Talk:Mummers Parade/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clean-up

This neeeds to be wikified. --evrik ^(talk) 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs sources. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

A small sampling of POV issues:

• "This move failed to reinvigorate the parade."
• "Big crowds and a new enthusiasm have made the return a huge success."
• "...which severely limited the amount of people that could go and see them live; however, it allowed them to create huge sets and dazzling performances."
• "...often revel while watching, and sometimes joining, this unofficial parade/celebration."
• "...a favorite recommendation of locals to tourists who come to town for the Mummers' Parade."
• "It is easy to say that most of the mummers are up for 24 hours."

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not POV. That's just bad prose. --evrik ^(talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. The edits right after this are to improve the prose (by removing unsourced POV). As the article clearly needs more sourcing than the one for the ban on burnt cork, I'm going to return the {{refimprove}} as well.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The move to Market Street did not reinvigorate the parade. Nearly everyone involved called it a monumental failure.

There were bigger crowds when we moved back to Broad Street. And as someone who was on the street in the parade, I can state the new enthusiasm was omipresent.

These are my quotes and they are based on BEING THERE!--chiefsalsa —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

B

When your experiences are published in a reliable source, we'll be all set. Until then, we'll need to yank them or find a reliable source.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the reliable source! I was in the meetings where both decision about moving to Market Street and back to Broad Street were made. I heard the arguments and saw the data that went into the decision. I saw the difference in the crowds and in their enthusiasm. Where were you? POV is all over Wiki. Mine is unbiased and based on common perception. No news article or uneducated website can provide more salient information into the parade then I can. What is your Mum cred?chiefsalsa —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you are a "reliable" source is moot. You are not a reliable source to wikipedia. Your opinion is not verifiable. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you varifiable to say that "some" people call it Two Street insted of "many" or "no one"? Sounds like POV to me! Did you talk with every single resident? How did you come up with a reckoning universally excepted as "some"?

I am a scholar of this parade and know it back and forth. This whole page sucks. But as it is, what I put on here is dead on correct. You obviously need to nitpick at Wiki pages you have no actual knowledge of to make up for deficiencies in your real life. As you know nothing of the parade and I do, I will concede the point to allow you to feel a brief flare of self worth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefsalsa (talk • contribs) 06:10, November 25, 2007

My edit changed it from "(known as two street by the locals)" to "(called 'Two Street' by some local residents[citation needed])".

"Some" is indeed vague. I specifically meant to be less specific than "many" but know that "no one" is not correct. As there was no source, I added the {{cn}}. I reduced the POV from the factual claim "known...by the locals" to the "(we need a source to show that) called...by some local residents". If you have an alternative version, please suggest it.

Your knowledge of the parade is not the topic. The issues are reliable sources and verifiability.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know more then newspapers and websites. I was in the room when the decisions were made. I am a reliable source(Chiefsalsa (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

You might be a reliable source, but you are not a wp:reliable source. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Wiki should change its standards for some pages; or you should not act like they mean anything on a WIki page where you have expert editors. How do we know what happened in the 2nd Continental Congress of 1776? Because the people in that room told us what happened! I was in the meetings when the Market Street route was voted on and when we voted to go back to Broad. The enthusiasm can be seen in the numbers. Wiki is not the Dead Sea Scrolls. You are taking this waaaaaaay too seriously for someone who is ignorant of Mummery and its history. (Chiefsalsa (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

"Wiki should change its standards" Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources.

"How do we know what happened...Because the people in that room told us..." No one who was at the 2nd Continental Congress told me anything. Nothing in any wikipedia articles should be a first hand account. It isn't verifiable.

"I was in the meetings" Good for you.

"The enthusiasm can be seen in the numbers" Great! If you'll cite those numbers from a Wikipedia:Reliable source we'll have something to talk about.

"You are taking this waaaaaaay too seriously" I am?

"for someone who is ignorant of Mummery and its history." What I know or do not know is neither relevant nor known to you.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost nothing on this page is verifiable. Every biography on Wiki that lists someone's father can not be verifiable. Your Daddy is your Daddy because your Mama told you he is! Experienced Mums are the best this page can hope to have...not Wikinazis who know nothing of the parade.

Examples of unproven statements:

"They prepare elaborate costumes and moveable scenery, which take months to complete."

First, they are called suits, not costumes. Second, "they" means all the divisions. The Comics do not make their own suits. Second, how do you know it takes months to make what we call "props"? Shouldn't anything regarding the time used to prepare for the parade be sourced?

"The first official Mummers Parade was on January 1, 1901. Prior to that, local lore holds that many traditions—the dressing ("mumming") from England, Sweden and other countries—came on New Year's Day when at midnight, the citizens shot off guns to welcome the new year, a dangerous tradition that the law frowns upon."

Local lore? Really? Is that not people who know the parade telling stories? Local lore should not be in there without a verifiable link.

And there are many stories of why men dressed up. There is not defininate history---no less the history provided. Where is the link saying Mums is related to Sweden? Where is the commonly held story that we got Mummer from King Momus, an Egyptian king who loved elaborate parties which ridiculed people? I never heard of the Swedish link until this page!

And the shootting of guns at midnight is where Mummers got their secondary name of Shooters. Many of the old time bands still embarce this traditonal name. I see no mention of it--but we mention shooting off guns at midnight without any verifiable source or connection to Mummers.

And where is the verifiable source connecting Mummers to Ireland? Mummers plays came from England and have little to do with Philadelphia Mummery. Completely wrong and unverifiable.

"The Mummers Parade travelled northward on Broad Street in Philadelphia for decades until the 1995 parade when the parade was moved to Market Street due to construction work on Broad Street (noteably the "Avenue of the Arts" between Washington Ave. and City Hall)."

Link? I know it happened because I was in the room. But where is the link? No link = remove it.

"For various reasons, the parade was moved again to Market Street in 2000."

Various reasons? Says who? How do you know it was not one reason? One is not various---but we do not know as that statement is not verified.

"Each year, thousands of people participate in the parade, many wearing elaborate costumes costing thousands of dollars to make."

How do we know it is not hundreds? What if a suit only costs $200 to make? How do we know? Unverified, should be removed.

"Because of the large number of clubhouses there, South 2nd Street often serves as an party location after the parade, with some clubs marching in a second, unofficial parade."

What part of South 2nd? Can I go to South 2nd on Chestnut and see Mummers? How about South 2nd at Wolf Street?

Party location? Some clubs? Verify!

"Local residents and others in the area"

Others in the area? And we know this from?

"With the parade they spent months preparing for over, the Mummers let loose and celebrate. This multi-block party continues well into the night or early morning, with some Mummers not sleeping for 24 hours straight."

Quite a few Mummers do not spend more then one day preparing for the parade. Comics are mostly one day Mums. Marshals for the other three divisions put in less then a months work and many only one day. Completely inaccurate and misleading.

How do you know we do not sleep for 24 hours? I would love a source on that!

The link to the blackface story is down. It should be removed if not verifiable.

The website listed as "official" is not official. Each Mum division has its own leadership. The Mummers Association is the technical head of the parade. But the Brigaeds do not recognize their authority and the String Band Association is much more powerful.

The Mummers Parade page is down.

The last link will be obsolete/dead as no one will update it after the 2008 parade.

---

The whole page is a mess. You edited it out of personal animoisty towards me. Insted of embracing my changes as they are authored by an experienced, caring person with personal knowledge of the contents, you simply took out my POV while leaving in many other things that are far from factual, easily unproven, and terribly misleading. And then you hide behind your mod status to fulfill a need to take shots at me. The changes I made improved this page. Now it is an unorganized, factually challenged pile of nothingness. (Chiefsalsa (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

"You edited it out of personal animoisty towards me." Nonsense.

"Insted of embracing my changes...you simply took out my POV" I took out some POV. I did not source the POV before removing it.

"leaving in many other things that are far from factual, easily unproven, and terribly misleading" I encourage you to challenge, correct and/or remove anything false and/or misleading.

"And then you hide behind your mod status" My what?

"to fulfill a need to take shots at me." I have no such need.

"Now it is an unorganized, factually challenged pile of nothingness." So organize it and source it.

If you won't light a candle, at least stop griping about the darkness.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did contribute. MY POV, based on being in rooms when decisions were made was removed and other heresay was left in. The whole page should be removed----but you only want to remove my editions. I think those who have no knowledge of Mummery should voluntarily remove themselves from editing it. Given the glaring inconsistancies in what is removed and what is allowed to stay in, I think I have a fairly good case that bias has come into the editing process.(Chiefsalsa (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

The pages you sourced got their information from unreliable and unverifiable sources. The Swedes and Finns may have shot off guns, but that is a Post Hoc argument. No Mum historian correlates the two events. The German angle is considered possible but most people stick with the King Momus origin. But you got those "facts" off a web site, so the information can not possibly be wrong! (Chiefsalsa (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

The information you dispute is from the offical webpage of the official organization and the webpage of the City of Philadelphia.

Wikipedia is about verifiable information from reliable sources, presented in a neutral manor. Your wish to add your non-verifiable POV from a non-published source (your head) is not consistent with that goal.

You repeatedly attack individuals, dispite repeated warnings. Wikipedia will not tolerate personal attacks.

This may not be the forum for you, which is a damned shame. You certainly have the capacity to be a fine editor. The choice is yours: Follow the basic guidelines of wikipedia (which I have repeatedly linked to) or don your Spiderman suit.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Time out

Time for a cool down guys. --evrik ^(talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Says the bombthrower! Relax, Mahatma! (Chiefsalsa (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm running out of warnings for you. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Evrik and I go back and forth all the time. We are friendly. If you took one second to ask him insted of brazenly threatening me with punishments I do not care about, then perhaps you would understand the levity of our banter. I should not receive a "warning" for light-hearted banter with someone who I have a repore with.

I am going to report you for constantly harassing me. You are, in my opinion, abusing your 'power' out of personal animosity. Leave me alone! (Chiefsalsa (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

If you feel that is the case, you certainly may certainly take whatever steps you feel are appropriate. The processes available are outlined under WP:DR. To the best of my knowledge, the totality of our direct interaction is on this talk page (prior to this entry: [1]) and your talk page (with your numerous deletions, individual edits must be viewed: [2].

We have edited some of the same articles, based on geography. A look at your recent edits and my memory show Philadelphia Slang, Mummers Parade and South Philadelphia (there are probably others). The overwhleming majority of our edits to those articles are not in conflict.

My edits to South Philadelphia, for example, were right after one of yours. You reverted vandalism. I reflected my recent renaming of the TLA article and reverted some anonymous contributor's fluff.

Even in this article, our edits don't seem to clash. Your recent edits are reverting vandalism, removing controversial dig on Philly cops, removing some Serenade confusion and additions to the Time and Route section. I am unaware of any of my edits touching any of that. Heck, one of your digs above challenges parts of your own edit:

"For various reasons, the parade was moved again to Market Street in 2000." Various reasons? Says who? How do you know it was not one reason? One is not various---but we do not know as that statement is not verified.

"For various reasons" was your addition.

Prior to reviewing the history today, I was unaware of any specific conflicts between our edits. The only conflict between our edits that I am aware of is my asking for a cite for "For various reasons, the parade was moved again to Market Street in 2000. This move failed to reinvigorate the parade." which, I now find, was added by you in April.

If I'm "abusing your 'power' out of personal animosity" (what "power"?), I'm doing a really poor job.

Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"I'm doing a really poor job."

Don't be so hard on yourself. You are only human!

I am bewildered at this "new" history laid out in the Channel 17 page. Any Mum historian who has spent time in the Mummers archives(as I have) puts little to no correaltion between many of those events and the Mummers Parade as we know it. The Irish and Polish 'Shooters' were directly linked to the early 20th Century Mummers; not Scandanavians. The story of Momus is nearly universally accepted as the origin of the parade. The English Mummers Play is a distant cousin to the Philadelphia Mummery. This may be a case of an entity creating a revisionist history based on interesting but unconnecting events and passing them off as Mummers geneology.

It is not an accepted history by Mums and despite the "verifiable" web page, should be disclaimed as not certain or absolutely embrace as our history. (Chiefsalsa (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

The conflicts in these two sections show clearly that WP is not perfect. In fact, it doesn't claim to be perfect, or even authoritative. It is only as reliable as its sources, which certainly can be and have been in error. There are many articles here that could be improved if actual participants and other authoritative sources were permitted. But how do we verify the claims of authoritative sources? Verification would require an elaborate additional mechanism, something few people here would have time to establish and participate in. Instead, we rely mostly on secondary sources and create articles that are imperfect. But, in support of WP policy, it does enable the quick addition of new articles and the easy modification of existing articles. It has created, in just a few years, a magnificent resource used by large numbers of people and, with caution, even by schools and governments as a source of provisional information.

I support both sides of conflicts such as this one, the side of those who actually know something for sure, and the side of those who understand WP policy and its value. People who know something for sure should publish their knowledge in a blog or other public forum so that it can be captured for future reference. It is important to understand both the strengths and limitations of WP. David spector (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More text

“ Gaelic seasoning came in the 1800’s. Irish immigrants ranged from "The Neck", deep in South Philadelphia, as far north as Independence Hall, celebrating the New Year by blowing conch shells, tin horns, and speaking trumpets; pounding on kettles and pot-lids, ringing cow bells, and shooting off guns.

Italian settlers brought more exotic flavoring to the Philadelphia New Year’s revelry with the Latin flair for costuming and melody. New Year’s Eve parties often burst out of homes to cavort through the streets of South Philadelphia. By 1877, these had become area parades, often stimulated by merchants’ prizes.[3]

”

--evrik ^(talk) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

interesting new books

added as "further reading" with a link to a review. DGG (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackened Faces

Resolved

The Blackened Faces links needs to stay in. I will look for a source.

The mummers are in a way associated with the Klan in the minds of many Philadelphians. RapidWiki (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are these "many Philadelphians"? My family and I lived in Philadelphia from 1949 into the 1970s, and I've never heard of the claim of such an association between the Mummers and the KKK. I would think if there were such an association today (as you claim by using the present tense), it would be big news and we would hear about it.

All the Mummers Associations have always been composed of ordinary working folks. I've never heard of an idealogical racist who had the intelligence and drive to accomplish what the members of each Association do each year.

Yes, it is true that the early Mummers were racist; but so were the majority of white people (even early U.S. Quakers, who believed in social justice, owned black slaves!). Black-faced "minstrels" were accepted throughout the early history of Mummers (in fact, were the principal theme of all the early years of the Mummers), perfectly reflecting the society in which they functioned.

It is true that they lagged behind that society when they continued using blackface in an attempt to preserve their authenticity and continuity. But I think most of us would agree that dropping blackface was an appropriate decision, one which all white Mummers of today understand and accept. David spector (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The original link went dead. I've replaced it with an archived version. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages for individual groups

Aqua String Band already had their page up. I have just added Adelphia, Greater Kensington and Pennsport. I didn't specifically choose these three, they were just the first ones to pop up in a search of philly.com.

As I (mostly) expected, they've been put up for deletion, especially since Adelphia and Pennsport just sound like some teenager's garage band. I'm adding sources to shore them up and have a few articles in the pipeline. I'll be adding sources to be incorporated at User:Mdsummermsw/Mummers. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Greater Kensington survived (actually wasn't even tagged for deletion). Adelphia and Pennsport fell to speedy deletions, dispite {{hangon}} tags and my on-going efforts to add refs. At the moment, I'm rebuilding them at User:Mdsummermsw/Mummers/Adelphia and User:Mdsummermsw/Mummers/Pennsport. Feel free to make any solid additions to them or comment here or at User:Mdsummermsw/Mummers. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Adelphia has been back up for a couple of days now. If it makes it to next week, I'll start on the others. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pennsport is back, with decent sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some formatting and a category. Also, the wikiproject tag. --evrik ^(talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Rollers N.Y.B. was added back in February 2008. At the moment, it is unsourced and could fall to a speedy at any time. I've added a redirect from the otherwise absent Murray (Mummers Parade comics) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since these names give no hint that they are names of string bands or other Mummers Associations, why not make their names clear? For example, "Original Trilby (Mummers Association)" or "Original Trilby (String Band)". David spector (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Other locations?

I grew up in southern New Jersey, and every year went to my grandparents' in Camden to see the Mummers Parade there. While the Mummers are clearly based in Philly, I'm wondering if there were other outlying areas like Camden that also did parades. The article currently makes no mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.14.180 (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the article's sources make it clear that there were early Mummers' Parades in many local areas before they were merged into the Broad Street Parade. This is important because it illustrates the folk process and because it shows the broad and local base of such parades, originating in the folk traditions of the many nationalities who jointly populated the U.S.A. David spector (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Two" Street

I would like to suggest a change, but I am reluctant to do so without placing the matter before those who have put so much work into the article.

I am a native Philadelphian, born and raised in the area referred to in the article as "Two Street." I have never heard natives of the neighborhood, myself included, refer to the area as "Two Street." We just say we are from "Second Street," or "downtown," or just "South Philly." The "Two Street" moniker is preferred by media types and non-Second Streeters, if you will. You can always tell someone is not from Second Street when they refer to the area as "Two Street." I'm not trying to be dismissive or condescending, just truthful.

By the way, "Second Street" is more of a concept than an area, but if you had to put boundaries on the neighborhood, "Second Street" would be bounded by Washington Avenue to the North, Oregon Avenue to the south, Front Street to the east (although Lee Street, a side street a few yards east of Front would be in included), and 4th (or 5th) Street to the west.

The Second Street parade always begins at 2nd and Washington and can continue all the way to 3rd and Oregon, though many clubs stop at their clubhouse and go no further. The parade does not turn onto 3rd Street, by the way. 2nd Street becomes 3rd Street at Mifflin. (It's all very strange unless you see a map.)

My thanks to those who work hard to write articles about Philly culture. Nice work.

Hhs335 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I lived on Two Street. Many residents down there call it Two Street. There are street signs THAT THE CITY PUT UP that say 2 Street.

----chiefsalsa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefsalsa (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The current reference to "Two Street" is sourced. So long as there is no reasonable challenge to that source, it seems OK as is. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackface

I certainly think it should be noted, in the 'blackface' section, that prior to African-Americans being allowed to perform on stage after the Civil War (due to 'grandfather clauses') it was common for white men who were portraying a black character to use blackface as part of their costume. Wasn't logged in when I edited this, so I'm editing it again so my proper signature is shown. --Dave 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that discusses this in relation to the Mummers Parade, yes, that would be great. Otherwise, I have a problem believing this applied up to 1964 in Philadelphia. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dave" didn't state that it applied in 1964. He referred to "after the Civil War", about 100 years previous to 1964. I believe he is correct. As I stated above, the Mummers' Parade continued to use blackface after its discriminatory nature had become clear to everyone, for the sake of authenticity and continuity. Correcting this wrong was one reason many of us white people who loved the Parade traveled from Philadelphia to Washington, DC for the 1963 and 1964 Civil Rights Marches. The conflicts between progressive and conservative political viewpoints are a necessary corollary to democracy and to social improvement. David spector (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave stated a general fact about African-Americans being barred from some events and the use of blackface. However, unless we have a reliable source discussing this as it applies to the Mummers Parade we cannot include it in the article. So far, the only thing we have been able to source about the use of blackface in the Parade is the 1964 decision to bar its use. If you have a reliable source that gives us more, please add it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1