Talk:Companions of Saint Nicholas

Lead

I have pasted the lead from companions of Saint Nicholas. It links the articles nicely, & is a good basis for further editing. --Archolman User talk:Archolman 18:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Michał Débski

Is it real or a vanity defacing? Spandox (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Michał Débski ===

In Poland, children are told of Santa's helper called Michał. He is known to facilitate the gift exchange of people from 34 countries in the Western Hemisphere. Local Polish legend depicts him as from Germany but with Polish descent. He is a joyful man. And some people say that it is good luck to rub his giant stomach.

Although he is originally Polish, he is known to help people exchange gifts in 34 countries around the world. This way, he spread the Christmas spirit by helping people share the warmth known in Christmas. Instead of traditional Christmas chariot, he is known to use a black motorcycle to spread the Christmas spirit in capitals such as Paris around the world.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spandox (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was done by: (cur | prev) 11:54, 2 December 2011‎ 82.242.68.196 (talk)‎ (16,651 bytes) (→Appearance) (undo)

Adding a new character isn't an "Appearance" change Spandox (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion, Needs Work!

This is a poorly written piece that conflates a lot of similar traditions into a single overgenralization. Krampus is not the same as Knecht Ruprecht, who is not the same thing as Zwarte Piet. I have done research in this area, and unless there's an objection, I will be rewriting this article, and probably be renaming it as well ("The Companions of St. Nicholas" probably).

--Writer@Large 17:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have initiated the move. Anyone who wishes to help with the redirects, please feel free! There's a few of them (mostly the various names of companions).

--Writer@Large 14:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Blackface

The emphasis on blackface is misleading. That isn't Knecht Ruprecht, those are Zwarte Piets, or Krampusse, his blackamoor slaves. This article should be focused on Knecht Ruprecht, w images like those found @ Paganism_in_the_Eastern_Alps.

Sam Spade 05:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The details and controversy regarding Zwarte Piet's appearance are discussed in the entry for Zwarte Piet and do not need to be detailed here.

Croatia

I have added a small paragraph in the "traditions" section, it's all the information i have managed to gather about Krampus while i have been in croatia, though i have been there a while ago, i have only written the information i clearly remember, and have omited the parts that are blurry or i am uncertain of.

MRcool2035 14:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern perspective

I removed this uncited section from the article to this Talk page because it appears to incorrectly conflate Heiliger Abend (Christmas Eve) with Heiliger Nikolaus (evening before Saint Nikolaus's saint's day), which occur on different dates and have different traditions - changing to Heiliger Nikolaus, if cited, might fit in the article:

Christmas Eve (Heiliger Abend, "Holy Evening") thus became known as the time when children were best behaved, and the tales of Ruprecht gave a balance to the winter festivals which might seem disquieting to some, but which were not especially grim or atypical of customs of times past. The story is still popular throughout the German-speaking world.

-Wikianon 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove the bad poetry?

The poem "Farmhand Ruprecht" in the references section is quite poorly translated, and I believe that it subtracts from the overall quality of the article. A half-hearted effort to find a better translation failed to turn anything up. Would anybody object to this being removed? Or does someone have a translation available that isn't such a crime against English? Or do gems like "I spoke: 'the rod, it is here; / but for the children, only the bad'" actually add something to the article that I'm missing? MattGif 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a better translation of this poem some weeks ago. Thanks! Wtroopwept (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The old picture is so dark that one can not see anything. There is no point in keeping it, when better pictures are available.

Warrington (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and I mentioned this in the edit summary. I said I have no problem and I'm sure many oither s dont care either if you find a new picture. But will you please find one similar to the current one. With a close up, that shows the face clearly. Thanks! --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but you can not see absolutely anything on thet picture. it is all black. there is really no point in having it. So I do not know what you are talking about. Similar to what?

Warrington (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been approached for a third opinion to assist with achieving consensus on the primary picture used to illustrate this article. I have to concur with Warrington that the current image is too dark, and the article is better illustrated by the use of the image at [[Image:Krampus2.jpg]]. The article doesn't need to be specifically illustrated by a close up/full frontal image: it's my opinion that the alternative, brighter, image is actually more effective since it shows a Krampus in a 'real', rather than artificial or posed, setting. Coldmachine^Talk 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, I removed the added pictures because I don't think its necesary to have every character's picture squeezed onto the page. We can debate that if need be. But You two got what I'm saying wrong. I'm not saying this picture is good, and I agree that there are better ones. All I'm saying is I like the idea behind the current picture. The first one added Was from sort of far away. And the second picture was of Krampu's profile. If you disagree we can debate it, but I like the front view close-up... Is there anyway we can find one like this thats lighter. I'll look. and see what I can do. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you guys like the following ones I found through an quick google image search... This is what I mean... (http://davidbyrne.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/12_21_04_c_krampus2.jpg) and (http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/greal/NewAYA/salzburg_info/subpages/images/krampus.jpg) are two examples. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The second photograph of those two is good; the first is clipped so not ideal. I understand what you're saying about having a front-facing full view picture, but you oughtn't to remove things on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coldmachine^Talk 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter if it is from front or half profile, until you can see Something.

And we need free images. Are your images free to use?

And further, there is place for two more pictures, about Père Fouettard and Zwarte Piet, Krampus is not the only companion. Why are you removing those too??

Warrington (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As is the situation over at Pre-Christian_Alpine_traditions; too many images leads to an ugly article (see WP:IUP) particularly where the amount of text is small. This applies here; only one image is really needed to illustrate the article content (that's the purpose of adding an image, after all). Coldmachine^Talk 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Saint Nicholas has 3 regionally different companions. they look different and behave different too. Either way, the one picture used is still very black Warrington (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is more than 3. If you actually read the article you will see there is much more than 3. The Belsnickel is a good example. And if they look different its irrelevant. Too many pictures turns the page into an ugly one. Now lets forget about that, because thats not going to happen. Anyway, Warrington, as for your Krampus picture question, I suppose its not a huge dea if you switch it. so I'll back off. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As EveryDayJoe45 says, a single pertinent example is sufficient. It doesn't necessarily matter that there are different companions: you can always provide a link to a Commons category which illustrates them all. Coldmachine^Talk 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, than is more than 3 companions. But it is not irrelevant that they look different. Not at all! People want to read this article to find out the differences. Why else? That is what the article is about! Just talking about the subject do not explain everything. And pictures do not turn articles uggly. This is some kind of misunderstanding. Articles should be illustrated when possible, that is a Wikipesia policy. A visual presentation of the subject is of high importance.There are plenty of articles of this size with 2 or 3 pictures, and they are perfectly fine. I think that pictures are an important part of the article, wich, if you remove the pictures, will consist of a large amount of text without any visual documentation.To many pictures, like 5 or 7 might make a shorter article like this uggly, when text is sandwiched between two pictures, left and right.

But the biggest issue right now is that the only one picture in the article is of so bad quality that it is a shame for Wikipedia and all of us who works with it.

Warrington (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Until better pictures are available, people need to see something, instead of a big darkness.

Warrington (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone tried to add this one. File:Krampus Salzburg 5.jpg

Warrington (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Schmutzli

He's like Black Pete and follows St. Nick in Catholic parts of Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.200.183 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Father Time

• Shouldn't we add father time? --71.56.227.238 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The characters Father Time/The Old Year and Baby New Year appear in popular culture soon after Santa Claus, but I don't know that they've ever been thought of/depicted as companions of Santa Claus? Шизомби (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends whose popular culture you're referencing. They're not found in UK or European Christmas folklore, ancient or modern. They are associated with modern New Year celebrations however. --Archolman User talk:Archolman 18:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Temporal proximity is no relationship. This article is about companions: those who travel with him. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Bingle

Does this belong here? It seems far too recent and removed from any Santa Mythos to belong to me, though I am by no means an expert in this. Given that this page doesn't include Rudolph or Frosty the Snowman, I feel that it should probably be removed from the page. 75.171.12.153 (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this section currently titled "Der Bingle"? Mr. Bingle seems a US-specific character---why the German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.241.213 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Knecht Ruprecht

This paragraph -

According to some stories, Ruprecht began as a farmhand; in others, he is a wild foundling whom St. Nicholas raises from childhood. Ruprecht sometimes walks with a limp, because of a childhood injury. Often, his black clothes and dirty face are attributed to the soot he collects as he goes down chimneys -

struck me when I was looking up things for a story/novel I was writing. I'm actually writing a fantasy novel based on the character of Knecht Ruprecht and I had to do more research about him. If it is possible could someone please add a citation for this story? All the sources I've found through Google which mention this story seem to be mirroring content and/or linking back to this page or the main page on Knecht Ruprecht. The closest thing I found was a story from Franconia someone told me in which he is described as a war orphan "that St. Nikolaus took in as a student/apprentice". Interestingly the German Wikipedia page (I had to use Google Translate) doesn't mention anything similar beyond the character's possible connection with Perchta.

Sigurdrífa (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation: As Knecht Ruprecht (or Knight Rupert) is also a musical composition by Schumann there should probably be an addition for the musical composition and a redirection etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.176.32 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

First Knight is Ritter not Knecht.

A source would be appreciated to support Schumann's work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Père fouettard and Black Pete

"fr:Père fouettard" (a black-clothed father with a birch (fouet)) is the compagnon of Saint Nicholas in large regions of France. It's in 1850, that a dutch teacher changed Père fouettard (Père noir) into Black Pete, a boy liberated from slavery by Saint-Nicholas, the child benefactor.--Havang(nl) (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Havang, that might be the case, but what about the evidence that the idea of a Black servant called "Pieter" was around as early as 1820 as outlined in the page on Zwarte Piet?:

Joseph Albert Alberdingk Thijm already made reference to a dialogue partner of Saint Nicholas with the name "Pieter-me-knecht" in a handwritten, unpublished text in 1850. Moreover, writing in 1884, Alberdingk Thijm remembered that in 1828, as a child, he had attended a Saint Nicholas celebration in the house of Dominico Arata, an Italian merchant and consul living in Amsterdam. On this occasion Saint Nicholas had been accompanied by "Pieter me Knecht ..., a frizzy haired Negro", who, rather than a rod, wore a large basket filled with presents. In 1859, Dutch newspaper De Tijd noticed that Saint Nicholas nowadays was often accompanied by "a Negro, who, under the name of Pieter, mijn knecht, is no less popular than the Holy Bishop himself." Of course, originally the Black Pete character probably wasn't a "character" at all but the actual servant of whoever was playing St. Nicholas at the time, and then gradually became a costumed "helper" character who people dressed up as. Sigurdrífa (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wallonia: Hans Ruff?

Here in Wallonia, near Verviers at least, we (used to?) speak of "Hans Ruff" as I would put it in German spelling, "Hanskrouffe" in French lookalike. He is supposed to be the punishing one, probably to keep Saint-Nicolas lovable. --A Pirard (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A reference would be helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Knecht Ruprecht Talk Page

In 2005 Knecht Ruprecht was apparently merged with Companions of Saint Nicholas and the Talk page made a redirect. Some five years later, it seems there was enough material to split Knecht Ruprecht on its own. However, the talk page remains a redirect to the different but related article. If Knecht Ruprecht has its own page, should the article not also have its own Talk page? (I have no idea how to do that given the old redirect.) Mannanan51 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Befana

Did Befana ever visit "the territories formerly in the Holy Roman Empire"? And did she "accompany" St Nicholas? I think she should be moved to the "see also" section. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Companions of Saint Nicholas. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114184702/http://www.fmueller.net/krampus_de.html to http://www.fmueller.net/krampus_de.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

There are a few problems with this edit. First, it's entirely unsourced, although not untrue. Second, an earlier comment relates the word Knecht to Dutch, when the character is himself of German origin. It's not linked so relatively meaningless. Finally, it's incorrectly capitalized, but that is the easiest to fix. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't understand what is wrong with claiming that the Dutch word "knecht" should not be indicative that zwarte piet is a "subject", (which many people want to read as "slave"). In Dutch the word knecht normally means a person who as an occupation helps another person in his job. "Een knecht is iemand die als beroep hulptaken uitoefent die ter ondersteuning dienen van een hoofdtaak" https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knecht_(beroep). For example a "bakkers knecht" is simply a bakers' hand.

The Dutch word "knecht" is simply the equivalent (loan) word derived from the german word Knecht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knecht and means exactly the same.

So if "Knecht Ruprecht, which translates as Farmhand Rupert or Servant Rupert" is a companion of Saint Nicholas" then why is Zwarte piet suddenly a "subject".

By the way, in Dutch, unlike in German, knecht is not capitalized to Knecht.

Yes, the Dutch word knecht, as german article mentions, has been subject to a Semantic change in the past, where in both German and Dutch, the word became deprecated, (sometimes used as a Pejorative) while in English the semantically related word "knight" became more appreciated. that is why the word is no longer in common use these days, and has been largely replaced by "assistent" (assistant). But in the time that Zwarte Piet was "invented" the term "knecht" had no negative connotation yet. And in the current time Zwarte piet is no longer addressed as a "knecht", but as a helper ("hulpje").

So that is why I want the word "subject" removed from the sentence, That zwarte piet is a "subject" of Sinterklaas is also not at all sourced with the links given. In fact claiming Zwarte Piet is seen as a Subject is actually what is unsourced, not what reason you give for reverting my edit, a connotation between Knecht Ruprecht and knecht. I make no such claim, other than trying to point out that Knecht Ruprecht seems to have been appointed a different status than zwarte piet, seemingly on the simple basis of the word "knecht" that was originally used for Zwarte Piet, while the exact same word Knecht in Knecht Ruprecht has no such percussions. So the reason for undoing my edit on the ground it is unsourced is based on a misunderstanding. --Mahjongg (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, Knecht Ruprecht is not Dutch in any way so claiming that the German word knecht, which may be common to Dutch, has any bearing is immaterial, and any Dutch rules of capitalization have no bearing on the English project.

Similarly, the English project has rules of capitalziation (see MOS:CAPS) so capitalizing "like" as you did is wrong.

The remaining objection is around the using the word "subject" in relation to Zwarte Piet, and I concur that the sources do not support that use, and since Sinterklaas is not a king or ruler, he should not have subjects. I'll remove that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider adding a page (in English) on Phyllis Siefker to Wikipedia?

In light of the New York Times Acrostic published 22 December 2020, it would be nice to have a short page on her, especially since her book is referenced in the Notes section to this page. There's a page in another language but I can't read that.Paulthedesertrat (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)