Talk:Jester
 | Jester's privilege was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 1 March 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jester. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Who is David Carlyon and why should we care about his opinion enough to include him?
editI honestly don't know how things work here in Wiki land, please don't let that allow you to dismiss what I'm asking here. but in this part
Political significance Scholar David Carlyon has cast doubt on the "daring political jester", calling historical tales "apocryphal", and concluding that "popular culture embraces a sentimental image of the clown; writers reproduce that sentimentality in the jester, and academics in the Trickster", but it "falters as analysis".
Who is David Carlyon?
I took at look back thru the source and it has only been cited 3X. No one takes this seriously so why is it included? Seems kinda contrarian for contrarianism's sake. Entropic Katabasis (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I looked into this, I agree with you.
- We all know who Jester's and Joker's are in current day. I am betting this person was quoted in a published book to get his credit for a Doctorate's degree. 172.56.81.115 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed this paragraph. It's odd to mention his fringe opinion without mentioning the mainstream opinion that jesters had lots of leeway to critize the monarch. But I'm reluctant to add anything like that without a source and I don't have time to find one. Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"For nothing he says seems to matter."
editLooking into it, this recurring quote about jester's privilege is one of those zombie edits where text that used to be in a Wikipedia article gets screenshotted for a meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2464965-maladaptive-pattern), is later removed from the original Wikipedia article for some policy reason, and then occasionally people seeing the meme months or years later will look it up on Wikipedia, find that the text isn't there and instinctively decide that it needs to be added back. Belbury (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Some main text copied from TED-Ed
editSome of the main text was copied from the TED-Ed video on jesters. The first example seems to be at 0:58 in the video "Jesters had unique relationships to power:". 84.224.177.150 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- You mean this video. Although it was only posted five days ago, you're right, a section of its content was added to this article's lead section a couple of days ago. I've reverted it to the previous version. Belbury (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Till Eulenspiegel
editTill Eulenspiegel stands out as a sole fictional character among a discussion of historical jesters in various countries. Surely his inclusion at List of fictional tricksters is more appropriate, and at the very least at Fool (stock character), than in this article. Ibadibam (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"Joker persona" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Joker persona has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9 § Joker persona until a consensus is reached.
-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)