Talk:Frère Jacques/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jack/John

Without even going into the Jack/John equivalence in English (which is fascinating), I'll just point out that "John" is not meant to be a direct translation of "Jacques", but rather a name that fit the euphony of the piece better (it pseudo-rhymes with "Dong"); it is pretty universally the English translation used for this song. (Incidentally, "Jack" is usually not the best translation for "Jacques" in any case—"James" is.) /blahedo (t) 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] variation?

I remember my elementry music teacher teaching us this variation:

Where is Thumbkin Where is Thumbkin Here I am Here I am How are you this morning? Very well I thank you Run Away Run Away

Has anyone heard this verison?

Yes! My cousin sang that to her daughter all the time. I'm not sure I'd class it as a "variation" as much as "different song with the same melody", any more than Twinkle, twinkle, little star and the alphabet song are variations on each other, but I think it would be reasonable to include it in this article. /blahedo (t) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Move to Wikiquote not needed

This song is really widely known and since many popular songs have their own articles, this one can stay as well. More text will surely be added. --Tone 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] source?

I'm just wondering if this 'child's song' has a sinister background, somewhat like the 'Ring around the Rosie' referred to smallpox. I'm thinking along the lines of Frere Jacques de Molay, who could perhaps be 'sleeping' through ringing the bells for matins, as he was tortured/killed... Thoughts?


[edit] The history of the song

Why are you sure the French text is the original text? What do yoy know about the history of this song? I know only it refers to the Way of St. James to Santiago de Compostela before the 17. century. But it could be Spanish too or Latin perhaps. There isn't information about the history of Brother Jacob in France too. Please contact me pl:Wikipedysta:Fringo and see my article pl:Panie Janie. Fringo (a Polish user of Wikipedia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.25.76.49 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2006.

According to my sources the first print of Frère Jacques is: Charles Lebouc, "Recueil des Rondes avec Jeux et des Petites Chansons", Paris 1860. Your hint to the Way of St. James is therefore very interesting. What are the sources for this? - my Polish is a bit rusty ;-) --FordPrefect42 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I also am intersted to know how Frère Jacques is related to Way of St. James. I tried to use some of the online translation tools to translate the Polish articles to English, but poltran is offline at the moment and other tools appear to require a download.--Filll October 7, 2006.
Read also in Spanish: http://cvc.cervantes.es/actcult/camino_santiago/quinta_etapa/burgos/papamoscas.htm
and in French: http://www.webdonline.com/fr/services/forums/message.asp?id=298382&msgid=4831545&poster=0&ok=0 Fringo 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Origins

I ran across the following potential discussion that might have relevance to the origin of "Frère Jacques":

The Theory of Hungarian Music, Edward Kilenyi, Musical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 20-39

available from JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631(191901)5%3A1%3C20%3ATTOHM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Supposebly at least part of the tune Fra Jacopino is similar to Chanson de Lambert (1650) and another tune (a Hungarian folk tune?). Anyone have access to JSTOR to check this lead out? Anyone know much about Hungarian folk tunes? Filll, October 7, 2006.


Hungarian folk music (not to mix with Gypsy music!) doesn't use the major and minor scales, but characteristic Hungarian scales and characteristic "pointed" rhythm. Anyway Hungarian people also were on the Way of St. James - and Hungary was a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire - so what was known in Austria was known in Hungary too. I'm sure "Frère Jacques" in Hungary is borrowing. Fringo 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


A Spanish book that might have relevance to the origin of "Frere Jacques":
Julián Pérez López, EL PAPAMOSCAS Y EL BRASERO DE LA CATEDRAL DE BURGOS (Burgos, 1980).
Who can help to reach it?
It seems to explain which influence had the cathedral of Burgos on folk tunes in Nordspain.
http://cvc.cervantes.es/actcult/camino_santiago/quinta_etapa/burgos/papamoscas.htm
There is a clock (16th century) in the cathedral and the little man right who bells the rings all quarters (15 minutes) is called Martinillo (compare the Spanish version!) Fringo 19:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A Spanish man (a native speaker) means: Martinillo isn't a name, it seems to be a crossing (combination) of the Spanish name Martín and the Spanish word "martillo" (=hammer). The "Martinillo" from Burgos hits his bells with two hammers. Fringo 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your translation. I am fluent in Spanish and English [native]. "Martinillo" would be the familiar address for a young "Martin". Transliterally: "Little Martin"
Adrenalynn333
I can't Spanish. The man who wrote this opinion to me lives in Northern Spain and studies languages and translating. So I don't have any cause not to believe him. I don't have any cause not to believe you, too. Maybe his explanation concerns the origin of this name? And your explanation concerns the using of it nowadays? I'll write to him and ask about it. Do you live in Spain or in America? Fringo 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Adrenalynn333 lives in the US, but previously lived several years in Latin America, where she had to live in a completely Spanish environment.--Filll 17:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I speak both English and Spanish fluently (well, advanced Spanish, anyway), and while "Martinillo" could mean "little Martin", it could also be a portmanteau for "Martin" and "martillo," in my opinion. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Darneysh"?

I just rved an edit that added a translation into "Darneysh". While I normally try to give a wide berth to other people's expertise, Google didn't turn up a single link for either "Darneysh" or "Darnyytsh", so if such a language exists it is profoundly obscure. /blahedo (t) 08:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is a private language of Darney Kock. Continued attempts to vandalize the article will be reverted without further comment. --FordPrefect42 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

There is a children's animated movie called "the real story of frere jacques":

http://www1.epinions.com/Real_Story_of_Frere_Jacques/display_~full_specs

Has anyone seen it?--Filll 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Russian Seminary Song

According to http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779(197406)33%3A2%3C401%3AKPTAOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K Frere Jacques is related to a Russian seminary song: "Thematically [Frere Jacques] approximates the [Russian] seminary song 'Father Theofil' of which it is apparently a partial reworking, partial translation..."--Filll 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Searching the French National Library System

The search page is at: http://ccfr.bnf.fr/accdis/accdis.htm

I am finding a huge number of items with "frere jacques" in the title, as might be expected. It is overwhelming. Supposedly Frere Jacques was the pseudonym of someone named Jacques Delarue who published a book in 1864 called Chansons De Frere Jacques. It is only in one library in france, however: Type de document Monographies
Auteur(s) Jacques (Frère, pseud. de Jacques Delarue)
Autre(s) impr. de Giroux et Renaux (Imprimeur)
Titre Chansons du frère Jacques
Langue Français
Publication 1864, Rouen, impr. de Giroux et Renaux
Description 16 p. -8°
Exemplaire 1
Cote et fonds m 3557, Fonds Cas

Bibliothèque municipale. Rouen, Seine-Maritime Not quite sure what to do. I have contacted a few reference librarians for help in france and here in the US.--Filll 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Origins

I am finding enough material about origins that it could almost be a separate article--Filll 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese origins?

A friend suggested that we should explore a chinese origin for the song. I am wondering if contacting the Chinese national library reference desk would help? http://www.nlc.gov.cn/old/old/newpages/english/work/ref.htm My earliest chinese frere jacques song reference is only 1926 so far... --Filll 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A completely crazy idea! maybe we search for the the origin thereof in the undeciphered script of the Easter Island? NoychoH 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is why Filll aksed for help and I steped in for help.Lie-Hap-Po

I am glad to have Lie-Hap-Po's help and Fringo's help and anyone else's help to try to understand when and how Frere Jacques has penetrated and influenced world culture. I of course am highly suspicious of ANYONE who claims that they know where Frere Jacques originated, especially without documentation. That goes for a theory that it comes from France, or Austria, or Spain, or Russia, or China. I am ALSO very doubtful that Frere Jacques refers to every single person on the Way of St. James (which I think is questionable, and unsubstantiated, but I was glad to include it even though it is pure speculation with no scholarly backing so therefore under strict rules should not be in Wikipedia). I have appealed for help from other online communities, as well as the Vatican Library, the US Library of Congress, about 5 reference librarians online and in person, Orthodox Church Scholars and Dominican Friars in Paris France. I am open to any and all input and I will include even pure conjectures, as long as there are quality references and citations available (with the exception of NoychoH's theory that it refers to ALL pilgrims on the Way of St. James, which has no scholarly documentation yet). I included NoychoH's claims and statements before even though there he has no documentation and no references or citations, and he still is not happy. It is amazing to me. --Filll 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to be happy! Bwana Kubwa, yamesh! Om, Om, Om! NoychoH 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well NoychoH, you are invited to produce references for your claims instead of wisecracks.--Filll 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parts

Could Frere Jacques be sung with more than 4 parts? Eight for example? Is this ever done? --Filll 05:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Supposedly Dictionnaire, Langue française, encylopédié, noms propres gives a date of 1080 for creation of this song.--Filll 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's rather impossible because of the melody. The musical scales in the Middle Ages (named medieval or church scales - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music#Medieval_music) had been different or the major and minor scales used nowadays. The medieval music sounds other than the present music.
See also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_(Musik). (I haven't foud it in English Wikipedia!) The song "Frère Jacques" is in C-major. This scale appeared in Western Europe only after the division / partition (?) of the Church (which had been in the 12th century). The new scales had been evolving gradually, and the first time, they have been described, was in the theoretical work "Dodekachordon" by Glareanus (1547). So I suppose that the 15th century could be possible, the 14th century (Jacques de Molay) isn't enough believable. But the 11th you've written is impossible.
Have you ever heard the European Medieval music (e.g. Gregorian Church music)? Have you ever heard the music of the Orthodox Church? Have you any relations to Catholic Church? Have you ever been on a pilgrimage (two weeks or more on feet with "brothers" and "sisters")? When not, it's the cause you can't understand why Europeans search the origins of "Frere Jacques" on the Way of St. James.
It was very interesting for me to read about "Fra Jacopino". In Internet I've found only one bar! I would like to hear the piece or see the notes, but I haven't found it in Poland. Can you write more information about it?
The song "Father Theofil" is also interesting, but... Where can I read about it?
I've found a German article about the Medieval artisans/craftsmen on the Way of St. James and a guild/corporation "Les Enfants du Maître Jacques" http://www.celtoslavica.de/johannesritter/johannesritter.text/johannesritter_kap.3.html , point 14-18: Louis Charpentier, »Les Jacques et le mystère de Compostelle«, Paris 1979. Jean-Pierre Bayard, »Le Compagnonnage en France«, Paris 1977, p. 37-57, 85ff., 188f. Jacques Chocheyras, »Saint Jacques de Compostelle«, Rennes 1985.
Fringo 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am VERY sceptical of a date of 1080. I could believe a date that 100 or 200 years earlier than any other quoted date, but 500 or 700 years is a bit much. That is why I did not yet quote this in the article. I want to see this for myself and I want to investigate it very carefully. I wonder if it is not a mistake? As I stated on this page, you can apparently read about Father Theofil in some books by Prutkov in Russian. If you can find these and look at it, it would be very helpful. I am also sceptical of the Theofil claim however since it was apparently pushed so hard by the Soviets. The pilgrim theory is ok, I just wish there were some references to it in the refereed literature. I read the German article and I am thinking about it and how to include that information.--Filll 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Some further comments:

  • I am not so worried about the scale, or the key, given that we have some information that the original version or some early versions of the song were in a minor key rather than a major key (which is the most common one heard now), and this is supported with multiple reviewed high quality publications. I am more concerned about what appears to be a very long gap between a published version of 1780 and its supposed first appearance of 1080. That looks like it could be an error, with 0 typed instead of 7, a simple typographic error. If the date of 1080 was credible, surely other publications would have mentioned this.
All I've written the about the major key - "Dodekachordon" by Glareanus (1547) - concerns the minor key, too.Fringo 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several complete versions of Fra Jacopino on the internet. I might be able to find some links. Fra Jacopino is not a completely identical match of Frere Jacques, but if you look at the notes and listen to the music, it is quite similar.--Filll 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm really interested. I've found only a fragment which says NOTHING. I've looked for a free download because I haven't any possibility to pay by Internet.Fringo 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to listen to a recording, you can go here. It is not a perfect match, but some of the note sequences are very reminiscent. I looked at the sheet music, and again it is not identical, but it is quite similar in some sections--Filll 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian

Please don't remove my remarks concerning the nonexistence of the song until the present days. I have made a research towards that point in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and everywhere I have been assured by the specialists that the song does not exist in Russian version, either relating to any bells and morning, or with any other lyrics. BTW, do you speak Russian, Filll? NoychoH 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well NoychoH, I beg to differ. Here is what I propose. I will compile a list of references to "Frere Jacques" song lyrics in Russian that predate Wikipedia or are independent of Wikipedia. Then if it is required, we will have someone independently consider the evidence. If it is determined that Frere Jacques was only translated into Russian for the purposes of Wikipedia, then I will acquiesce and acknowledge the correctness of your statement. However, as I stated when I removed that note, there appears to be considerable evidence that what you stated (only based on your own convictions, it appears, with no evidence to back it up) is unfortunately incorrect or mistaken. In addition, I do not speak Russian but I am glad to employ the services of those who do in this effort, which I have. I am not sure that this is germane to this discussion, and I am not sure that the tone of some of your comments is appropriate for a venue such as Wikipedia. One could use this as an opportunity to make a retort in kind about your facility in English, but in the interests of comity, I will not. --Filll 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I admit that your comments are "dark". I am awaiting your list of evidence. NoychoH 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess you made a mistake since this section does not concern the "dark" subsection title. I will produce the evidence. I cannot be chained to the computer to produce the evidence for you, which is easily accessible to anyone who can use a search engine. It took you 6 days to respond to my removal of your previous speculative Russian remark. Please have the good manners and grace to allow others a few hours to respond to your current stance. --Filll 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dark" interpretation???

Please explain: What do you find so "dark" in the interpretation given? Or maybe your use of the word "dark' reflects some very specific meaning that I can't find in my dictionaries? Please explain. NoychoH 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a difficulty in a foreign language, which is certainly understandable. This is, after all, an English version of Wikipedia, not the Polish or Russian versions. To help you learn a little English, I would suggest a good tool to use is an English dictionary. To look things up quickly, I like dictionary.com, although you can get a much better selection of dictionaries at onelook.com. In dictionary.com, I found the following among the various meanings of the word "dark":
  • Characterized by gloom; dismal: took a dark view of the consequences.
  • Sullen or threatening: a dark scowl.
  • Exhibiting or stemming from evil characteristics or forces; sinister: “churned up dark undercurrents of ethnic and religious hostility” (Peter Maas).
  • Being or characterized by morbid or grimly satiric humor.
These meanings capture my intent when I chose the word "dark". I would humbly suggest that it is slightly more gloomy or morbid to imagine that the subject of this song, "Frère Jacques" is dead than it is to imagine that "Frère Jacques" has just overslept. Now of course, others could disagree with me. You are free to disagree if you think that it is not more grim or morbid or dismal to be dead than to be asleep. If you can suggest a better word than dark, then you are free to.--Filll 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 ===
Well, my Friend, now YOUR remarks are really kind for a venue like Wikipedia ;-(
Contrary to you, I take them easily.
I agree with all the meanings of the word "dark" and see that you dind't catch my point. You have probably an error in syntax or an error in formatting of sub-chapters.
When you write: "This gives the lyrics a potentially darker tone in their most prevalent French form than in their common English version", I understand that the word "this" refers to what has just been said/written, and not to what follows. At least that's what "The Oxford Guide to the English Language" states. The explanation given just before the phrase "dark meaing" only states that "someone is a monk or a friar". So my question was: what's so dark about that? What's so dark about being a friar? Maybe for someone who prefers worldly pleasures this seems "dark" but in general this is a man's choise. So I assume en error in having used a wrong word: use "Some explanations, as shown below, give" instead of "This gives" and everything will become clear.
As refering to your explanation given here - you will have to admit an error in formatting. Of course being dead is much "darker" than being asleep. Maybe originally you've had your "simple" explanation first and the "dark" explanation afterwards (which could only be logical). Now, your "simple explanation" ("someone is sleeping") can be found only two paragraphs below, and the "darker" one goes before the one that is less dark. This seems illogical. A simple rearrangment of paragraphs may help.
Please, think about the whole issue once again and you'll find there's no ill-will on my side. I was really womdering what you meant. Now, I just want you to correct the article so that it be less ambiguous. Which means: "better".
Best regards to you, my American friend. NoychoH 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe NoychoH has misunderstood, which would not be unexpected in someone presented with a text in a foreign language. When I used the word "this" I was indeed referring to what I had previously written.

Here, I can't agree with you. I haven't misunderstood. You shouldn't point to English being my second language. Believe it or not, my understanding of English is sufficient to see that what the word "this" was (gramatically) referring to was not what you are now describing below. And believe me, before having written my question I have pondered more than twice on your text. The ideas that you are describing now maybe were alluded to some paragraphs before the word "this" but it is impossible for me (too much time consuming a task, due to your way of editing) to make a research now to find what paragraph order did you have on what day and at which hour. NoychoH 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood, so I included more material to make it clearer. I thank you for pointing out that it was not clear to you as it was written. --Filll 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not include an extensive explanation because I did not believe it was necessary to belabor the reasoning, which I have found repeated in several other locations on the internet (I have not retrieved the references yet since they are not really suitable for citation and I did not make note of them earlier). The most common English version of this song can be paraphrased as, "brother John, are you sleeping? The morning bells are ringing". The most common English version has no reference to associate it with any religious figures.

Well let's be sarcastic again: "Brother John" also called "Little John" was a religious person presented in the Tale of Robin Hood. Couldn't it be that he was the person called upon? Only don't tell me that he was called "brother" because he had a sister or another brother. He was called brother because he was a friar in Medieval England.NoychoH 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you want to suggest. I have never heard of "Little John" referred to as "Brother John". I checked the original ballad Robin Hood and Little John which was published by W. Onley in London in 1680-85 (V, p. 297) in the anthology, A Collection of Old Ballads, and there is no mention of a "Brother John" there, or in several articles about "Little John" on the internet. I can only presume that NoychoH is again confused and intended to allude to "Friar Tuck". And I believe that the reason "Friar Tuck" was called "Friar" was that he intended to represent a friar in Medieval England. I think I and other native English speakers are more qualified to pass judgement on what most English speakers infer when they hear the phrase "brother John". I will attempt to find documentary evidence that bolsters my position, although it hardly seems necessary, when arguing with someone who makes copious mistakes in English in all his contributions.--Filll 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As it is commonly taught in schools in Canada and the United States, the religious associations are not apparent. I have been told the same is true of the UK at this point as well. I am fairly sure that it would be true of Australia as well. This covers most of the native English speaking world. The word "matins" would be very unfamiliar to almost any student or indeed almost any native-born resident of the United States and Canada, I am fairly certain. There is also minimal cultural impact of friars and monks in North America, so it would not be a standard assumption to connect the phrase "brother John" with a mode of address appropriate when speaking to a friar or monk. On the contrary, this song appears to be a call to a male sibling to wake up because bells that are rung in the morning are being sounded. On the other hand, a paraphrased and approximate translation of the most common French version is, "Brother James, are you sleeping? Ring the bells to call people to morning prayers!" (and the formal form is used).

Don't exaggearate the use of the formal form. It is so common in France (even among peer fellow-students, even between a husband and a wife) that to make any coclusions basing on this would demand reminding you that the English "you" comes also from the original formal form (identical with the French "vous"), as opposed to "thou". NoychoH 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I was raised in a bilingual environment (French and English) and I speak French. I studied French at a senior collegiate level, in classes for native French speakers. I respectfully disagree with this statement. I would be glad to further query native speakers and scholars, but it is my understanding that it would be very uncommon for siblings to address each other as "vous". Of course, if it is demonstrated to me that I am mistaken, I will be glad to acknowledge this. Until such time, I will stand by my prior statements. I am not sure what relevance the discussing of the history of English is here. Given that "you" was a second person plural form and was also used as a formal form as well at one time, then I presume that at one time siblings would have addressed each other as "thou" in English, but of what relevance is that here? We are discussing French, not English. --Filll 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The French version is more of a demand, and has more the air of alarm associated with it. Also the French version has clear religious associations because of the word "matines", the word "Frère", and the second person imperative form of the verb "sonner". So the two interpretations that arise from considering the most common English and French versions are quite different. The English version is more a form of gentle chiding of a close sibling, while the French version is either a command or a demand of a monk or friar that is not being answered, for whatever reason. Sleep being a common euphemism in English for death ("he sleeps with the fishes", etc), many people have wondered and do wonder if the reason that the monk or friar is not answering is that he is unable to because he is dead. I do not need to state this overtly; it comes naturally from the cultural baggage associated with the English language and the cultures associated with this language. The number of similar versions of this reasoning that can be found in the references confirm that sort of reasoning is not uncommon. That is why I said it gives the lyrics a darker tone in their most common French form than in their most common English form. And then I went on to elaborate on this. And I am not the only one, given the other references I have found and the other websites I have found with the same reasoning. I can spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove this to NoychoH by quoting references, but I do not see the point, given that he has not produced one single solitary reference or citation or web link to back up any of his assertions or claims, which appear to be completely groundless and baseless.--Filll 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not want any of your references any more. I agree that "sleeping" is a common metaphor for death. What I was about was that EITHER the paragraph was DISPLACED after you have written the first version ith the word THIS, OR the word THIS was written wrongly. But I can see it's you who are defensive about theories. Thank God, you've changed the beginning of that chapter so now everything is clear to a reader from outside the US or Canada, and even to those who are therefrom (I have spent 5 years of my life in Canada and my daughters have made their primary and part of high school there, and for them your idea was also not clear enough). NoychoH 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you do not like cited referenced arguments and discussions. That much is clear. You clearly prefer to rely on the fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. Since you pointed out you had trouble understanding it, I changed it. I do not see how a further exchange on this point is productive or constructive.--Filll 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather than spend an inordinate amount of time defending the current wording, I think that the more reasonable course of action would be to change the verbiage slightly to make it clearer. I will give this some consideration. Others, of course, are welcome to as well. These articles are a community effort.--Filll 15:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Very wise decision, indeed! NoychoH 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonencyclopedic - original research - contrary to Wikipedia policies

I have decided to mark this article with these two templates, as the article has developped into an Own Research article by Filll. About 60 referencies to various, very specific resources, show clearly that this is a case of original research. Also discussion of various alternate possibilities of the origin and meaning - gathered here for the first time - is an experiential proof that this article IS an original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research.


The article is certainly interesting - but more than half of its content is nonencylopedic, maybe good for a filological of musicological journal.

Please, see also how many changes were made by one Wikipedian only, namely Filll, and how often is he making changes instead of editing larger parts outside the article and then pasting them in. This way, the contribution of other people disappear from the history list. This is not fair, Filll. NoychoH 09:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my editing style is against Wikipedia policies. If so, I apologize. I would be glad to see a reference to the rules of Wikipedia that I have violated so I can endeavor to avoid violating these rules in the future. I did not know that having one's name at the top of the list in the history was a type of prize, and that it was unfair to not be able to see one's name at the top of the history list after making edits 6 days ago. This is certainly news to me, and again I would be glad to read about Wikipedia policies or culture that demonstrate that I have been unfair and improper in my actions on Wikipedia. If I have violated Wikipedia policies, I again apologize and will endeavor to avoid a future offense. I also disagree with the charge that I have violated the original research policy. The copious number of references and citations demonstrates that none of these are my own personal theories, but instead are the published theories and statements of others. I cannot say the same, however, for NoychoH, unfortunately, who in his own words above, has stated:I have made a research towards that point in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and everywhere I have been assured by the specialists that the song does not exist in Russian version, either relating to any bells and morning, or with any other lyrics. I am afraid I do not understand how collecting the published works of others and summarizing their results in one article constitutes original research in violation of Wikipedia policies, and admitting that I have made a research towards that point in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and everywhere I have been assured by the specialists that the song does not exist in Russian version, either relating to any bells and morning, or with any other lyrics does not constitute original research. This is particularly true when that claim is made with no citations, no references, no allusions to any outside publications, no quotes from noted scholars in the area, no dates, no supporting journals or other publications and not even any links to any independent websites. Of course, this sort of supporting material might very well exist, and I would be glad to be in receipt of any such supporting materials or evidence that NoychoH is able to produce. If I am at fault, I will be happy to acknowledge it, and stand corrected.--Filll 13:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Filll. NoychoH is just angry that his articles have been removed. I want the Frere Jacques article to stay. Lie-Hap-Po

You can't just like that remove the templates "noncompliant" and "unecyclopedic". You have to correct the points indicated to you before you can remove them. See Wikipedia:No_original_research.
I also want the Frere Jacques article to stay. I only want it to be compliant with the Wikipedia rules.
My remark (on Russian etc) was made in the discussion - not in the articel page. It's in the discussion where the place for own opinions is.
Editing principles: Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Editing).
Lie-Hap-Po's remark is just argumentum ad personam (what more, without any evidence to that effect) so I don't feel obliged to answer to it.
NoychoH 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again because I don't find it fair to the other users such Fringo Blahedo etc.I find your three remarks on this page quite supid but you have the right to put them there. However , since Filll has answer all three of them with good valid argements, I find no reason to call Frere Jacques nonencyclopedic. For Example on discussion page from the article Translations of Frere Jacques under another Cantonese version, you can read Filll name. But Filll did not make the last changes, I did and you can check that under the history page. So your claim that Filll put his/her name under everything as if all wisdom came from his/her brain has proven to be wrong. I only change the text Filll had written there and did not bother to remove the name, because people can see what Filll has written and what I have written Lie-Hap-Po

Once again, Lie-Hap-Po, you don't understand what I have written and you mix up two different things, two different remarks - one about the non-encyclopedic content and another one about the manner of editing. I think this second issue has been answered pretty well by Filll hiself/herself and s/he does not need a lawyer to be defended again.
I haven't claimed that Filll puts her/his name under everything (it's the machine, the engine of the Wikipedia, that puts the name of the user or the IP address of the person who REALLY has made any edition, be it even an addition of a common, just look into the "history" tag above). I haven't claimed either that Filll pretends the whole wisdom to come out of his/her brains. Please, read my remarks carefully before making your own comments thereupon.
The main problem about Filll's way of editing is not so much the fact that the input of other users disappears very quickly from one's sight (that's a minor problem for a venue like Wikipedia) but rather that when you look at seemingly the same article today, after not having looked at it for a couple of days (two days in my case), you don't recognize the article, you can't find the points you wanted to refer to, etc. I would suggest, that's exactly the way the "research-in-progress" works look like, and not encyclopedia articles. Myself I am one of the editors of a printed scholarly encyclopedia "`Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii' or 'The Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy'". Encyclopedia should present a well confirmed information, Filll is presenting many hypotheses, etc., changes his/her mind in the meantime (too frequently, in fact), due to the feedback of other editors etc. I admire her/his knowledge and access to the source material. What I suggest (as far as the way of editing is considered) that Filll finishes his/her research outside of Wikipedia and then pastes the whole article into Wikipedia. If we need to wait half a year, that doesn't matter. Or alernatively - if he is awaiting the feedback - that s/he presents his/her versions of the article in the Talk page and then the final version in the main article. The same remark I make concerning the Polish version by Fringo.
NoychoH 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I again challenge anyone to show me how my editing style has violated any Wikipedia rules or been unfair to anyone. If I have done something that is in violation of Wikipedia rules, then I will stand corrected. Until then, these complaints might be viewed as nothing more than a variety of ad hominem-type attack.--Filll 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to have anyone who knows other languages to help with the translations and the original text and with the transliterations. I have some minor familiarity with English and French, but I would defer to the experts in every other language. I am actively recruiting people from linguistics and language websites to help us with our translations and our documentation. I cannot do it myself, and I am not making all the contributions myself.--Filll 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Take my hand in any language I know! The degree of the knowledge may vary from language to language but I will - with pleasure - help if I can (and if I know that someone needs some help) That's exactly what I have done in the discussion page of "Translations of Frere Jacques", under the heading "Names of some Versions in Unknown Languages", despite the difference of opinions between Filll and myself found here (in fact, I have started looking at "frere jacques" articles in many languages asked to do so by Fringo). A difference in opinions is something that is a part of my life: debating, arguing, presenting resources, proving etc. Can something be more interesting than that? So when we present (and express) different options, it's OK for me. Shouldn't it be so, my Friends? NoychoH 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


By the way, is there a good dictionary definition of "filological" in English?--Filll 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Have I really written the word with an "f" and not "ph"? I beg your pardon. Well, I don't have any good dictionary at my hand, by as I understand the word's meaning (in the context I have used it) it is: "relating to the science of language and litterature". But don't devote to much time to the meaning of this particular word itself. What I have meant - a scholarly journal in whichever issues: those of litterature, language, music, history or culture - humanities in general. NoychoH 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit much to nitpick others and have such a thin skin when your own difficulties, problems and mistakes are exposed. Believe me, I could make a list of dozens and dozens of errors in English usage, logic, and scholarship that have been bountifully revealed in your contributions, but I have so far declined to do so in the interests of comity.--Filll 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "Original Research", NoychoH, is that it does NOT cite other valid and confirmed lines of research. Hence the "Citation Needed" next to your theory [sic]. Filll's work is clearly "hard-core" researched, cited, footnoted, and properly labled. AS IT SHOULD BE TO CONFORM TO WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES. As it stands right now, your "contribution" is nothing but trash conjecture. You've had lots of time. Either cite accepted scholarly references right now, or let's remove your garbage and return this to what it's suppose to be: A well researched, well contributed, encyclopedic REFERENCE source. Your "non-encyclopedic" claims are also completely untenable. Perhaps you are still unclear on the definition of "Original Research" ?

Adrenalynn333 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no more time today to consecrate it to the elucidation point by point what I have meant - although I admit this has to be done in one moment. One example: I find "non-encyclopedic" the discussion of some hypotheses of some authors for which the original authors have finally found no evidence. (There has been - or used to be - such a theory quoted in the article last Saturday; I can't find it now). In this way we might present ANY (wise or stupid) theory someone had presented - as the pseudo-theory I have sarcastically mentioned in the discussion page to The Translations - thao of the tablets of Easter Island. Especially the Internet resources are not especially reliable resources, when comapred with the pronted ones.
I am working as a university professor (in Eastern philosophies, cultures and languages) and several times a year I have to deal with my students' (and smetimes some other students') writen papers - disertations, theses, etc. I do deal also with a pronted encyclopedia, as I have written above. Within the area of humanities - and we are within this domain, I guess - the idea of the "original research" is not so much related to the "field research" as it is in social sciences or "first hand experience" as it is in natural sciences. More than frequently it is related to picking up various pieces of evidence and theories from various sources, especially those written, and then presenting them in one article as one coherent interpretation or theory. That's exactly what I see when I perceive an article with more than 60 footnotes. NoychoH 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


It is a bit difficult to answer a complaint when the person making the complaint cannot find or describe clearly what they object to. However, I suspect that this is an allusion to the statement in the text A possible connection between Frère Jacques and the seventeenth century lithotomist Frère Jacques Beaulieu (also known as Frère Jacques Baulot[14][15]) , as claimed by Irvine Loudon [16] and many others, was explored by J. P. Ganem and C. C. Carson [17] without finding any evidence for a connection. A cursory investigation of the literature will demonstrate that the academic medical literature is full of hundreds if not thousands of claims that the Frère Jacques song refers to Frère Jacques Beaulieu. I think that this at least deserves a one sentence discussion. After all, the theory that Frere Jacques is EVERY pilgrim on the Way of St. James is described in 5 sentences, and its own separate section, IN SPITE of the fact that we do not have a single citation or reference to support this theory. If we were following standard scholarly practice, this pilgrim theory would be dismissed out of hand, and anyone trying to advocate it with no supporting evidence would be cast in a certain negative light. I think Wikipedia is a bit less formal, so I think that this pilgrim theory can be presented even with no evidence, for time being. In addition, the effort to rely on argumentum ad verecundiam by tossing in statements like I am working as a university professor (in Eastern philosophies, cultures and languages) really does not carry much weight. At least three of the people in this discussion besides NoychoH have doctorates and at least two of them are also university professors. One also has a law degree. So do not try to "blow smoke" in this discussion. We are not uneducated backwoods yokels, as you seem to believe. In most academic disciplines in most countries, more copious references is not some sign of inadequate scholarship. I have never heard of such a thing, but I do not know about your own field in a place like Poland. I would humbly suggest you will not find such a line of argument very productive. This article is a collection of all the relevant material that we have been able to find so far on the subject. No conclusions are drawn. The user is presented with the materials and references so they can investigate for themselves and form their own conclusions, or use this article as a starting point for their own investigations. On the other hand, NoychoH has not contributed anything aside from personal claims with no references, no citations, no links whatsoever to published peer-reviewed materials, which is completely contrary to all commonly accepted scholarly standards. If NoychoH wants to contribute, then NoychoH should find some references for his theory instead of wasting energy attacking the other editors. Otherwise, NoychoH's theory will be summarily dismissed. At the moment, NoychoH's pilgrim theory appears to deserve to be dismissed. Trying to bluster and bully others will not change that fact. Only solid references will change it.--Filll 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
NoychoH - So does this mean that you are FINALLY going to present some valid well-researched evidence supporting what appears to this reader as preposterous junk-theory?
Adrenalynn333

I want to end this discussion about NoychoH. But not before I have given him and other users some advice. 1 Before you label any article as Non-Encyclpedic, Original Research, Fit to be Deleted etc, you first must make your intentions known on the discussion page and then you have to wait two weeks up till a month in order so that other users can state their opinions. If after that period the majority agrees with you then you can label that article. 2 Only label articles if nescessary to do so. When you label an article, you will let other users ( especially the new users )know that that article is crap, not worth reading , written by a bunch of wankers, who are vandelizing the system and when all articles are labeled then nobody will come to Wikipedia anymore and Wikipedia has lost it's meaning. So be careful to label articles and first come to the discussion page to state your opinion. Lie-Hap-Po

I would agree with Lie-Hap-Po. Giving people ample warning and a chance to discuss these changes is crucial, otherwise it just turns into an ugly edit war. That is why I have left the current parenthetical note "(despite the fact that the song has never existed in Russian until the modern days when it was translated for the sake of Wikipedia!)" which is not proper grammatically I suspect. I disagree with it, and it should probably be labeled with the tag [citation needed] to show that a citation is needed. However, in the interests of comity I will not remove it and present my case instead.--Filll 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now moved it from a parenthetical remark to a footnote, as I describe below.--Filll 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the article is more than 90% solid material with good citations right now. Some of the references are admittedly a bit weak, and we should aim for better ones. The speculations are labeled as such and also have citations to where they can be found in solid publications and references (except for NoychoH's pilgrim theory). Putting a label like nonencyclopedic on an article can be confusing when it is over some very minor disagreement like when this song was first translated into Russian. I might also compare the efforts of NoychoH with those of Fringo. Fringo has put a lot of effort into trying to develop documentation and citations for the very same theory that NoychoH is promoting with no documentation and citations. We do not yet have good references or citations for this pilgrim theory, but I am willing to leave it there since I know Fringo has made substantial efforts in this direction. I suspect that if this pilgrim theory is as common as is claimed, that eventually references or citations will emerge to support it.--Filll 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I accept Lie-Hap-Po's advice. For the next time, at least. Also I maust admit that not all Wikipedia editors do follow those lines of acting. I will correct the ungrammatical version of my remark. I will think about the evidence given below by Filll. I will answer. NoychoH 13:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with LHP and co. regarding labels. Whatever happened to Be Bold? If an article is OR, label it OR. While it is better if someone not related to the debate adds the label, waiting two weeks is silly. If the article is incorrectly labeled, we should be just as quick to remove the label. Edit wars are avoidable without waiting two weeks to act. Yes, it is a good idea to mention the label here and talk about the label if necessary, but that was already being done when others complained. I especially object to the slippery slope idea that LHP mentions. A label on an article is only a label, and while it often means an article needs help, it does not mean an article is worthless. If LHP thinks that that is what a label means, he/she is sadly misguided. Labels help editors notice articles that need help. Why would labels exist here if they really caused all the trauma he/she describes? Just because some articles are labeled does not mean that all articles will ever be (I would bet that article creation happens faster than article labeling, besides). Exaggeration does not help his/her argument. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Examination of the Claim that Frère Jacques was not translated into Russian Prior to the Appearance of two Versions in Wikipedia

Some comments:

1. Surveying the history files of Frère Jacques on Wikipedia, we find that the first two Russian translations appear in a contribution by Fringo at 11:38 on 2 September 2006. The two Russian versions given by Fringo are:

Брат Иван! Эй!
Брат Иван! Эй!
Спишь-ли ты?
Спишь-ли ты?
Звонят в колокольчик,
Звонят в колокольчик,
Динь-динь-динь,
Динь-динь-динь.

Translation: Brother John, are yoy sleeping? They are ringing in a/in the bell.

Another variation of the Russian version is:

Братец Иаков,
Братец Иаков,
Спишь-ли ты?
Спишь-ли ты?
Слышишь звон на башне?
Слышишь звон на башне?
Дин-дан-дон,
Дин-дан-дон.

Translation: Brother Jacob, are yoy sleeping? Do you hear the bell on the tower?

2. From the multicultural songbook, we find the following transliteration of Frère Jacques in Russian:

Bratez Jakow, bratez Jakow,
spish li ti, spish li ti?
Slishish zwon na bashne, slishish zwon na bashne
Ding dang dong, ding dang dong

Using the internet archive (wayback machine), we find that this transliteration has been on the internet since at least April 01, 2004.

3. Also from "Basic Russian: Book One", Mischa A. Fayer, 1985, p. 255, we find another transliterated Russian version:

Brat Ivan, Brat Ivan,
spish'-li ty, spish'-li ty?
Zvoni v kolokola, zvoni v kolokola,
Din', din', din', din', din', din

4. The following question was posted on listerv.linguistlist.org on Tuesday February 12, 2002 at 16:07:08:

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:07:08 -0600
Reply-To: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list

<[log in to unmask]>

Sender: Slavic and Eastern European Languages <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Frere Jacques
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I would like to know whether the children's song "Frere Jacques" has been translated into any of the Slavic languages. If anyone has any leads or could actually even send me the words to the song in any of the Slavic languages, I would be very appreciative. A note on the relative popularity of the song among children in the country of translation would also be helpful. You can reply to me off list and I will post a summary of any replies that I receive. Thanks in advance for your help.

Mark Lauersdorf

There were over 10 replies to this query. Here are a couple of sample replies:

4a. Among the responses, I found the following transliterated version of Frere Jacques in Russian on listserv, posted by Svetlana Grenier of Georgetown University on Tuesday, February 12, 2002:

Diadia Iakov, Diadia Iakov OR: Pop Martyn, Pop Martyn
Chto ty spish'? Chto ty spish'?
Kolokol udaril, kolokol udaril:
Din-don-don, din-don-don.

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:06:25 -0500
Reply-To: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list

<[log in to unmask]>

Sender: Slavic and Eastern European Languages <[log in to unmask]>
From: Svetlana Grenier <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Georgetown University
Subject: Re: Frere Jacques
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r

I have heard this song (in two versions for the first line):

Diadia Iakov, Diadia Iakov OR: Pop Martyn, Pop Martyn
Chto ty spish'? Chto ty spish'?
Kolokol udaril, kolokol udaril:
Din-don-don, din-don-don --

but I cannot point to any written source for it.

Svetlana Grenier Georgetown U

4b. And also:

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:56:40 -0600
Reply-To: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list

<[log in to unmask]>

Sender: Slavic and Eastern European Languages <[log in to unmask]>
From: David Vernikov <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Frere Jacques
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Akh kakoi zhe, bratets Iakov
Ty lentiai, ty lentiai,
Esli po nedele
Ty lezhish' v posteli
Ai, ai, ai! Ai, ai, ai!

Kak podnimem poskeree
Zvon-trezvon, zvon-trezvon
I zastavim brattsa
Delom zanimat'sia
Din don don, din don don.

5. I also consulted a language forum at www.unilang.org, and I obtained a translation and Cyrillic alphabet versions of these two Russian transliterations I had found on the internet from a user named Zorba:

Ty lentiai, ty lentiai,
Esli po nedele
Ty lezhish' v posteli
Ai, ai, ai! Ai, ai, ai!

Kak podnimem poskoree
Zvon-trezvon, zvon-trezvon
I zastavim brattsa
Delom zanimat'sia
Din don don, din don don.

Ты лентяй, ты лентяй
Если по неделе
Ты лежишь в постели
Ай, ай, ай! Ай, ай, ай!

Как поднимем поскорее
Звон-трезвон, звон-тревон
И заставим братца
Делом заниматься
Дин дон дон, Дин дон дон.

You're lazy, you're lazy
If during the week
You're lying in your bed
Oh, oh, oh! Oh, oh, oh!

We will soon raise
The bell-chimes, the bell-chimes
And make our brothers
Get to work
Ding Dang Dong, Ding Dang Dong


This one is also Russian. It may be more common - but I'm only saying that because I've heard this one in Russia, but not the other one.

Diadia Iakov, Diadia Iakov OR: Pop Martyn, Pop Martyn
Chto ty spish'? Chto ty spish'?
Kolokol udaril, kolokol udaril:
Din-don-don, din-don-don

Дядя Яков, дядя Яков,
Что ты спишь? Что ты спишь?
Колокол ударил, колокол ударил,
Дин-дон,дон, дин-дон-дон

Uncle Jacob, Uncle Jacob (Father Martin, Father Martin),
Why are you sleeping? Why are you sleeping?
The bell has been rung, The bell has been rung
Ding-Dang-Dong, Ding-Dang-Dong

Apparently Zorba has heard one of these in Russia.

Therefore, apparently there was one Russian version of Frère Jacques published in a book in 1985, another from a songbook on a website since at least April 2004, and two others posted on the internet in February 2002. At least one of these two other Russian versions of Frère Jacques appears to be independently confirmed to have been heard in Russia. These four versions of Frère Jacques in Russian all predate the two Russian versions posted on Wikipedia on 11:38 on 2 September 2006 by Fringo. This evidently exhaustively refutes and contradicts the claims and statements of NoychoH that there were no Russian versions of Frère Jacques anywhere before the Wikipedia versions. I could continue and produce more evidence, but I think that any one of these should be enough to conclusively prove my assertion. I will point out that NoychoH has not presented a single piece of evidence, not one iota of data, no citations, no references, nothing whatsoever aside from his own claims. I would be glad to have any independent third party examine this material and give an opinion in this matter should it be deemed necessary. --Filll 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've written my comments to all the Russian versions on the page "Translations..."
1. This version I really heard on the CD of Rolf Zuckowski (a German song maker - I teach his songs with pleasure at my school, I'm a German teacher.) There arent the texts, so I wrote it down from the CD (from/by (?) hearing). Then I looked for it on Russians pages on Internet - without any result. I've found the transliterated text only on a Italian web site. So we can't be sure the text were known in Russia, and if it will be known, it may be through the German teacher like me, who teach this song during their German classes.

Another variation of the Russian version is the same as 2.

2.I've found this text on multicultural songbook and so is it signed on the Polish "Panie Janie" page. So it's only one text, not two, I've only "re-literated" the song into Russian. I have mailed three times to Mrs. Sabine Laukart, the author of the multilingual songbook, but I wasn't answered by her.
3. This version comes from a book "Russian for (probably) Americans". I wonder, why is it in a transliterated form. In this book it should be written in original form. So this form doesn't come/origin directly from this book. It's usual that the authors writting books to teach foreign languages write also rhymes or alternative words to known tunes. So it isn't sure if this version is known in Russia, maybe it is known only by Americans learning Russian in America. (It can be researched.)
4. Polish is also one of the Slavic languages. The song is very good known and often teached at nursery school or at elementary school. If you ask a Polish child, maybe it answers without any doubts, the song is Polish. There is only one version in Polish, byt I met an other one... in Germany, where it was taught to the German students as a Polish song. We, German teacher from Poland, who visited the school in Germany, were very surprised and amused seeing this version.

The song is very good known, but... you can't find the text on the Internet at all! You can read, that the song was sung, but there isn't the text on Internet! (Now it is, on my Wikipedia site.) The same was in Czech language! Some information that the song was sung by someone, but no text. In Russian I haven't found any information, even that the song was sung, it isn't any proof, that the song isn't known in Russia, but maybe it ISN'T known NOW? And earlier? This "Father Teofil" is very interesting, but where shall we find this song?

4a Svetlana Grenier of Georgetown University has a Russian name, a French (?) surname and lives in the USA. She heard this song, but she doesn't write where: in Russia or in America. And when in America who has sung it. Her parents or... It would be interesting to know it, but it was 4 years ago... Maybe you'll try to mail the woman? The version with "Pop Martyn" is distorted/disabled - one syllable is missing.
4b David Vernikov has a Russian surname, but he writes nothing about himself and about the song. The long one seems to be original Russian.
5 We don't know who is Zorba, but we know that he/she was in Russia and that he/she knows or can use the Russian alphabet. But why is the first song without the first line and so traduced incorrectly? It's impossible not to notice that! The next two versions are the same as 4a.

Zorba says, he/she has heard one of them in Russia, but I can't understand which one, it's a pity. Can you? I wish/hope that the first (the long one). I like it better than the "Diadia Iakov/Pop Martyn".

I've understood noychoH's statement different than you. Not that there were no Russian versions of Frère Jacques anywhere before the Wikipedia versions, but that this versions existing in the world aren't known in Russia. It's possible. Russia was isolated from the world and from its own history, too. There were many more important cases/things (?) forgotten than a little song about a lazy monk. The God himself was forgotten!
I'm sure (noychoH doubts it) that the song WAS known in Russia in the 19th century because Russia took part in the history of the European music. Are the versions on the Internet necessarily the same which were known earlier in Russia? We can't know this yet. Maybe we can in the future? 83.25.131.149 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Fringo 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC) of course!

I easily found these Russian versions on the internet, without a lot of effort, even though there is a limited amount of Russian content on the internet at this date. The only reason I included this argument (which I could have made longer) was that NoychoH was so anxious to claim that "Frere Jacques" was unknown in Russia before it was translated by someone for its inclusion in Wikipedia a couple of months ago, a claim which seems very difficult to maintain. Now that I showed a little more evidence, he still wants to say that Frere Jacques versions in Russian are a very recent phenomenon. I do not think we have any data to support this claim. What we know is:

  • There is one version in Russian on a German CD that has been around for a while.
  • There is one version in Russian in a published book that has been around at least 20 years.
  • There are anecdotal claims on the internet that assorted people have heard the song in Russian in Russia (which I do not put much stock in, but it is interesting nonetheless)
  • We have a published allusion to Frere Jacques being derived from a Russian seminary song, Father Theofil, which might or might not be credible.
  • We have strong evidence that Frere Jacques has existed for a long time in countries that border on Russia, or are not far from Russia (Finland, Poland, China, Romania, Turkish etc). It would be a stretch to imagine that this song never made any migration across the Russian border

More information might emerge eventually and things might be more clear. I do not think we will necessarily be able to decide where Frere Jacques comes from, but that is not our mission. We just have to find the information and present it, with references so the users can explore for themselves and make their own judgements.--Filll 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A published suggestion that Frère Jacques has a Russian Origin

In the peer reviewed publication, Slavic Review, we find the claim by Richard Gregg that Frère Jacques has a similar theme to the Russian seminary song "Father Theofil": Thematically [Frere Jacques] approximates the [Russian] seminary song 'Father Theofil' of which it is apparently a partial reworking, partial translation from Review of Koz'ma Prutkov: The Art of Parody by Barbara Heldt Monter, reviewed by Richard Gregg, Slavic Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 401-402. I only report this, as I did briefly in the Wikipedia text. I do not claim that this statement is correct; however, it appears in a peer-reviewed journal by a scholar, and therefore is worthy of note and appropriate to incorporate into a Wikipedia article.--Filll 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that NoychoH has not responded at all to this comment with a published peer-reviewed reference.--Filll 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Filll, many people work and can't use the Internet every day. I would like to use it much more often than I can. Sometimes I don't use it for two weeks. It means nothing else than that I have no time. I'm sure I've responded enough.

Can you tell me if you have read this article or only this one sentece? It is able to read the whole article? Where is the seminary song? From which century it is? Fringo 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what century the Father Theofil song was supposedly from. The information I have is at the bottom of this page.--Filll 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another change I do not understand

NoychoH has changed the link to El Camino so that it links to a disambiguation page, rather than to the Way of St. James page, which I had done previously. Now if a user clicks on the El Camino link, they are sent to a page that is less helpful. Since NoychoH seems to be quite combative and defensive about his edits, I have left this change alone. However, I think it would demonstrate some reasonableness on NoychoH's part if he restored the link to the Way of St. James for users who click on the El Camino link (I am uncertain how important it is to include the alternate name "El Camino" or how well known this alternate name is).--Filll 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Way of St. James is linked to just a few words before therefore a double linking to the same article within this same sentence is useless. You might consider the name "El Camino" unimportant, and delete it altogether, or delete the link - I will not be "defensive" or "combative" about either of the two decisions - I have only found that the change of linking was unreasonable.
I have just included it (= "El Camino") for the same reasons why many people, including Filll, add various information related to the main issue of the article indirectly only: i.e. so that a P.T. Reader may find some more information if s/he gets interested. NoychoH 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am astounded that there is a claim that to have a link to a disambiguation page is preferable than a link to a real page. There are robots that are constructed to travel Wikipedia and remove these "errors". People are instructed to correct these problems. I think NoychoH is arguing from a point of weakness here. If "El Camino" refers to the "Way of St. James" (as NoychoH has claimed), how on earth is linking "El Camino" to the "Way of St. James" unreasonable? That sort of statement makes one wonder if NoychoH really understands this discussion at all. I will leave this "error" in the hopes that NoychoH will adopt an air of reasonableness and cooperation and make his link point to the appropriate page instead of a disambiguation page. This would be a sign of good faith, rather than being combative for the sake of being combative, and arguing just for argument's sake. --Filll 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to the Russian Origin Comment

At the risk of upsetting NoychoH again, I did the following:

  • I changed the wording to make it closer to understandable English
  • I marked it as {{Fact}} because we have nothing to go on aside from NoychoH's personal claims and statements, similar to his comments about the pilgrim theory.
  • I made it a footnote instead of a parenthetical remark, because it broke up the paragraph awkwardly.
  • I included yet another note about the "Father Theofil" song, which NoychoH appears not to acknowledge as having any relevance to the Russian origin theory. This is, in fact, the entire basis for the Russian origin theory, as near as I can determine. I have now contacted Professor Richard Gregg, Emeritus Professor of Russian Studies at Vassar College to investigate this further. The translation of Frere Jacques for Wikipedia and its appearance in assorted Russian songbooks is irrelevant. The published claim of a renowned academic scholar in a peer-reviewed journal is the relevant information. Now, this theory might have been discarded or been superceded by some other evidence or argument in the intervening period, and we will find out. If true, then I will be glad to remove any reference to the Russian origin theory, which was only included for completeness.--Filll 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I interviewed Professor Gregg, who tells me that the reference to "Father Theofil" was the result of early Soviet scholarship in the early days of the Soviet Union to claim that the French version of Frere Jacques was derived from Russian sources. If we want to explore this further, we can look at the original Russian Prutkov book which describes this in more detail, but apparently has not been translated into English. Given its provenance, I would be inclined to be suspicious of the claim that Frere Jacques was derived from the "Father Theofil" song. --Filll 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to tranlate your text using the POLTRAN, but I undertand your English better than the Polish translation :) Can you write exactly references of this book? It can be read in Russian, too. Fringo 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The information I have is at the bottom of this page.--Filll 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the Pilgrim Theory

I have contacted the following resources about the "pilgrim theory":

  • The US Library of Congress musical history reference desk
  • The Vatican Library reference desk
  • The Dominican monastery in Paris on Rue Saint Jacques
  • The University of Santiago de Compestella Library reference desk
  • about 5 other reference librarians in the US

I have used google and dogpile search engines to try to investigate this. I have looked at the references that Fringo provided. I have so far been unable to find one single piece of evidence or allusion to this Frere Jacques origin theory. In addition, our primary advocate of the pilgrim theory, NoychoH, has been unable to provide a single piece of evidence in support of his theory, even when repeatedly challenged to do so. NoychoH has vigorously defended his theory with assorted personal assertions and claims, but with NO published evidence, and not even a link to a website or a blog (which admittedly could be easily manufactured). If this is commonly believed throughout Europe, it is a bit difficult for me to understand why there has been nothing published on it, when there have been hundreds if not thousands of publications about some of the other origin theories. Perhaps something will emerge with continued investigation. But at the moment, it does not look very convincing.--Filll 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But you search in English and on the Internet only! I've just written you that you can't find a text of "Frere Jacques" on any Polish or Czech web site. What should be the conclusion? That the Polish and Czech versions mustn't be met to the article "Translations of..."?
I think it must be serched also in other languages and in old libraries. In old libraries can be many interesting things, which nobody knows and which aren't on the Internet.
At the same time I suspect the song origins from, Henry VIII of England fouded the English Church. Do you believe that any English peple have gone to Compostela at this time? (Of course the English people were on The Way... before this time!) And nowadays they try to reconstruct the old pilgrim routes - Confraternity of St. James (London)
England have known this song only since it has become a simple French party or nursery song! I hope Italians and Germans (e.g.) have more to say on this theme or English people. By the way, I read on an Italian page that "Fra Martino" is a Spanish song! Fringo 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have looked off the internet. That is why I contacted all those reference librarians and libraries for assistance (nine so far). I agree that there are lots of things that are not on the internet and not easily found. However, NoychoH claims that ALL EUROPEANS AGREE ON THE PILGRIM THEORY and that this is an incredibly well known and accepted theory. That claim looks extremely doubtful. ALL EUROPEANS? Surely one person would have put it in a book or a technical paper. One in Polish or English or French. Just one. But we have not found any at all so far. None. I admit it is possible that this pilgrim theory is published some place prominent and we have not found it yet, but I am very doubtful.--Filll 00:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the Unencyclopedic Nature of this Article

As I understand it, the basis of NoychoH's objections to this article is that it has too many references and footnotes. There are at present about 63 references. Four of these are actually real footnotes. The rest are article citations. A large fraction of these are supporting material for the "cultural references" (references number 35 and greater). At least 3 of these numbered references are repeats. This leaves no more than 27 real citations that are associated with the song origin sections. There are about 10 song origin theories presented, so there is on average only 2 or 3 citations per song origin theory in this Wikipedia article. The Draughon and Knapp article which explores one or two origin theories in far more depth, as part of their discussion, has 77 cited articles and 43 endnotes. The Draughon and Knapp article won awards for its scholarly content. The Wikipedia Sikh article is held up as an example of what we should aim towards. It is about half the length of the Frere Jacques article up to the section dealing with Cultural References, and the Sikh article includes 11 references and outside sources. Therefore, I think that having 27 real citations is not inappropriate or way out of line when presenting these 10 origin theories. I would be glad to appeal to an outside person to consider the situation and offer advice. However, I do not see how having references and citations to outside published work makes this article "unencyclopedic". It should perhaps be shortened, as I have suggested before, by creating new articles and farming out some of this material to other articles. I would welcome a division of this article into two or more shorter articles, as I would the Translations of Frere Jacques article, which is also getting pretty long.--Filll 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on El Camino Inclusion

I wonder why El Camino is the preferred shorthand name for the Way of St. James, instead of Le Chemin, Der Pilgerweg, Pelgrimswegen, or Pilgrimsvagen, or some other name in some other language? Why should we prefer one over the other?--Filll 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Compostela is in Spain and many people who pilgrimate to it (there are more and more in Europe) use the Spanish name independently what language they speak. Fringo 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be true, but I would like to see more evidence for this in publications. What I find more amazing is that NoychoH wants to have an unlinked reference for some reason connected with El Camino, which is well known to be an error on Wikipedia.--Filll 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an evidence enough for you could be a book by Shirley Maclaine: "The Camino"? Read also "The Pilgrims Stories" and other books quoted under the aticle on the Way of St. James. NoychoH 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shirley MacLaine is not really what I would term a scholar and a reference to her book would not really constitute a high quality reference. If it was in Maclaine's book, I would use it, however. Just telling me to read a pile of 5 or 10 books and maybe find your theory in there someplace is not scholarship and it is not a reference and it is not an answer to my request for evidence.--Filll 09:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If Anyone with Russian Literacy wants to Contribute

I suggest that you try tracking down the references to "Father Theofil" in the Russian literature.--Filll 03:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The place to start looking for the Father Theofil reference is this review which is titled:
Koz'ma Prutkov: The Art of Parody. by Barbara Heldt Monter
Review author[s]: Richard Gregg
Slavic Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 401-402

I spoke to Professor Richard Gregg at his home and he told me that in the original book by Barbara Heldt Monter, Barbara H. Monter. Koz'ma Prutkov, The Art of Parody. The Hague - Paris, 1972, one can find a mention of the Father Theofil theory. I do not believe that this Monter book is accessible on the internet, but it might be in a library. It contains the discussion of the Father Theofil theory, and a reference to the Prutkov book (in Russian) that makes this claim or discusses this claim. Apparently, according to Professor Gregg, this was a prominent claim by the Russians or early Soviets that, based on some Russian scholarship, Frere Jacques was derived from the Father Theofil song. Prutkov was a fictional author, and was really a pseudonym for Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy (who died in 1875) and 2 or 3 of his cousins. Some of Prutkov's works are available on the internet in Russian. An article that mentions Professor Monter's book can be found here. So if you feel like digging, this might be a place to start.--Filll 01:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charpentier

I did some investigation of Louis Charpentier. I am not so sure he is a reliable source. Here is a review:

In the 1960's "Louis Charpentier...in two books not remarkable for the clarity of their ideas, claimed that the Templars were despatched to the Holy Land by St Bernard to fetch the Ark of the Temple of Solomon back to Europe. His evidence that they were successful in this enterprise is the building of the Gothic cathedrals of Europe, which the Templars financed partly with silver produced by the practice of alchemy, partly with more silver which (three centuries before Columbus) they imported from the Americas, and disembarked at La Rochelle!"- Peter Partner, The Murdered Magicians

--Filll 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long

I think that this article is getting pretty long and that some of the cultural references might be spun off into another article, and possibly some of the exploration of Frere jacques origins. Also some of the alternative lyrics as well. --Filll 13:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the alternative lyrics should be moved out and merged into the existing article on alternative lyrics, especially since they are almost a complete duplication. I also suggest that the section be moved up next to the translations section where it logically belongs and where it's more easily noticed. Unless someone objects I will do this. --JimTheFrog 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NoychoH's final (yes!) remark

I am not interested in manufacturing evidence, as Filll has suggested I might do. In fact, I am not even interested in searching for the evidence for the sake of Filll. I have never claimed that ALLL EUROPEANS accept one theory or another. Maybe I am stupid, but not to THAT degree. When I write "it is commonly believed" it does mean what it is supposed to mean, and not a bit more.

Re: the pilgrim's theory, I suggest that Filll goes once for a pilgrimage to Compostela herself and listens what people there talk about the song.

Internet is far form being the essence of human knowledge and wisdom. In fact, the more obvious an information seems the more difficult it is to find it on Internet. On the contrary, the more "original" or "giving new light on the truth hidden for centuries by an international conspiracy" a theory is, the more probable it becomes that the theory will be published on the Internet (the cheapest and the most patient resource of "all kinds" of "knowledge", especially the one that is "knowledge otherwise").

Soviet claims which could be summed up as "everything that was interesting in the world was invented first by a Russian and only forgotten, because the imperialist bourgeois spies have stolen it and afterwords published under their name", are well known in this part of the world where I live. Maybe not in America. Jokes on the famous Russian philosophers like "Pyetya Goras" and "Sasha Krates" cannot be found on Internet but they are reality in this part of the world. The theory of Father Theophil seems one of such theories.

I am not interested in Filll's challenges, in fact I am tired of them. Filll is treating her research on Frere Jacques as the essence or ultimate purpose of his life, and is taking all remarks very personal. That's not what I am interested in.

I hope one day Fill will find time to look into the real meaning of my remarks and not into their letter. By this day I will abstain from further remarks. NoychoH 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous and I am almost ready to have some outside person come in to deal with this situation. I never said that NoychoH was manufacturing evidence or about to. My assertion is that NoychoH has no evidence and is unable or unwilling to produce it, but instead engages in very unscholarly behavior and arguments. I have tried hard to find the evidence. Against the rules of Wikipedia, I permitted this theory to be placed in the article without evidence. As you well know, NoychoH, or should: If you have no evidence, your assertions and claims have no business being in Wikipedia. Period. Hearing pilgrims in hostels talking about the song is no proof of anything. It is unscholarly. This is not evidence. This is not what belongs in an encyclopedia.
As for noting that the internet is not all of human knowledge and it being unreliable, that is true. And having unverified and unverifiable theories on it like this pilgrim theory makes it worse. However, if this theory was so common as claimed, it would appear in a reference someplace. On the internet or off the internet. And NoychoH would be able to point to it.
As I said before, the Russian theory is doubtful. But at least it is properly referenced and in a peer-reviewed journal. It is not up to us to pass judgement on it. It is only our duty to point it out and the reference. And in this instance, the standards of scholarship being applied to this pilgrim theory are as bad as those of the Soviets he is mocking. Or worse.
Peronal slurs are not appropriate and I would ask you not to engage in them. If you are not interested or unable to produce documentation for your claims, then they do not belong here. Period. --Filll 09:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Those who are interested to know my opinion or share / discuss their opinion with me on what is the REAL purpose of Wikipedia and what are the REAL scholarly standards, are welcome to do it in a place less Fillled, namely in my discussion page. NoychoH 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I advice people who want to know about scholarly standards to get a PhD, publish in a (peer-reviewed) international scientific journal and/or read seminal texts on the philosophy of science. In scholarly practice any claim that does not follow by strict logic from undoubted arguments, that does not follow from own (controllable and replicatable) empirical evidence, or that is not derived from a reference of sufficient quality (preferably an international scientific journal - preferably not Internet); is not to be trusted. That's it, and remarks like it is common knowlege do not fit with either of the criteria Arnoutf 20:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Arnoutf, I thought your paragraph was going to end differently. You are right about how one is supposed to do scholarly work, but wrong to think that WP is the place for it.

And perhaps you are not totally correct. Most of science -- and scholarship generally-- proceeds on less than totally secure grounds, and most conclusions are tentative. Most peer-reviewed journals do not really discriminate for quality--for each Physical Review Letters accepting 5% of the submissions there are 100 journals accepting 95%. To do work at all, we must proportion our standards to our resources.DGG 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about a Jacques that escaped a massacre called 'Les Matines Brugeoises'?

As one interested in histoy, and one much admiring your learned discussion on the song Frère Jacques, I would like to hear your comments on a find I just did.

I used "Matines" as key for a search in the French Wikipedia. There one can find a a page dedicated to "Les Matines Brugeoises", a massacre of French-speakers in Brugues/Brugge in 1302. In Dutch: the Brugse Metten. One of those that escaped (and the only one mentioned) was... Jacques de Saint-Pol, the Governor. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A2tines_de_Bruges

Les Matines being the morning prayers, by association sonner les matines to sound the bells for morning prayer, it seems not to be too far fetched to interpret the song as an admonition to sound the bells to alarm the (Catholic) French....... This also checks with the Dutch (and other) texts: "the bells are ringing", not "ring the bells please".

Still another possibility: some sources put the text as "sonnent les matines". And yes, this would be a belated warning. Wake up for prayer, something bad is going on...

If the song is written some years after the event, it is consistent with the dating of the key the song is written.


Your comments please (André Hilhorst).

This sounds very interesting. I am personally a bit suspicious of any claim that is a long time before the first appearance in print which was in the mid-1700s. But if you can find any reference to this theory in print, even in a French text, we would include it for sure. --Filll 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

Referring to the innovative time-keeping autonomy of the Church during the Middle Ages, David S. Landes mentions the children's ballad Frère Jacques. Quoting from page 48 of his book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor?, "Medieval Europe gave new importance to reliable time. The Church first, with its seven daily prayer offices, one of which, matins, was in spite of its name a nocturnal rite and required an alarm arrangement to wake clerics before dawn. (Hence our children's round, Frère Jacques: Brother Jacques has overslept and failed to sound the bells for matins.)"

Landes adds that "the English and German versions of the verse (and maybe others) traduce the meaning by saying that 'morning bells are ringing.' The point is, they are not ringing."</ref>--Filll 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brother John

The first line under "Dark interpretation" states that the English version seems to be referring to a sleepy sibling. Since I was a child I have thought this song referred to a Catholic friar or similar (though I am not Catholic), and I have never thought that "Brother John" referred to a sibling. I would guess that this is mostly because I would never use the word "brother" with the first name of on of my male siblings to refer to him. I would just use one or the other alone, whereas the phrase "Brother James," etc. is fairly common both in Protestant churches (to refer to male members) and among Catholics to refer to friars, etc. Because I heard and half-learned the French version about the same time, that may have also helped me think of friars, etc. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)