Talk:Þiðreks saga

Date?

Why no date for this?2601:806:4301:C100:D42:87C3:A4ED:7808 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Badenhausen

As discussed on Talk:Legends about Theoderic the Great, Rolf Badenhausen's website is not a reliable source. It is also incorrect to state that philologists and historians have begun to reject the identity of Dietrich von Bern with Theoderic the Great. This is a fringe view promoted by amateurs inspired by Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg's book from the 80s, which has been roundly panned by experts in the field. These views are perhaps notable, but they should not be in the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See further https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legends_about_Theoderic_the_Great#Rolf_Badenhausen (last edit 30 March 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tympanus (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The re-referenced article by Rolf Badenhausen, who compares Frankish and Saxon history and historiography with Þiðreks saga by means of Ritter-Schaumburg and other publications, is in accordance with all policies referring to WP:nor and WP:npov (...)

WP:Nor: The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; if your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents...

Apart from Ritter, whom Badenhausen critically reviews on Dietrich's less believable prototype of a pretty "Kleinkönig", he quotes and comments in his article the basic positions of mainly these scholars

Dietrich von Bern, estimated king of Verona cisalpina = Bonn on the Rhine:

• Hans-Jürgen Hube (PhD, Humboldt-University Berlin)
• Laurenz Lersch (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)
• Hermann Lorenz (PhD, University of Leipzig)
• Franz Joseph Mone (Prof. PhD, Heidelberg University)
• Josef Niessen (PhD, University of Bonn)
• Karl Müllenhoff (PhD, Humboldt-University Berlin)
• Karl J. Simrock (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)

Historiographical milieu of Thidreks saga:

• Willi Eggers (PhD, University of Hamburg)
• Hilkert Weddige (PhD, University of Munich)
• Roswitha Wisniewski (Prof. PhD, Heidelberg University)

Dietrich von Bern as Frankish king Theuderic I:

• Kemp Malone
• Laurenz Lersch (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)
• Hermann Lorenz (PhD, University of Leipzig)
• Josef Niessen (PhD, University of Bonn)
• Karl Müllenhoff (PhD, Humboldt-University Berlin)
• Karl J. Simrock (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)

History of the Merovingian Franks:

• Hans Hubert Anton (Universities of Bonn and Trier)
• Eugen Ewig (Universities of Nancy, Mainz, Bonn)
• Richard A. Gerberding
• Guy Halsall
• Ulrich Nonn (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)
• Ian N. Wood (University of Leeds)
• Edward F. James (Prof. PhD, University College, Dublin)

History, historiography and archaeology of continental Saxons:

• Martina Giese (Prof. PhD, Universities of Potsdam and Würzburg)
• Matthias Springer (Prof. PhD, University of Magdeburg)
• Wilhelm Winkelmann (PhD, Universities of Tübingen and Münster)

--Tympanus (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)