporated.
lquilter 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nannus removed the tag on March 5, noting in edit summary: "Removed merge tag, since oral literature forms only part of oral tradition (e.g. oral law is not oral history)". A very good point. -- lquilter 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am currently attempting to establish the relevance of our current articles on Psychodynamics and the supposed subordinate field Psychodynamic psychotherapy. In that context I am investigating the links to the Psychodynamics article. One of them originates with the current article. At first glance the term appears to denote something different from what the Psychodynamics article details. Could someone more abreast with the current subject verify whether this link is relevant? __ meco 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a few specific citations, mostly those already implied by the existing text. I have also made a few small elaborations that help to justify a couple of the citations.
Does anyone know how an 'Unsourced' tag can be removed? Brett epic 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To add balance to this article, there needs to a section that acknowledges serious criticisms of the Parry thesis and subsequent elaboration of it, and important splits within the emerging discipline. At present it still reads too much like a personal essay advocating a single POV. Brett epic 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please never remove maintenance tags without discussing/resolving the issue. It is good that you added quite a few references. Of course, an ideal case is that each piece of information is referenced, but wikipedia:Verifiability rule is not absolutely strict: plausible, easily verifiable information may stay unreferenced until some other wikipedian/reader questions it. Regardless, the following things must always be referenced:
In your case,
In addition, wikipedia's tradition is to keep a neutral tone, so please remove all exalted epithets, such as "brilliant", "prominent", "provocative", "massive", etc. `' Míkka >t 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you to learn to be "devil's advocate" and not only enjoy your own written text, but also try to guess which pieces may cause doubt by people not so familiar with the subject: wikipedia is written for them. Experts don't reach wikipedia to gain more wisdom (yet). `' Míkka >t 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In trying to generalize about the current state of the theory's acceptance, I added this:
While a number of individual scholars in many areas continue to have misgivings about the applicability of the theory or the aptness of the South Slavic comparison,[67] and particularly what they regard as its implications for the creativity which may legitimately be attributed to the individual artist.[68] However, at present, there seems to be little systematic or theoretically coordinated challenge to the fundamental tenets of the theory.
Now, I'm not sure if that requires documentaiton (I will try), but it presents the problem of documenting an absence. DavidOaks ( talk) 13:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that there is a proposal to merge the topic Oral-Formulaic Composition into this Oral Tradition topic. I don't think that is a good idea at present because the current article on Oral Tradition is very long and seems to me to lack structural balance, with parts of the article going into what seems to me to be lengthy and minute academic detail about debated aspects of some viewpoint or other. I think that before there is any move of material into the Oral Tradition article, it needs restructuring to become more understandable to someone outside the field. So some detail would be removed or be moved to new separate topics.-- AlotToLearn ( talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to insert "somewhere" a quote from William F. Albright, a respected scholar. "Again we must stress the fact that oral transmission of tradition is inherently more consistent and logical in its results than written transmission, since it sifts and refines. modifying whatever does not fit into the spirit of the main body of tradition." (From Stone Age to Christianity). This has certain ramifications for religion. It seems to summarize some of what is said but have no idea where it could go in the article. I would appreciate suggestions.
In part, this may have something to do with the above subtopic. The article seemed very scholarly but didn't seem to wind up anyplace or have room for a summary by a reliable "secondary source" author. Student7 ( talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I undid A Lot to learn's good-faith revision of the intro, and then tried to work Vansina back in (though he's already cited). Problem is, Vansina is working with a concept that's essentially "verbal folklore, possibly with musical accompiniment," rather than with the sound-patterned material essential to the discipline that Parry & Lord defined. We could have a note that acknowledges the simple fact that people mean a great many things by the term. On another matter "orature" is a perfectly awful term, but it has a degree of currency. DavidOaks ( talk) 04:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it correct that under the academic field of Oral Tradition, an item would not qualify once there is writing in the society concerned? If so, the field of study is narrower than the phrase as I would understand it, because I would regard the Vedas are oral tradition even though their tens of thousands of verses were preserved orally for centuries after the development of writing. Maybe we can resolve the scope problem by adding more "ordinary meaning/wider topic" material and subheads at the top, and then moving on to the narrower academic field of study further down article? Are the sophisticated rhythmic, tonal and gestural sequences used for teaching the mantras and sutras, etc of the Vedas part of the academic field? If not, maybe the topics need to be separated? -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
added words "mantras and" to above -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 02:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Academics contribute a great deal to this site and that contribution is appreciated. But a growing problem is that academics seem to forget the purpose of an encyclopedia: it is to inform a general public, not to continue or extend or reflect academic conversations.
A person like myself comes to these pages looking for answers to such practical considerations as whether exact transmission of words was considered important or whether stories were merely told or retold, what methods of memorization were used, and how efficiency the oral tradition is considered to be. I cannot find the answers I am looking for in this discussion of theorists and their theories!
In my view, the chief theorists and their theories should never be mentioned in the body of an article. Yes, this is a heresy and an extreme and it doesn't have to be adopted forcefully. Its intent is to establish a discipline in WP where the sort of saturation of the articles with the names of academics of their theories doesn't occur.
Please, there are countless places for academics to write academically for other academics. Don't do it here!
Again, with appreciation for what your contributions. -- 216.13.187.110 ( talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Although the article points to Christian Oral Tradition, it fails to point to many other oral traditions. Examples might be:
Shouldn't the most generic article about oral traditions (this one), eventually point to such? Thanks. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 04:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Oral tradition. 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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Oral tradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, I've just added a subsection on Native American oral traditions within the 'History' section of the article. Included are three paragraphs: one on the significance of oral storytelling to Native American cultures, one on the actual mechanics of how stories were/are told, and one on the historical and scientific aspects of stories. Peer-reviewed citations are included. I think this might help add to the greater body of work on oral traditions by focusing in on particular geographies and cultures. I am however slightly unsure of the best way to approach the issue of talking about pre-European contact oral traditions and oral traditions today, when many Native languages have since developed written systems. I do not want to imply by frequently using past tense that Native oral traditions are no longer important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcharlton19 ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Links: Four Guns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( recent AFD, discussion w/closer)
I propose merging with redirect
Four Guns to
Oral tradition#Native America, where Four Guns is already mentioned. It seems the only sources we have about Four Guns are transcriptions of a speech he gave in 1891 about the oral tradition of Native Americans
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7].
One of those sources writes: [p. 75] With the possible exceptions of Pushmataha (Choctaw) and Four Guns (Sioux), these speeches are authentic, accurate transcripts, obtained from highly reliable sources ... Four Guns' speech is simply too pertinent to omit ... [p. 76] as one who shares the deepest concern for truth and accuracy of the spoken word, this series will be limited, excluding Pushmataha and Four Guns, to manuscripts from highly credible Native American sources.
For all four
WP:MERGEREASONs, our reader would be best served reading about Four Guns's 1891 speech at
Oral tradition#Native American.
Le
v!v
ich 22:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Levivich: My first point is not irrelevant. You stated: Every oppose !vote here is about notability (it was a keep! therefore don't merge!)
. No, I am opposing the merger itself and the consensus of the merger discussion is "Oppose". Secondly,
MERGEREASONS states: Merging should be avoided if:
1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles.
3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short.
Therefore, all three "Merger should be avoided" reasons/rationale apply. Also, for the record, I am not a member of ARS. Netherzone ( talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Somewhere, perhaps in the preface to Roots, I read that Alex Haley had met with a man in Africa who memorized the stories of the people of his tribe, and that is where he heard their side of the story of his great grandfather Kunta Kinte being kidnapped. Perhaps this is relevant to the article? May the experts with a bit of time on their hands look into it? Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 22:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Several times surrounding Samuel and David, there are mentions of messangers with messages that are to be told in very certain words. Actually there are 78 referrals of "and say thus to..." throughout the old testament.
In one case Jesse, David's father, sends him to the field where Goliath is cursing the Israelis. "The man of Israel" then repeats the king's promise: "Have you seen that man coming up? To curse Israel he is coming up, and the man who hits him, the king shal make him rich with great richness, and his daughter he will give to him, and his father's home he will set free in Israel.
In another, David sends 10 warriors (the correct translation of Ne2arim as Yigael Yadin explained) to Abigail with a message which is repeated word for word.
This may also be the explanation of the lengthy repetitions in the story of Eliezer, Abraham's servant. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 23:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
'Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact' is a book that openly opposes what was and still is the consensus view of the history of the Americas, siding with Native American myths (as if these weren't incompatible with each other, too) against science, which in the author's view is just lies and fabrications of 'the white man'. As far as I'm concerned, this is nationalist activism and not scholarship. Why is it cited as a reliable source here? 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 00:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcharlton19. Peer reviewers: Jcharlton19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giezellebriseno.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's an anecdote you might be able to verify and add in: "No less impressive is the case of Iceland, where masses of verse have been preserved by no other means than that of oral tradition. William Craigie quotes a pertinent case. 'Another set of rimur composed by the same author (Sigurður Bjarnason) in 1862 has had a remarkable history. No manuscript of these has been preserved, but a younger brother learned them by heart at the age of fifteen, and at the same time noted the first line of each verse. Fifty-five years later, in Canada, and without having gone over them in his mind for thirty years, he dictated the whole of them, to the extent of 4000 lines, and they were printed at Winnipeg in 1919. This is not only significant for the history of Icelandic poetry but for that of some other literatures, where the possibility of such feats of memory has been gravely questioned by scholars of the present day.'"
Source: p117 of
Chaytor, H. J (1974). From Script to Print; an Introduction to Medieval Vernacular Literature. Folcroft, Pa.: Folcroft Library Editions. p. 156.
ISBN
0841435423. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help) , quoting p32 of
Craigie, William (1937). The art of poetry in Iceland. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we have more on: "The theoretical development at present may be the construction of systematic hermeneutics and aesthetics specific to oral traditions." at least some references please Szczels 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we get specifics on what needs sourcing/refs? Not helpful just to say "unsourced". DavidOaks 13:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What are good sources for reading about this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giezellebriseno ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the recent addition to the "Milman Parry and ALbert Lord" section --
"An excellent example of Parry’s work in recording oral tradition can be also be found in the recent (1998) book ‘Noah’s Flood – The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that changed the World’ by William Ryan and Walter Pitman published by Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.."
The comment does not say what oral tradition is referenced, nor does it give a page number, nor yet is it the most obvious source for Parry's field recordings. But maybe with a solid citation and explanation of the relevance of the pages it should be restored. DavidOaks 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oral history is certainly a distinct field with distinct methods -- very inappropriate to merge. Oral literature is a better candidate, but because it's organized by ethnic, linguistic and geographic divisions, and is not generally regarded (yet) as being primarily the province of oral traditional theory, a link under "see also" would seem more appropriate (same for oral history). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidOaks ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
There was some confusing material in the "oral history" article that really referred to "oral tradition", and was placed in the article based on the archaic usage of "oral history" to refer to "oral culture". I deleted it there and am pasting it here; if there is something useful it should be re-incorporated.
lquilter 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nannus removed the tag on March 5, noting in edit summary: "Removed merge tag, since oral literature forms only part of oral tradition (e.g. oral law is not oral history)". A very good point. -- lquilter 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am currently attempting to establish the relevance of our current articles on Psychodynamics and the supposed subordinate field Psychodynamic psychotherapy. In that context I am investigating the links to the Psychodynamics article. One of them originates with the current article. At first glance the term appears to denote something different from what the Psychodynamics article details. Could someone more abreast with the current subject verify whether this link is relevant? __ meco 15:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a few specific citations, mostly those already implied by the existing text. I have also made a few small elaborations that help to justify a couple of the citations.
Does anyone know how an 'Unsourced' tag can be removed? Brett epic 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To add balance to this article, there needs to a section that acknowledges serious criticisms of the Parry thesis and subsequent elaboration of it, and important splits within the emerging discipline. At present it still reads too much like a personal essay advocating a single POV. Brett epic 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please never remove maintenance tags without discussing/resolving the issue. It is good that you added quite a few references. Of course, an ideal case is that each piece of information is referenced, but wikipedia:Verifiability rule is not absolutely strict: plausible, easily verifiable information may stay unreferenced until some other wikipedian/reader questions it. Regardless, the following things must always be referenced:
In your case,
In addition, wikipedia's tradition is to keep a neutral tone, so please remove all exalted epithets, such as "brilliant", "prominent", "provocative", "massive", etc. `' Míkka >t 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you to learn to be "devil's advocate" and not only enjoy your own written text, but also try to guess which pieces may cause doubt by people not so familiar with the subject: wikipedia is written for them. Experts don't reach wikipedia to gain more wisdom (yet). `' Míkka >t 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In trying to generalize about the current state of the theory's acceptance, I added this:
While a number of individual scholars in many areas continue to have misgivings about the applicability of the theory or the aptness of the South Slavic comparison,[67] and particularly what they regard as its implications for the creativity which may legitimately be attributed to the individual artist.[68] However, at present, there seems to be little systematic or theoretically coordinated challenge to the fundamental tenets of the theory.
Now, I'm not sure if that requires documentaiton (I will try), but it presents the problem of documenting an absence. DavidOaks ( talk) 13:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that there is a proposal to merge the topic Oral-Formulaic Composition into this Oral Tradition topic. I don't think that is a good idea at present because the current article on Oral Tradition is very long and seems to me to lack structural balance, with parts of the article going into what seems to me to be lengthy and minute academic detail about debated aspects of some viewpoint or other. I think that before there is any move of material into the Oral Tradition article, it needs restructuring to become more understandable to someone outside the field. So some detail would be removed or be moved to new separate topics.-- AlotToLearn ( talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to insert "somewhere" a quote from William F. Albright, a respected scholar. "Again we must stress the fact that oral transmission of tradition is inherently more consistent and logical in its results than written transmission, since it sifts and refines. modifying whatever does not fit into the spirit of the main body of tradition." (From Stone Age to Christianity). This has certain ramifications for religion. It seems to summarize some of what is said but have no idea where it could go in the article. I would appreciate suggestions.
In part, this may have something to do with the above subtopic. The article seemed very scholarly but didn't seem to wind up anyplace or have room for a summary by a reliable "secondary source" author. Student7 ( talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I undid A Lot to learn's good-faith revision of the intro, and then tried to work Vansina back in (though he's already cited). Problem is, Vansina is working with a concept that's essentially "verbal folklore, possibly with musical accompiniment," rather than with the sound-patterned material essential to the discipline that Parry & Lord defined. We could have a note that acknowledges the simple fact that people mean a great many things by the term. On another matter "orature" is a perfectly awful term, but it has a degree of currency. DavidOaks ( talk) 04:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it correct that under the academic field of Oral Tradition, an item would not qualify once there is writing in the society concerned? If so, the field of study is narrower than the phrase as I would understand it, because I would regard the Vedas are oral tradition even though their tens of thousands of verses were preserved orally for centuries after the development of writing. Maybe we can resolve the scope problem by adding more "ordinary meaning/wider topic" material and subheads at the top, and then moving on to the narrower academic field of study further down article? Are the sophisticated rhythmic, tonal and gestural sequences used for teaching the mantras and sutras, etc of the Vedas part of the academic field? If not, maybe the topics need to be separated? -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 09:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
added words "mantras and" to above -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 02:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Academics contribute a great deal to this site and that contribution is appreciated. But a growing problem is that academics seem to forget the purpose of an encyclopedia: it is to inform a general public, not to continue or extend or reflect academic conversations.
A person like myself comes to these pages looking for answers to such practical considerations as whether exact transmission of words was considered important or whether stories were merely told or retold, what methods of memorization were used, and how efficiency the oral tradition is considered to be. I cannot find the answers I am looking for in this discussion of theorists and their theories!
In my view, the chief theorists and their theories should never be mentioned in the body of an article. Yes, this is a heresy and an extreme and it doesn't have to be adopted forcefully. Its intent is to establish a discipline in WP where the sort of saturation of the articles with the names of academics of their theories doesn't occur.
Please, there are countless places for academics to write academically for other academics. Don't do it here!
Again, with appreciation for what your contributions. -- 216.13.187.110 ( talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Although the article points to Christian Oral Tradition, it fails to point to many other oral traditions. Examples might be:
Shouldn't the most generic article about oral traditions (this one), eventually point to such? Thanks. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 04:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Oral tradition. 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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Oral tradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, I've just added a subsection on Native American oral traditions within the 'History' section of the article. Included are three paragraphs: one on the significance of oral storytelling to Native American cultures, one on the actual mechanics of how stories were/are told, and one on the historical and scientific aspects of stories. Peer-reviewed citations are included. I think this might help add to the greater body of work on oral traditions by focusing in on particular geographies and cultures. I am however slightly unsure of the best way to approach the issue of talking about pre-European contact oral traditions and oral traditions today, when many Native languages have since developed written systems. I do not want to imply by frequently using past tense that Native oral traditions are no longer important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcharlton19 ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Links: Four Guns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( recent AFD, discussion w/closer)
I propose merging with redirect
Four Guns to
Oral tradition#Native America, where Four Guns is already mentioned. It seems the only sources we have about Four Guns are transcriptions of a speech he gave in 1891 about the oral tradition of Native Americans
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7].
One of those sources writes: [p. 75] With the possible exceptions of Pushmataha (Choctaw) and Four Guns (Sioux), these speeches are authentic, accurate transcripts, obtained from highly reliable sources ... Four Guns' speech is simply too pertinent to omit ... [p. 76] as one who shares the deepest concern for truth and accuracy of the spoken word, this series will be limited, excluding Pushmataha and Four Guns, to manuscripts from highly credible Native American sources.
For all four
WP:MERGEREASONs, our reader would be best served reading about Four Guns's 1891 speech at
Oral tradition#Native American.
Le
v!v
ich 22:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Levivich: My first point is not irrelevant. You stated: Every oppose !vote here is about notability (it was a keep! therefore don't merge!)
. No, I am opposing the merger itself and the consensus of the merger discussion is "Oppose". Secondly,
MERGEREASONS states: Merging should be avoided if:
1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles.
3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short.
Therefore, all three "Merger should be avoided" reasons/rationale apply. Also, for the record, I am not a member of ARS. Netherzone ( talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Somewhere, perhaps in the preface to Roots, I read that Alex Haley had met with a man in Africa who memorized the stories of the people of his tribe, and that is where he heard their side of the story of his great grandfather Kunta Kinte being kidnapped. Perhaps this is relevant to the article? May the experts with a bit of time on their hands look into it? Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 22:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Several times surrounding Samuel and David, there are mentions of messangers with messages that are to be told in very certain words. Actually there are 78 referrals of "and say thus to..." throughout the old testament.
In one case Jesse, David's father, sends him to the field where Goliath is cursing the Israelis. "The man of Israel" then repeats the king's promise: "Have you seen that man coming up? To curse Israel he is coming up, and the man who hits him, the king shal make him rich with great richness, and his daughter he will give to him, and his father's home he will set free in Israel.
In another, David sends 10 warriors (the correct translation of Ne2arim as Yigael Yadin explained) to Abigail with a message which is repeated word for word.
This may also be the explanation of the lengthy repetitions in the story of Eliezer, Abraham's servant. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 23:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
'Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact' is a book that openly opposes what was and still is the consensus view of the history of the Americas, siding with Native American myths (as if these weren't incompatible with each other, too) against science, which in the author's view is just lies and fabrications of 'the white man'. As far as I'm concerned, this is nationalist activism and not scholarship. Why is it cited as a reliable source here? 87.126.21.225 ( talk) 00:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)