User talk:Ermenrich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rollback

I have been following you for some years, seeing your great work on e.g. legendary characters. You are also doing some important work keeping fringe theories at bay. Would the rollback function be of use to you?--Berig (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berig, and thank you! I think that it would, I've just never bothered to figure out how to get it! Looks like I need to request them?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can give it to you, if you want it. Confirming it is asking, isn't it? :-)--Berig (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Then I formally request it from you, thanks Berig!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you need to reload, but you should see it now. Good luck, and be careful with it. :-)--Berig (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much and I will, Berig!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

ß

Thank you for doing the bulk of the merge of ß. I was thinking of doing it, but I'm usually quite slow at that, so I'm happy that you beat me to it.

I also thought a bit about the Hitler passage. You made a good point that that's not even taken from the book itself, but only from the book review. If you had written so earlier, I might not have reinserted it. I've grown to see such insertions in the lede as a common phenomenon, which happened again with the usage and pseudo-definition of the term “grapheme”, which only occurs in the lede. So I just started an essay user:SebastianHelm/LEADSEED about it; let me know what you think. ◅ Sebastian 15:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SebastianHelm for removing the OR from the lead. I think your essay is a great idea and we should try to popularize it around Wikipedia. It's a problem I've frequently noticed as well.

As to the book and text, the German article contains the following:

Als die Nationalsozialisten in Deutschland im Jahr 1941 die Fraktur und sonstige gebrochene Schriften abschafften und die Antiqua als „Normal-Schrift“ einführten, wurde von den zuständigen Ministerien auch eine Abschaffung des ß in Antiqua beschlossen, da der Buchstabe im Ausland unbekannt und selten in Antiqua-Schriften vorhanden war. Hitler intervenierte aber. Aus einem Schreiben des Reichsministers der Reichskanzlei: „Der Führer hat sich für eine Beibehaltung des ‚ß‘ in der Normalschrift entschieden. Er hat sich aber gegen die Schaffung eines großen ‚ß‘ ausgesprochen. Bei der Verwendung großer Buchstaben soll das ‚ß‘ vielmehr als ‚SS‘ geschrieben werden.“

References

As you can see it's cited to a different book, but it's unclear whether there's any commentary or if this just lists primary source documents. The book reviewed by Deutschlandfunk looks like it may actually mostly be a polemic against the Rechtschreibreform, see this passage of the review:

Gerade an diesem Punkt, an dem großen Gewicht der Sprechweise für die Rechtschreibung, setzt die am Ende des Buchs formulierte sprachwissenschaftliche Kritik der Autoren an der Reform von 1996 an. Die Ersetzung von „ß“ durch ein Doppel-s orientiert sie sich am Klang und nicht daran, dass ß auch ein Silbenende markiert. So wird aus einem Wort wie „Meßergebnis“ schnell Messer-gebnis. Und wohin es führen kann, dass die Aussprache gar nicht so einheitlich ist wie die Nationalsozialisten sie gerne gehabt hätten, zeigen recht merkwürdige, angeblich der Sprechweise folgenden Silbentrennungen. Sagt man nun Tee-nager oder Teen-ager? Sagt man voll-enden oder vol-lenden? MUSS man die Rechtschreibreform von 1996 nach der Lektüre dieses Büchleins aber nun mit anderen Augen betrachten? MUSS man sie vielleicht sogar in der direkten Tradition des Nationalsozialismus verorten? Die Autoren legen dies nahe, auch wenn dies etwas übertrieben scheint. Wichtig und verdienstvoll ist es aber auf jeden Fall, dass sie die Lücke im öffentlichen Gedächtnis geschlossen haben und das Bewusstsein dafür schärten, dass Eingriffe in die Sprache immer auch eine politische Dimension haben. (My bolding)

This is part of why I was somewhat skeptical about the addition originally. Obviously Hitler really did intervene to keep the ß, but I wonder how we can source it better and give it some better framing (i.e. given the fact that no one writes "Kautsch," how much effect did Nazi attempts to change German spelling really have?)--Ermenrich (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen "Kautsch", but I privately write “Händi”, does that mean I have to be “verortet” in the tradition of the NS regime? That sounds like they have an agenda, indeed. But regardless of the agenda of the book or its review, just grabbing the one sentence that contains the name Hitler seems very selective, too. (Maybe due to a Man bites dog effect.) It would have been more productive if the editor instead had extended the article on the topic of the book, the German orthography reform of 1996. Anyway, so what to do about the cited text? Should we change it to a translation of the one cited in dewiki? ◅ Sebastian 17:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, ideally I'd like to check the source before adding it, but it does seem an improvement. German Wikipedia doesn't seem to be as strict about sourcing as the English-language version so I'm always a bit hesitant about taking anything over 1 to 1. I can try to see if I can get my hands on the book to check the reference.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, German Wikipedia is quite lax about sources; they have nothing like {{cn}}. (At least not last time I searched for it, about a year ago.) Another option would be to put the whole Hitler text in a footnote, link to that both from the minuscule and the majuscule portion, and explain in the footnote that it's only “cited in”. (That would work better with the book review text, though.) ◅ Sebastian 17:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversies

Ermenrich, the word "knyaz" is not a loan from the German language. It is not necessary to pass off the statement of M. Fasmer as the opinion of the majority. Noraskulk (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Religion in Carthage

added links pointing to Juno, El, Syracuse, Cronos and Triton

Tophet

added links pointing to Tyre, Syracuse and Siege of Tyre

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Holocaust Ukraine

Hi,

please check this ([1]), is this edit correct? (You've edited Demjanjuk, so hope you may evaluate this correctly). Thank You, Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, no, I would say not. There's a long history of denying that Demjanjuk was involved in the Holocaust (begun by Demjanjuk himself), so I've reverted the edit.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moloch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Competence required

We may need another level-headed third party editor on the talkpage of Magnus the Strong.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of high quality input. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Ermenrich to be Editor of the Week. Although becoming an editor as late as March 2018, Ermenrich has already left a strong mark on Wikipedia. Ermenrich has a PhD in medieval German literature, and has created several high-quality articles related to this field of expertise, including Nibelungenklage, Lied vom Hürnen Seyfrid, Biterolf und Dietleib, Ermenrichs Tod, Dietrich und Wenezlan, Eckenlied, Rabenschlacht, and Dietrichs Flucht. Articles on this subject which Ermenrich has improved significantly include Legends about Theodoric the Great, Sigurd, Gunther, Sigenot, Brunhild, Gudrun and Nibelungenlied. Ermenrich has also made substantial contributions to articles on other important subjects, such as Huns, The Exodus, Pontius Pilate, Hyksos and John Demjanjuk. These subjects are controversial, and Ermenrich has made a great effort to ensure that such articles remain neutral and of high-quality. Ermenrich does not shy away from participating in controversial discussions, and often plays an important role in helping reach a consensus.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Ermanrich can read Fraktur

Ermenrich

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 24, 2021

Since joining Wikipedia in March2018 Ermenrich has left a strong mark. He has a PhD in medieval German literature and has created several high-quality articles related to this field such as Legends about Theodoric the Great and Sigurd. Ermenrich has made substantial contributions to articles on important controversial subjects and ensures that such articles remain neutral and of high-quality. When the inevitable controversial discussions occur he plays an important role in helping reach consensus

Recognized for

neutrality

Notable work(s)

Nibelungenklage, Lied vom Hürnen Seyfrid, Biterolf und Dietleib, Ermenrichs Tod, Dietrich und Wenezlan, Eckenlied, Rabenschlacht, and Dietrichs Flucht

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! It is well-deserved!--Berig (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Buster7, it's a real honor!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And thanks Krakkos for the nomination!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ermenrich. This was a very well deserved award! Krakkos (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Frisian languages

Hi,

please check the IP edits. I don't watch this page, but it abused a few articles (the others I reverted, as I judged them disruptive, but here better look in it). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

Thanks KIENGIR, it looks pretty disruptive to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ß, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ligature.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Glogonj

Hi, please see the recent edits....I have a bad feeling about this....AustrianFreedom or RichardSaringer returned and/or it may be a covert sleeping account (even the edit's ortoghrapy is very problematic)? ...I think you may use your new rollback tool...what do you think?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I reverted the edits, but I'm not convinced its AustrianFreedom at this point. For one thing, AustrianFreedom didn't show much sign of planning ahead, which would make having a sleeper account strange. We'll see what else the account does.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the current info on the page seems to come from AustrianFreedom, as a quick search shows and as its focus entirely on the SS would also lead one to believe. I wonder if those edits shouldn't also be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, recently after this ([2]) and this, I may hardly believe any scenario by default...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

---

Hi. I am not 'AustrianFreedom'. My name is Haggerty. I'm an American who has been living in Germany for over 25 years. My ancestors on one side of my family came from Glogon and I wanted to add additional information to it. I basically used the German Wikipedia article to expand the English version. That's all. Sorry if I didn't add additional references. I'm still new to this. (KH) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPHaggerty (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

KPHaggerty, don't worry about it! If you can find reliable sources for your additions, feel free to add them back. German WP is very lax about sourcing, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@KPHaggerty:,

sorry about my assumption, but recently we have an overdose of sockpuppeteers, POV-pushers, edit warriors and sealioners, which are really tyring our community, hence we are on alert. Just follow Ermenrich's advices, and then everything should be alright. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Hello Emerich, I just finished my improvements on Glogonj, including references, and would like to insert them into the Wikipedia English article very soon. Please take a look at it. Maybe you can assist me in putting together the references properly, if I didn't do it right. I used references from English, German and Serbian sources, (the Serbian ones were mainly from parts where several foreign movies were filmed near Glogonj during the 1960s thru 1980s). Cheers K. Haggerty. PS: I'm going to try to add an old Austrian map of Glogon as well. I might need help doing this.

If you haven’t made them yet, where did you put them?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Concering Rus

Hi. I would just like to ask you how you came to the decision to introduce the word 'mainly' to the origination of the Rus? It's a well-known fact in Sweden when you speak to scholars and people well versed in old Norse that the virus originated in what is today Roslagen (the old word would be Roden), a name that can be traced through the Finnish word for Swedish, Rootsi. It also makes a lot of sense since the Vikings that were also raiding and interacting with the Slavic regions were almost entirely Swedish which can be seen on the majority of runestones mentioning those geographical locations being almost entirely found in Sweden. There is no other real believable version so I recommend and suggest you rephrase the wording to originating in Sweden and remove the 'mainly'. Really glad to see some interest for the Rus as I don't have the time that I used to have to help maintain these pages, they're easily overlooked. Gaudi9223 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the sources say that there were some Vikings from other locations.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you quote it in English/any of the Scandinavian languages? I have never heard of this, in that case, it would be a minor theory that shouldn't be part of the more popular and widely believed debate as that would take away from what's actually important. Gaudi9223 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions the involvement of the King of Norway among other things. I hardly think that’s a “minor theory”. The article is in the midst of a rewrite, I suggest you discuss it on the talk page there.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gaudi9223: Although, it is certain that most Rus' considered Sweden to be the ancestral homeland, Viking Age Scandinavians, were not hermetically restricted to the spheres of interest of their own Norse sub-division. There were Swedes among the mostly Norwegian settlers of Iceland, and there were Swedes among the mostly Danish invaders of England, and most likely there were many Rus' who traced their origins to Denmark and even Norway. Since we don't have any statistics, we need to express ourselves carefully.--Berig (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision at Ostrogoths

Hi, regarding your revert at Ostrogoths, I do see your point about how the Ostrogoths rule Italy after the Roman era.

I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions that is currently striving to add descriptions to Level 5 Vital articles such as Ostrogoths.

However, your summary said the previous description was more accurate, but there was no previous description, and rather than restoring to any "previous accurate version", you only removed it.

To address your concern about the accuracy of the description, I shall simply state it as: "Record of Germanic people", and I hope you will feel this is an uncontentious edit, but if you don't agree, then please feel free to add a description that you think is appropriate, and that follows the suggestions at the short description project. Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Baltic Finnic peoples

Hi,

I kindly ask you opinion I was reverting in the article a user with 7 mainspace edits, but another user reverted me twice and funnily even sent me and edit warring notice, despite not just the time and frame would not meet that, but I restored to the status quo (the user have had many interpretation poblems earlier as well)...can we say like are Baltic Finnics are genetically from these archeological cultures (Corded Ware, EHG)?(KIENGIR (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

Can you provide the pages or diffs KIENGIR?—Ermenrich (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just click on the subject, the recent 5 edits. (with one exception = Keith D).(KIENGIR (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

The Baltic Finnics are indeed partly from the Corded Ware Culture. The probably Indo-European population on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea were "Fennicized" at a later stage.--Berig (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR has declined to provide justification for his deletion of sourced content on the talk page, but stated in an edit summary that general statements on genetic ancestry based on population genetics studies were covered by WP:MEDRS, an entirely spurious argument. The content was supported by two users, deletion by one, therefore there was no justification for a second revert.

Unfortunately his message on this page seems to be part of a pattern of behaviour of trying to bypass the need to substantively discuss deletion of sourced content through direct appeals to admins. --Boynamedsue (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin Boynamedsue, just an editor whose opinion KIENGIR values. I don't myself like the way Wikipedia handles genetics research, but I'm outvoted on whether WP:SCIRS should become policy rather than just advice (this is why MEDRS would be applicable, per that essay). It's certainly better to have review articles in any case - since Berig mentioned that he knows that the article is accurate, he may know of one. My only other complaint would be that the article should be cited to the journal where it is published rather than the preprint. But other than that I don't think the addition can be removed without a consensus of editors on that page.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to help.--Berig (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

And your help is appreciated, Berig!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies to KIENGIR then, I must have misread the situation. Do you happen to know where the use of population genetics studies in relation to WP:MEDRS is discussed? If that truly is the policy it seems utterly absurd. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, see WP:SCIRS. I won't go into detail for the reasons why I and some others think this is a good policy, but at the moment its only advisory. Genetics sections attract a lot of quackery on Wikipedia, unfortunately, and a lot of studies reach very different conclusions.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

time to you think a little bit before such kind of manifestations you make, first of all you only entered to the talk page after your second revert, so don't argue that I'd "fail" anything to do there (and I waited Ermenrich's opinion first). As well not understanding our policies like BRD and other stuff your attention have already been drawn is a problem. Consequently, such pattern you claim does not exist, secondly because I have always engaged in discussions on the talk page, but the difference is that I understood what's going on there, and I never deleted anything that would contradict it.

Regarding your question, I agree with Ermenrich, I would avoid genetic excomunnications per wikivoice since all along it ends up that some groups try to desperately to prove and/or corrupt cultures/origins on their favor. So unless the other user's encountered here does not tell further (I as well won't go futher the details), I simply drop this issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

Ah, so it's WP:SCIRS rather than WP:MEDRS which is relevant? That makes more sense.

@KIENGIR:

Like I said, I apologise for my misunderstanding, it was, however, based on your past conduct. Probably not the time or place to discuss it. Apologies also to Ermenrich for coming onto this talkpage in such a brusque fashion.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

ok, but I tell you again, I had not such conduct in the past as you claimed (I just explained). Yes, the best is if we stop discussing here, I think Ermenrich gave you the answer accurately.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

Stop adding false information to the article

Emmerich, here you once again add to the article information that Askold and Dir allegedly founded the state of Russia, but this is not in any source. On the discussion page of the article, you stated that you use secondary sources, but Iver Neumann only talks about the Russian khaganate. And the most important thing is that the very sentence you add sounds absurd; this opinion is not held by any historian (I myself have been studying history not so long ago, but this sentence shocked me). Noraskulk (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

The state of Rus was founded by Rurik (I will ask Berig to confirm). Noraskulk (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

You need to stop removing information that is sourced that you don’t like Noraskulk, this is getting disruptive. Nor am I the one who added the sentence, but originally Carlstak and then Krakkos. You need to gain wp:consensus rather than simply re adding your changes.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I changed the wording with this edit from "Later, the Primary Chronicle claims, they conquered Kiev and created the state of Kievan Rus' (which, most historians agree,[citation needed] was preceded by the Rus' Khaganate)" to "Later, the Primary Chronicle claims, they conquered Kiev and created the state of Kievan Rus' (which was preceded by the Rus' Khaganate)", and added the Neumann and Wigen cite. Then I added the Kim cite, which I subsequently removed after the comments made by Ermenrich and Krakkos on the talk page. I defer to the editors who are more knowledgeable of the subject than I.

I should say also, Noraskulk, that addressing an editor with a peremptory command like your header here is no way to persuade anyone, and that's not how we do things here on WP. You can't edit-war to get your way; you must engage on the talk page and make your case there to gain consensus. Carlstak (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we have to use the talkpage to deal with disagreements. Rurik has a special position in Russian tradition, as the founder of the first Russian state. That is true. However, the delimitations between the Rus' chiefdom founded by Rurik in the Novgorod area, the Rus' Khaganate, the princedom of Kievan Rus' and its successors need to be discussed on the talkpage instead before we start to remove things. The former editor and admin, and friend, Briangotts once brought Rus' Khaganate to featured article status, so it is a notable topic and needs be mentioned.--Berig (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ermenrich. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Replied, Doug Weller.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Attila

Hi. You left a reference error with your edit to Attila. Could you take a look? --Bsherr (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bsherr, should be fixed now, if you're thinking of what I found.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Just didn't want to presume your intent. Thanks very much. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Germanic heroic legend

Do you want it to be only about texts, or would you also like a section on pictorial representations, like the Sigurd stones?--Berig (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, I think a section on pictorial depictions absolutely belongs there, as these are sometimes the earliest attestations of the sagas.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich I agree. will be busy the next three days, but this weekend at the latest, I will put something together.--Berig (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, sorry about that last edit, I really appreciate all the work you're putting into the draft! I just think we need to avoid going into too much detail, especially when there's so much Scandinavian material!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And Berig, feel free to revert if you feel strongly about it!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem Ermenrich! This is your project after all. I realized that I might be writing too much. That Bergen source, does not provide anything controversial, just descriptions of the works and general facts and it has a great bibliography. I thought it would be convenient with an easily accessible online source.--Berig (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

But, I have read so much about these things, that I do believe I am competent to select good sources.--Berig (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll defer to you!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And I hope I haven't scared you off writing more, Berig!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. But your hesitation about the online source reminds me that others may react in the same way. I wonder whether they should go, but the Danish chronicles and the Skjöldunga and Ynglinga saga are important to mention because they provide much Scandinavian pre-legendary saga material on the same Scandinavian matter that you find in Beowulf and in Widsith. If you want to keep them, you can cut them down to what is interesting, and I will see what needs to be referenced with paper sources.--Berig (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, I think they should stay for sure. I found a few sources online on the legendary sagas that might help, such as this book that I think at least mentions the Skjöldinga saga and some of the others in a few of the articles I looked at. Academia.edu is generally a good place to look for scholarship I find - the problem (from our perspective) is that scholars don't usually just summarize the interesting things about the source except for literary histories and handbooks, so one needs to find one that isn't making an argument about something irrelevant to the article... Anyway, I don't doubt sources can be found, some may be in Scandinavian languages I can't read as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I try to avoid Scandinavian sources, as they are not accessible for most of the target audience here.--Berig (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. There's probably something in English.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, I found a source for the Chronicon Lethrense in the book I linked here - I'm out of time for the moment, but I'm certain that the other citation can also be found there.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I am editing right now with an English language source, I found.--Berig (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! Hope I didn't just cause you an edit conflict!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, do you happen to know any good sources for Hervarar saga or any of the other legendary sagas? The Völsunga saga definitely sucks up all the scholarly attention. Do you think we should mention Snorri's Edda? Doesn't he give a synopsis of the Sigurd legend?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually just woke up intending to write a summary on the Hervarar saga. I believe the best source is Christopher Tolkien's introduction to his translation of the saga[3]. I will also write a summary on Hrólfr Kraki's saga, and maybe a line on Ásmundar saga kappabana. You may need to prune them down. As for the Prose Edda, the Sigurd tradition is mentioned in Skáldskaparmál, where Snorri provided the story as a background to skaldic kennings. Here is a good English language source. It should probably be mentioned.--Berig (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've recently been mucking around off-wiki with a specific issue or two related to the fornaldarsögur, and they appear to have been a focus of recent scholarship. There's this 2012 book, and you've got this 2010 Viking Society book, right? I wasn't looking particularly for work on Hervarar saga so I may well have not noted a third book or some articles (personally I have 40 pages on JSTOR on Gautreks saga to read in case it changes my mind and the hof scene in Sturlaugs saga starfsama to evaluate—thanks Wikipedia, for pointing me to this translation). Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I had indeed found a third book: Fornaldarsagaerne: Myter og virkelighed, 2009. I can see at least part of it on GoogleBooks here. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, you always make top-notch edits to these articles. I don't think Ermenrich minds if I invite you to edit his draft.--Berig (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me, but I don't think I should; I'm acutely aware that I don't have a very good overview on that vast field, and you two will probably produce something more balanced and less idiosyncratic if I don't have a hand in it :-) Plus I really should be working onthat off-wiki project, but you know how it is, Wikipedia keeps drawing me back (and reminding me of all the articles I have intended to fix). Yngvadottir (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Yngvadottir, I certainly know the feeling. Every now and then Wikipedia sort of takes over my life (as now when I started putting this article together) and probably lowers my productivity in non-Wiki work... Anyway, I certainly would not mind if you edited the draft!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What's left?

What do you think we still need, Berig, besides a the section on legacy? I was thinking of adding a little bit on "Style" to the heroic poetry section, and we could give a very brief overview of the meters, possibly in a new section. I think the other sections, while there may be some small things we've missed, are about ready. I could give more of a summary of the Quedlinburg Annalen and the Waltharius I suppose...--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say the same! What you write sounds good. I wonder if I should just mention a few heroic lays from Snorri's Edda.--Berig (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox suggested that we could use a counterpart to List of Germanic deities for heroic figures - this might be better than the current section we have just listing figures. It would list attestations, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've put a first entry at another sandbox I made a while ago, User:Ermenrich/sandboxpilatestone. It seems like it will be slightly more laborious than I was intending, particularly since the etymologies and historical origins will need citations... I'll just move over the list for now and try working through it slowly.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I know. I had a try at List of names of Odin, but it simply doesn't feel worth all the work.--Berig (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

[This book of essays http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/ONMN%20copyright%20restr.pdf] should be useful for the legacy section.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. I have to take a break now. I have a busy week until Saturday, when I will be able to focus more on this.--Berig (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving and/or merging

When you think it is finished, shall I move and merge it with the article Heroic lay, or do you prefer it to be a separate article?--Berig (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that we can expand the article on heroic lay, especially since it's general validity as the original form of Germanic poetry is no longer the dominant theory (as currently portrayed there). I'll try to find something on the MHG heroic style too - I may need some different sources than I've been using so far. One thing the MHG heroic poems have in common with earlier ones is the use of tons of words for warrior/hero (recke, degen, held, and more), for instance, but I need to find a citation.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Germanic christianity

I think the section on Christianity and heroic legends, maybe should mention that it was not modern Christianity, but a synchretic form, as in Heliand. IIRC, the missionaries in Scandinavia tried to portray Jesus as a conquering warlord to make people interested.--Berig (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Heliand is a good example of Christianity appropriating the heroic when it suited itself. I suppose I forget that people have a sort of misleading idea of what being Christian means in the 21st century.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Great!--Berig (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PS. We also have Dream of the Rood.--Berig (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reichert

Berig, I don't think that the sentence you've added at the end to Reichert's position on Atlakviða belongs there. The issue isn't the dating of Atlakviða, but differences between modern "Heuslerians" and Heusler. I think the text makes it clear that this isn't the majority position (although he's an influential scholar and I'd be surprised if more and more questions about the age of the Eddic poems aren't made over time. This appears to already be well underway with Hamðismál). I think everything after the "although" should be removed, but keeping your change to "asserts".

I can't see the google books unfortunately: what do they think Atlikviða proves archaeologically? You might consider beefing up the article on Atlakviða itself: it's slightly better than some of the other articles on the Eddic poems but still lacks quite a lot of detail.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, I also think it's important to note that he doesn't deny that the poem contains old knowledge (such as your second example, oath rings, which it turns out I can see after all), just that the poem as preserved is "old". Seeing the one source makes me think the addition may also run afoul of wp:SYNTH since it's not actually about proving the age of Atlakviða or arguing against those who say its young.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, true, but as I wrote in the edit summary I wanted to provide context about the material.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said, I think that that material might be a good addition to the Atlakviða article. What does the first book say, I'm curious?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I discovered the Academia link. D'oh!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously believes that they have been preserved verbatim since the time they are assumed to have been composed. What is interesting is whether parts of the poems like terminology, content, kennings, and other components are of an old age. These old poems do indeed set themselves apart in ways that the Icelanders of the 13th can hardly have faked, and that is why Krag's hypothesis has been rejected, although he did succeed in sowing seeds of doubt.--Berig (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. As we talked about before, some scholars are fairly radically skeptical, and that's probably at least partially justified by both the naivite of some earlier scholarship and the immense abuse that Germanic material has been put to. But I agree that some of it goes too far, as I already mentioned in our discuss about Harald Fairhair. I've even seen that some scholars doubt that the Rök runestone mentions Theodoric the Great, even though he appears with basically the same epithets in Widsith!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I feel that as established WP editors, we need to balance excessive skepticism, because most editors don't have any background in Academia, and don't know that a skeptical secondary source may not be representative of the mainstream view. In the absence of new finds such as new primary sources, scholarly publications are about arguing for a point of view, and that point of view may not be very common at all.--Berig (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Berig, I've added some info from Theodor Andersson on the issue of dating to the early medieval section that I think lays out the issue well.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that :-).--Berig (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, something that really bothers me is that runic and archaeological studies refer to eddic poems when they discuss Viking Age finds as the most obvious thing in the world, while some literature scholars are more conspiracy-minded and want to make them as young as possible. There is an academic dissonance here. And personally, I don't understand how anyone honestly can claim late dates for the eddic poems when we have the Sigurd stones, and other very early depictions.--Berig (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The translation of Eddas, etc.

I will wait with this until the weekend because it is vast field that needs to be boiled down. In the 17th century, Denmark and Sweden competed in collecting Icelandic manuscripts. Both countries wanted to claim this treasure of past "greatness", and they translated them to find it.--Berig (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Berig! I should honestly give it a rest for a while myself, I have a job and a life to live too, lol.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Romantics

Berig, do you have any idea how we might better organize the "Romantics" section? It's getting quite unwieldy. Would it make sense to give the German romantics their own section? I'm reluctant to do that because it will make the interconnectedness of the various projects less obvious (such as the Edda edition - the Grimms were also collecting Danish ballads, which I haven't included for reasons of space/uncertainty whether there were any heroic ballads in their collection). Another possibility might be to draw a sharper distinction between romantic and post-romantic adaptations, although the sources don't seem to. The reception of heroic poetry seems like almost as big a project as heroic poetry itself, in a lot of ways.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of the same things, and I agree. The interconnectedness is important, and maybe the section simply has to grow in size by extrapolating on it. Let's have it grow. Usually, a big unwieldy section is easier to prune when it has reached a more finished stage.--Berig (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have divided it into a translation section and a derivative works section.--Berig (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rounding off the article

I think we should focus on a few very notable translations, and a few very notable derivative works such as Tolkien's legendarium, the recent Beowulf movie, and the Vikings TV-series. There should also be some general descriptions of modern fantasy and how it derives from the genre.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, there should also be something on the political influence, with implications such as the German soldiers in WWII being expected to die like Germanic heroes.--Berig (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Viking's TV show belongs here - it's more of a general saga and Viking's reception issue than heroic legends in particular. Agree on the rest. The big things still missing are: 1) Wagner, 2) modern fantasy, 3) some things like Goering's Stalingrad-Nibelungen speech and potentially the whole "völkisch" nationalist lense. The "Stab-in-the-back" myth is usually compared to Siegfried as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. As for the Vikings series, I was thinking of the Ragnar Lodbrok theme.--Berig (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're right about that. It's gotten so far from that by the end that it's easy to forget that it was like that in the beginning.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I haven't seen a single episode. The facts that "Earl" is used before patronyms instead of first names, that Kattegatt is the name of a town (it is a body of water), and that they place the Temple of Uppsala in the mountains, are a few of the things that have made me stay away from it :-).--Berig (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only that, but Kattegat seems to migrate between Denmark and Norway in the first few seasons... The history is actually so inaccurate that I wondered why I was bothered when they hunt a wild boar in North America in the last few episodes.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I recommend the Norsemen (TV series) on Netflix. It is a Norwegian TV-series but the actors also provide a version in English. It is hilariously funny, and extremely accurate in how the Viking Age is perceived by modern Scandinavians, popular myths and all.--Berig (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, the character Arvid, played by Nils Jørgen Kaalstad, looks a bit like me!--Berig (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tolkien

I am trying to make up my mind about how to include Tolkien. He needs to take up some space, doesn't he?--Berig (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - there are several books devoted entirely to his use of Germanic material even... Let's see how much space he takes up and then we can decide about cutting him down. I think Sir Walter Scott might need a trim as well, since he's only "inspired by" rather than engaging adapting the material. The whole section will probably need some trimming.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Trimming is always the hardest part.--Berig (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OTOH, I don't think it hurts mentioning that works like Ivanhoe have roots in this topic.--Berig (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a point. Let's see how we can fit everything in!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I will do some work on Tolkien, when it's morning here in Europe.--Berig (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Now, I have done what I can on Tolkien. I have tried to keep it short as I can, while including what I think is most relevant. Sometimes, I could base it on texts and references provided here on WP, but usually it was of poor quality so I have done some research to find better sources. Maybe we need to shorten down Tolkien's comments on the Nazis, but I am reluctant to do so. Being passionate about these topics and having a Jewish wife, I feel he more eloquently says what I would like to say.--Berig (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'll take a look when I can, it's a busy week for me for the next few days. I think we should probably cut it down and move it to the postwar section with the rest on Tolkien, right now it feels a bit like we're taking a position on the matter via Tolkien. I think the article then needs probably a thorough reading through for typos and for potential trimming and other improvements, and it's ready to post!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have trimmed down that part and integrated it into post-ww2 section. While you are busy with other things, I will look through it a few times, and probably add a few modern retellings.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've given the section a brief trimming. I'm still waiting for a book, but I can probably integrate it in later - I think we should just check over the other sections and then it's ready to go to main space. Thanks for all your help so far, this would have taken at least twice as long without your expertise in the matter!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a pleasure helping you out.--Berig (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two sources I can locate in the bibliography. Can you give me the full citation for Napier 1901 and Rausing 1985?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about Napier. I made a quick draft by borrowing text from the Franks Casket article and then forgot about it. Here is the reference used in the article if it should be kept and verified Napier, Arthur S., in An English Miscellany, in honor of Dr. F.J. Furnivall, Oxford, 1901.--Berig (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have replaced Napier with another source. I thought I had already added Rausing, but I obviously misremember so I have added him now..--Berig (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ramsund carving

You replaced my reference about the Ramsund carving with one from Millet, and now it states that the details of the carving "seem to match details found in the Eddic poem Reginsmál", and I understand that Millet is careful here because it has little to do with Reginsmal. I think readers who know the matter may take issue with this because the details actually match the following poem Fáfnismál.--Berig (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

He mentions Reginsmal, Snorri's Edda, and the Völsunga saga, which we can add together. It's possible he's counting Reginsmal and Fafnismal together since I understand they are written together in the Codex Regius?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they follow each other like chapters.--Berig (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment. I'm going to read through the modern influence section one more time and then maybe make an adjustment or two to the lead and I think it's ready to go live.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Good! I must admit, though, that "seems" seems overly careful, especially compared to other depictions where the connections are much less obvious, and the sources I have read have been rather certain of the matching between the eddic poems and the carving.--Berig (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually everything on the stones "matches" things in these sources. However, concerning the ring bearer on U 1163, Gs 2 and Gs 19, they agree that they are uncertain between two matches, and on Gs 2 and Gs 19, there are matches that are just guesses and they are aware of it.--Berig (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! I've just finished making some tweaks to the lead - I'm going to turn the redirect into the article now!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I must say that I think it is one big beautiful article :-)--Berig (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say, I'm proud of the work we've done! It's a huge subject that had no previous article on Wikipedia and we actually managed to pull it off!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate it for featured article, now that it is still in a pristine shape :-).--Berig (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, outstanding work. --Pfold (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

List of figures

I will help you out, but it will take a lot of time, and I will have to call it a day now. I wonder how you want the name forms of the many characters who appear both in Anglo-Saxon and Norse sources. Do you want them to be in Anglo-Saxon or Old Norse?--Berig (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! No pressure! I think it depends on how well attested they are in either language. In a few cases where they're attested in Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and German I've chosen Anglo-Saxon as sort of a "neutral", but other than that it's kind of your choice. If they have a Wikipage, I've been going with the name of that page.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually started many of those articles. I chose the Anglo-Saxon forms because I figured most English-speakers would search the articles out of curiosity for Beowulf.--Berig (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

PS. I have considered adding etymologies, but it is so interesting to see those you are adding from Uecker that I abstain for a while.--Berig (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything you want! I've ordered Reichert's Lexikon der altgermanischen Personennamen which should hopefully help. I know what some of the names (like Wolfhart) mean but I need a source to cite...--Ermenrich (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of Norse compound names, such as Arngrimr that are so transparent that I doubt anyone has bothered to explain their meaning. It is a different case altogether with monosyllabic names, such as Halfr, which is contracted from Haþuwulfaz and looks like it means "half". I will use Lena Peterson's lexicon of Proto-Norse names the way it is intended to be used. She wants the reader to find the meaning of dithematic names by consulting the meaning of their components, whenever the dithematic names don't have an entry of their own, or she thinks a full explanation is unnecessary (which she usually does).--Berig (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

In Lena Peterson's lexicon you would consult the entry Hariwulfaz to find the meaning of *wulfaz ("wolf"), and the entry haduḷaikaz to find the meaning of *hardu- ("hard"). By interreferring between the components this way, she maximizes the usefulness of a limited number of pages.--Berig (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds useful thanks! You can do the same thing with Gillespie, the problem is it can be difficult to know where to look for the elements since its meant primarily to tell you about each heroic figure in different sources and etymology is a secondary concern. Still, he has a ton more information on Norse and Old English figures who don't actually appear in MHG than you would expect.

I don't know about you, but I'm finding it fascinating which figures appear where: some just in one sphere, some only in Old English and Old Norse, others only in Old English and Middle High German. The Voelsungen are all mixed up like that. And then some figures are omnipresent, including ones I wouldn't necessarily have thought of, like Froði.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That is part of the addictiveness :-).--Berig (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it makes sense to add a section on named weapons and objects? Gillespie lists all the ones that appear in MHG and I know there are some pretty important ones in the Norse world as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of the same thing. I am planning to write about a legendary ring that has archaeological support. A list would be a good overview.--Berig (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The other thing we could consider is adding something on ethnic names that appear in the legends. Gillespie has all the ones from MHG and there are some others like Maerings and Reithgoths that could be included.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the clan names. Clarke writes that the Waegmundings appear to have been a branch of the scylfings (the Sw. royal dynasty), and misses the fact that the name of the ruling dynasty could be used as a metonomy for the entire tribe. The names of the ruling clans are just as important as the names of the tribes.--Berig (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've made a start and also for place names, although I wonder if they shouldn't be two separate lists... Then again, the Middle High German people names are often used as place names as well (this is actually why Schweden ends in -en in German and via German/or Dutch in English, by the way: zu Schweden = among the Swedes/in Sweden).--Ermenrich (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the locations and the peoples are often intrinsically connected with the naming going in both directions. It seems reasonable to try both in the same list.--Berig (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

[outdent] What about adding available pictures in a new column?--Berig (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean to the list of figures section?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is just an idea. I have seen some lists having illustrations in the right-most column.--Berig (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean a list of medieval images (picture stones, etc.) or an image to illustrate the person?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean any illustration of the person from various sources. It is not important at all. I just thought it could be an esthetic touch.--Berig (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have images at the ready feel free!

By the way, do you have a source describing the etymology of the Frisian king Finn in Beowulf/Finnsburg Fragment? Förstemann says something like "I want to derive names being with Fin- from the Finns", but given that he's Frisian this seems more than unlikely... unless he's somehow experienced one of the famous relocations of heroic tradition and was originally from the Baltic and not a Frisian.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking of him. I will have a look.--Berig (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Russkaya Pravda

Hello Ermenrich!,

since your wikipedia page states that you speak german on a professional level, I will write this section in german, since it will easier to express myself, just the way i want to.

Also, wie gesagt, es geht um den Artikel "Russkaja Prawda". Ich verstehe den, scheinbar, allgemeinen Konsens in der englischen Wikipedia nicht, eine Scheinneutralität herzustellen.

Alt Russisch wird sowohl in der Russischen(jene Wikipedia welche selbstverständlich am meisten zu "Russischen" Artikeln beisteuert) als auch beispielsweise in der deutschen Wikipedia verwendet. Wohingegen "Alt Ost Slawisch" ein Neologismus ist, welcher in der Russischen Sprache nicht existiert bzw. kaum bzw. keine Verwendung findet.

Anstatt nun jene Bezeichnung zu verwenden, welche mit überwältigender Mehrheit im "Entstehungsland" eingesetzt wird, man könnte auch sagen ausschließlich, werden irgendwelche sinnlose Kompromisse geschlossen welche keine sind. Wo ist der Kompromiss wenn man den Begriff "Old Russian" nie einsetzten darf, außer als " Alternativangebot" zu "Old East Slavic", in der ersten Zeile des selben Artikels.

Beispielsweise wird auch in alle möglichen historischen Artikel "Kyiv" anstatt "Kiev" geschrieben. Regt sich jemand über eine solche Stümperhaftigkeit auf ? Nein. Warum ? Ich weiß es nicht. Ich verstehe nicht warum solch einer "Geschichtsneuschreibung" in der Wikipedia einfach stattgegeben wird. Vielleicht sind mache auch einfach schon müde sich zu wehren.

Beste Grüße aus dem verregneten Niedersachsen Kedr26 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Liebe Kedr26, ich muss dir leider widersprechen. Der einzige "Geschichtsrevisionismus" hier ist die Tendenz aus Russland, die Geschichte dreier europaeischer Nationen fuer sich selbst zu beanspruchen und die historische Existenz der Ukrainer und Weissrussen zu verneinen. Der Begriff "Old East Slavic" wird auf Englisch schon seit einiger Zeit verwendet und erkennt die Geschichte der anderen von Rus' abstammenden Voelker an. Die Tatsache, dass man auf Russisch nicht zwischen rus'isch und russisch unterscheidet, fuehrt zu der ungluecklichen Uebersetzung "Altrussisch/Old Russian". Dies ist aber in den anderen ostslavischen Sprachen nicht der Fall. Genauso wenig wie wir von "Altweissrussisch" oder "Altukrainisch" sprechen, sollten wir von "Altrussisch" sprechen. Das ist genauso, als wenn wir die Vorgaengersprache des Deutschen, des Englischen, und des Niederlaendischen "Altdeutsch" nennen wuerden - was deutsche Nationalisten im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert bekanntlich auch gemacht haben.

Du hast auch nicht recht, dass niemand sich wegen der Schreibung "Kyiv" in historischen Artikeln aufregt bzw. sich dagegen wiedersetzt. Du musst nur die Geschichte der Artikel Kievan Rus' und Vladimir the Great anschauen, um zu sehen, dass die Mehrheit der Editoren "Kiev" in historischen Artikeln immer noch befuerworten.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Erst einmal danke für die Antwort. Das mit dem widersprechen kann ich leider nur zurückgeben. Zunächst einmal finde ich es erschreckend, dass sie "Geschichtsrevisionismus" den Russischen Kollegen unterstell, wo doch in der Definition des Wortes genau das festgehalten ist, was jene, zumeist radikal Ukrainische Wikipedia-Nutzer tun. "Versuche, ein wissenschaftlich, politisch und gesellschaftlich anerkanntes Geschichtsbild zu revidieren, indem bestimmte Ereignisse wesentlich anders als in der gegenwärtigen Geschichtswissenschaft dargestellt, erklärt und/oder gedeutet werden." Wie kann es Ihnen nicht aufgefallen sein, dass seit Anfang der 2000er aber vor allem seit dem Sturz der Ukrainischen Regierung 2014 weltweit dubiose Artikel u.ä. in Erscheinung getreten sind, welche jenes politisch und gesellschaftlich anerkanntes Geschichtsbild versuchen zu diskreditieren mit den Hanebüchensten Erklärungen zu "untermauern".

Zu dem "Rus'sisch ; Russisch" Thema.

Sie wissen es vielleicht nicht, was Ihnen auch keiner zu lasten legt, dass das Wort Rus' und Rossija (Russisch für Russland) im Russischen exakt das selbe bedeuten. Um es kurz zu fassen: Der Name Rossija geht auf das Griechische Wort für Rus' zurück, welches der Russische Zar aufgrund der von jeher starken Verbindungen zu Byzantinischen Kultur für die Bezeichnung übernommen hat. D.h. Rus' = Russland.

Waren Sie jemals in der Ukraine oder in Weißrussland, wenn ich fragen darf?

Nun ich war dort schon dutzende male, vielleicht habe ich auch mittlerweile die 100 voll. Die Situation dort ist wie folgt: Das Land(ich spreche jetzt nur von der Ukraine, da die Situation in Weissrussland eine unvergleichlich andere ist) ist tief in 2 Parteien gespalten. Nationalisten und "Pro-Russische" Ukrainer.

"Pro-Russische" Ukrainer wollen Seite an Seite mit Russland leben, da diese zumeist auch Russisch sprechen und sich auf einer sehr tiefen Persönlichen und Seelischen Ebene mit Russland verbunden fühlen. Und sie finden auch, dass das Land auf dem Sie leben Russisches Land ist und Russisch ist auch die Sprache ihrer Wahl welche sie sich natürlich nicht Verbieten wollen. Jedoch tut die Ukrainische Regierung seit 2014 genau das. Alles Russische Dämonisieren oder was einem gefällt als Ukrainisch erklären.

Nun ich denke, ich muss nicht erklären was die Nationalisten auszeichnet.

Warum denken Sie? Warum haben sich die Bewohner der Halbinsel Krim 2014 dafür entschlossen, sich Russland anzuschließen? Oder halten sie das Referendum für "Völkerrechtswidrig"? Wie viele Menschen in Westeuropa etc. die jenes Ereignis für "Völkerrechtswidrig" halten haben Verwandte oder Bekannte dort, welche unverfälscht von der Situation berichten? Ich denke niemand.

Aber zurück zum Thema. Kiev/Kyiv. Abgesehen davon, dass sich die gesamte russischsprachige Welt über "Kyiv" lächerlich macht, was aber nicht von belangen ist bei der fachlichen Diskussion, werden durchaus viele Artikel, in denen es sich nicht Zentral um Ereignisse nach 1991 bzw. 1995/96 handelt mit "Kyiv" vollgeschrieben.

Bspw.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv_Pechersk_Lavra

Ich habe versucht den Artikel nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen zu korrigieren, allerdings kann ich den Namen, selbstredend, nicht ändern. Wie ist mit sowas bei anderen Artikeln umzugehen ?

Ich hoffe, dass ich nicht zu emotional in meinen Aussagen geworden bin, wenn ja bitte ich dies zu entschuldigen. Jedoch ist dies auch durchaus ein emotional aufgeladenes Thema. Vielleicht konnte ich Ihren Horizon ja ein wenig erweitern.

Beste Grüße aus Deutschland nach ...?

Kedr26 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Finn

If you look at modern Scandinavian there are two different sources for the word "finne" (ON Finnr), which should be relevant. 1. A word related to "find" which referred to "hunters and gatherers" (also in a region of southernmost Sweden, Finnveden that has nothing to do with Finns), so it could mean "hunter" or "wanderer" (like "Strider" or the modern Swedish name "Stig"). It is also important to note that North Germanics could be named after other nationalities, like Varin on the Rök runestone who was named after the Varini, or the name Eistr ("Estonian"). 2. A word related to "fin", which seems to have to do with a meaning of "spike" or "something pointed" or "prominent". I wonder mentioning the only possible Germanic roots in connection with Finn would be labelled OR, but I will keep looking.--Berig (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have found a reference. It refers to a book by Kaufmann 1968, but I can't see the bibliography. Maybe one of us get can hold of a paper copy and see where it leads. It is apparently Finnr, but it is not spelled out, unfortunately. --Berig (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I wonder what Kaufmann 1968 is... Tolkien wrote something on Finn as well, it might include an etymology. I actually own the book but I can't find it... I bought that soon after reading the Lord of the Rings as a teenage (it was marketed as though it were some more Tolkien adventures) and you can imagine my disappointment when I figured out what it was!

Now what I want is a source about how the people name "Goth" is completely forgotten in the German tradition...

Unfortunately I have some actual work to do (I agreed to write a book review that I am now very much regretting)...--Ermenrich (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing happened to me when I was a teenager and wanted more Tolkien to read. I believe it was "The Monsters and the Critics". I was so disappointed, but nowadays I am impressed that our small local countryside library had a copy!--Berig (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"The Monsters and the Critics" was very useful to me, as well as one of my models for academic discourse (sadly, I have never been able to achieve that level of clarity and of course I'll never achieve his erudition). I wonder whether the Kaufmann source is this: Kaufmann, Henning, 1968: Ernst Förstemann: Altdeutsche Personennamen. Ergänzungsband. München–Hildesheim. (Ernst Förstemann: Altdeutsches Namenbuch 1. Personennamen. Ergänzungs-band.) Found from Magnus Källström, "Ett par norrländska namnproblem: nom. þrusun (Hs 12) och nom. aunhar (M 8)", pdf at horrible Google Scholar search URL. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! You must have found the book!--Berig (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll order the book, my library actually has it for a change!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Reallexikon says that the Danpirstaðir in the Battle of the Goths and Huns = Kiev (or I guess we have to write Kyiv now). Maybe you know more about it?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I will check Omeljan Pritsak's book. Reallexikon uses him as an authority in other cases.--Berig (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Some scholars, among them Vigfússon and Heinzel, tried to connect this area of the Dnieper with Kiev. But that supposition must be abandoned, because Kiev did not become a leader until the tenth century. Its predecessor in that role was another city located in the southern Ukraine and therefore closer to the Greek colonies and the cultural sphere of Mare Nostrum. Beginning in the fifth century B.C., the city was the political, economic, industrial, and commercial center of the Scythians. Its ruins comprising Kamъjans'ke Horodyšče on the left bank of the lower Dnieper, opposite present-day Nikopol', were unearthed (in 1889-1900; 1938-1941; 1944-1950) between the village of Velyka Znamъjanka and the town of Kamъjanka Dniprov'ska (Oblast'/province of Zaporižžja)

[indent and new paragraph] The connection of Kamъjans'ke Horodyšče with Árheimar is confirmed by the archaeological finds of settlements and necropolises of the Černjaxovo culture, which unbiassed scholars have attributed to the Goths of the fourth and fifth centuries. p. 210

I have written verbatim here. The only exception is that wikicode did not allow me to use the conventional two apostrophes for the hard sign so I used the cyrillic one. Unlike Kiev this location has been confirmed by archaeological excavations that have found a Gothic metropolis there of the Chernyakhov culture. I believe that his being Ukrainian and the professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard makes him the most reliable source here.--Berig (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea for a section on place names at Hervarar saga - honestly, for some things the list article might be better than the existing articles on Wikipedia right now!

Unfortunately, though it lists Kaufmann on the catalogue entry, my library appears not to have the Ergänzungsband for Förstemann. I'll have to see if any of the surrounding libraries have it...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have it at my library. I was about to get some books there yesterday and check the reference, but the parking lots were full, so I'll do it on Monday.--Berig (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we'll want to have the place names list be a separate article?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we will have to split it into several articles. We have only started on the Norse material.--Berig (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Curses! I found a new publication on Beowulf and Norse legends with a lot on famous swords and an interesting analysis of Svafrlami. It turned out that publisher is not much better than a self-publishing site. I will keep it to find what to search for in more reliable sources.--Berig (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That's always the danger, unfortunately...--Ermenrich (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

[outdent] I have been to the library, but they can't find the book. So, they have sent my request to a kind of task force they have that searches for obscure books that hard to find. It is so huge that they have 200 employees.--Berig (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I've figured out how to order it from another library. It evidently has material on the name Sisibe for Siegfried/Sigurd's mother as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You better handle it. I think you are better at German than I am :-).--Berig (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate

Hi Ermenrich. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, comments like "Nonsense. No one except fundamentalists thinks this dream happened" is not a valid encyclopaedic argument unless backed by a majority of WP:RS and neither is labelling scholars who happen to disagree with your WP:POV as "fundamentalists". Turning to the actual edit, please be aware that phrases like "generally taken" [by whom?] are deprecated as WP:WEASEL. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is nonsense. This is an attempt to diminish the consensus of biblical scholarship about an episode. Next it will be "some secular writers" or something like that. The statement has already been target of an editor trying to add something to that effect. The text is supported by three sources and indirectly supported by a fourth. It is a common misconception that you can't use generalized statements of scholarly consensus. To quote the policy you mention:

The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

The text is amply supported and I challenge you to find any source that said that Pontius Pilate's wife definitely had a dream warning her husband to stay away from Jesus that is not produced by a fundamentalist source.

Anyway, doesn't this belong on the article talk page?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert

It wasn't a revert, a new edit. The current text is in explicit violation of WP:SYNTH. Not the first time this has happened with this user -- he likes to make claims not found in citations, then misleadingly trim quotes when called out. The user in question usually refuses to engage on article talk pages, preferring to leave rants on personal talks. He left me one a couple weeks ago, assuming I was Jewish and giving me some guidelines for editing with that religion LOL. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You still need consensus for your edits. I’m so far unconvinced by your arguments. That text has been stable for a long time now.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Not eo ipso, what are you talking about? OK, so say so there. But it's really not an open question -- the source simply does not say what the article does. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

...says you, in spite of the fact that there are quotes to support it. Anyway, I'm not interested in forking the discussion here and at the article talk page. Wait and see what other editors have to say at Talk:The Exodus.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I encourage you to engage there, especially if you have found a quote in the source supporting. I came here to warn you about reverting with a false edit summary. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In what universe is telling another user to gain consensus for their edits a false edit summary? Please see WP:BRD. You're pushing a particular change, you've been reverted, and afterwards you've made another change in the direction you want in spite of not having any clear sign of consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I'm not going to discuss merits on a personal talk page. It was not a revert, in fact yours is the first revert in the whole chain GordonGlottal (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what this is, then [4]? Anyway, the fact is that you're the one who's been trying to change the article, so the wp:ONUS is on you to prove your point. Anyway, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, so please just do what you're supposed to do in this situation: discuss the issue on the talk page until consensus is reached.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, uhhhh, not a revert. A productive edit that helped forward the discussion, something you should consider. I moved to the talk page, sir. But the user in question doesn't seem to, uh, do article talk pages. You do not get an automatic veto over new edits with "wait for consensus". You can revert with an honest summary, like "I disagree as I will explain on the talk page." GordonGlottal (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop posting here and wait for consensus.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, If you're going to revert, you have to explain and defend your version. Saying "wait for consensus" when no one has objected (you insist you're just "waiting for consensus") is not acceptable on wiki. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Helgi

German scholarship tends to treat the three Helgis as a single character who just has three very different lays about him that the redactor of the Edda tried to synthesize by saying that he was reincarnated three times (although I haven't yet seen them explain this explicitly). I wonder if you've encountered anything about that so far.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not surprised. The Helgi stuff is a real mess. I am working on it at the moment.--Berig (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

PS. Concerning the Helgi lays, there is an comment in the Edda about a popular belief in reincarnation before Christianity.--Berig (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Millet comes pretty close to saying it outright:

Die Sektion der Heldenlieder beginnt mit drei Liedern, die Sigurds Halbbruder Helgi gewidmet sind. Sie mögen etwas am Rande der bekannteren Sigurdgeschichte stehen, sind aber genealogisch und handlungslogisch sehr genau eingebaut. Auffallend ist an diesr Gruppe zum einen, dass der Sammler der 'Edda' bedeutende Abweichungen oder Varianten zwischen den verschiedenen Liedern, die die gleiche Geschichte erzählen, nicht etwa einfach nebeneinader stehen lässt, sondern zu erklären versucht. So verweist ein Prosasatz am Ende des zweiten Stückes auf ein mutmaßliches zweites Leben der Helden; dashebt den Widerspruch auf, der sich sonst im dritten Lied ergeben würde, wo die Beziehung Helgis zu einer anderen Walküre erzählt wird. Andererseits ist zu bemerken, dass der Auto das 'Erste Helgilied' an den Anfang gestellt hat, wo doch seine Herkunft im 'Lied von Helgi, dem Sohn Hiorvards' erzählt wird. Es ist möglich, dass er dies getan hat, um die Szene mit den Nornen, die das Schicksal des Helden weben, vorzurücken. Diese stehen damit unmittelbar im Anschluss an den mythologischen Teil, sodass der Übergang weniger schroff ist. Wie am Ende der ersten Sektion nur noch Lieder über halbmythische Wesen stehen, so stünde damit am Anfang des Heldenteils die einzige Szene mit mythischen Wesen.

And that's the entire and only paragraph where he discusses it that I've noticed.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I have heard it before now that you bring it up. I will wait with the Helgi characters until I am done with the minor characters. I believe that I will have more material then.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My personal understanding is that they were a little like stock character that could be reused and combined like they do with modern heroes, like the superheroes in the Marvel and DC universes. There is a limit to how many characters and details can be kept alive. Granmar is one of those characters. He appears in both Ynglinga saga and in the Völsung tradition. I have tried to find scholarship that discusses if it was one character or several, but I can only find that they were the same. Likewise, I believe Saxo conflated Helgi Hundingsbane with the Skjöldung Helgi, but the only info you find is opinions on whether HH was based on the Skjöldung or not, like everyone takes for granted that there was a historical character. But, what I believe is irrelevant in articles on WP.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I must admit that I am very fond of the Granmar material, and I hope it is OK if I waste some time on him. I grew up in a small countryside town, and in Middle school I learned of a local legend involving King Granmar and another king. It is an official legend documented and registered in the 17th century, but I believe the local minister had read Ynglinga saga and wanted to have some fun making up a legend of his own to report to the official legend collectors. Anyway, even if my local Granmar legend is completely fake, I am nostalgic about my boyhood imagination and the place where he would have fought.--Berig (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have finally found a good source, Elias Wessén. He did not write about it in English, but I believe he was one of the most prominent scholars to have worked on these matters, and he did not have a patriotic agenda like Nerman.--Berig (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! It's amazing how nationalist most of the earlier scholars were - the Germans in particularly have a bug to pick about not having enough cool legends or something. I've also seen the reverse case - the introduction to the Penguin translation of Heimskringla, first published in the 20s or 30s, has a bizarre bit of pseodo-science in which it claims that the Norse aren't connected to the Germans at all (I guess the translator wasn't very into linguistics) but instead, because of the Viking invasions and the Anglo-Saxon connection to the Jutes, Icelandic literature is properly British!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind the Wulfing matter getting a bit lengthy. I plan to write an article on Geats in heroic legends later, and I simply fascinated with the matter. Nationalists and Anti-nationalists both annoy me. Just look at what they do to Wikipedia. I so share Tolkien's frustration with how the legendary matter was sullied by the Nazis, because he understood the ideological effects it would have. In fact, on Wikipedia, some Germanic articles seem to be an ideological battle ground between right-wing and left-wing.--Berig (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig, just to clarify what I meant: I actually meant we might have to split up the section for names starting with "H" into two sections soon, given how many names start with "H".--Ermenrich (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have tried split it as evenly as possible.--Berig (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hyksos

Have you seen the recent article from Smithsonian Magazine about the Hyksos? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/first-foreign-takeover-ancient-egypt-was-uprising-not-invasion-180975354/

Thank you for the suggestion. We'll need some scholarly sources before we can add it to the article, but it looks interesting and in line with a lot of recent work on the Hyksos.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hnæf

I've been silently changing some of Förstemann's orthography (he uses "v" for Gothic and PGmc "w", for instance, and th for þ), so if you feel that Old Swedish actually uses "æ" rather than "ä", then I wouldn't feel any compunction about fixing it.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Old Swedish used roughly the same orthography as the other North Germanic languages (there was no standard though). It was this 16th c. Swedish nationalist and Dane hater who introduced the German ö and ä to mark a visual difference in Swedish from Danish. He forbade Swedish nobles to pronunce the word for "I" in a Danish way, and when the Danes translated the Bible for all Scandinavians (it stated that Swedes, Danes and Norwegians spoke the same language), he made a Swedish version in the dialect of Uppland. I have never seen him "credited" with it, but he really defined Swedish as a different language from Danish.--Berig (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would not call Swedish "different" from Norwegian and Danish. When Swedes, Danes and Norwegians meet each other or work in each other countries they are expected to keep talking and writing in their own languages with each other. Even Swedish doctors and nurses who work in Norway are expected to write everything in Swedish for the Norwegians.--Berig (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Who do you think is still missing? There only minor characters still to add for the Germans and I think the Anglo-Saxons as well, but I can't judge the Norse material that well. I imagine you might want to add yourself at some point?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess we have maybe covered 10% of the Norse material. It is too much for me to do alone. We have 1) some Völsung material, 2) some Hervarar material, 3) a lot of Beowulf/Skjöldung material left, 3) the Ingjald legend, 4) the Ivar Vidfamne legend, 5) Battle of Brávellir, 6) the Ragnar Lodbrok material, 7) the Jomsvikings, 8) additional legendary Danish kings, 9) additional legendary Swedish kings, 10) various minor legendary sagas, 11) Jordanes and 12) the usual material that fall between the categories. Since you have watched Vikings, you might be interested in doing the Ragnar Lodbrok legend when you are done with the continental material.--Berig (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking we'd limit the list to those figures appearing in the "heroic sagas" only, which would slightly reduce the amount to add (no Jomsvikings, Ragnar). The rest are usually seen as being beyond "Germanic" heroic legend, although we could considering adding them at a later date.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is what I am thinking. I gladly drop the multitude we find in Gesta Danorum (It is like Saxo picked everything he could find and thought "he is a hero so he is Danish, and that one is a villain so he is Saxon or Swedish"), and we complete the Heldensagas (Völsunga saga, Norna-Gests þáttr, Hervarar saga, Hrólfs saga kraka (and Beowulf), Sǫgubrot af nokkrum fornkonungum, and Ásmundar saga kappabana) which includes the Ivar Vidfamne tradition and the Battle of Brávellir (not everyone in that battle). Then we pick only the main characters in the lesser known legendary sagas. As for the Ragnar material, I think we should add it because it is too deeply entwined in the Völsung, Hervarar and Sögubrot material, and too notable, nowadays. At a later stage, I will probably add a few other characters that I feel are worthy of mentioning.--Berig (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's my concern: if we start including the wider body of legendary sagas, we're failing to make a distinction there that we are with the German material. There is a whole series of German texts usually called Spielmannsdichtung that is often vaguely based on (usually more recent) historical personages that has about the same relationship to the heroic material that most of the "non-heroic" legendary sagas do, also sharing many plot and stylistic elements. König Rother appears to be based on the Langobard Rothari even (Gillespie also includes persons from König Rother in his "Catalogue"), while Herzog Ernst is clearly based on Henry the Lion. These texts are nevertheless excluded typically excluded from the heroic material although obvious similarities are acknowledged. I think we have a similar situation with most of the legendary sagas.

The bigger consideration is of course that there's just two of us and that we're likely to burn out before we finish adding figures from what amounts to most of medieval literature from Germany and Iceland to the list ;-). So I propose we follow you on the Heldensagas, and include Ragnars saga as the "sequel" to the Völsunga saga, as well as Jordanes and possibly some other early figures from the Historia Langobardorum and Deeds of the Saxons. Once we have a "finished product" we can consider whether or not more figures should be added from e.g. Saxo or other sagas/epics.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we need to draw a line somewhere. I was thinking of stopping with Ragnar's sons. First of all we need to finish the Beowulf material, though, and its Scandinavian analogues.--Berig (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we want to "standardize" our Proto-Germanic orthography to Orel's as a more recent source? Right now we're following several different conventions. In some cases I could probably change it to OHG from Gillespie.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if it should be standardized. We can't expect an uninformed reader to have any understanding of the agreement between our standardization of PGmc forms and the forms given in the sources. I don't want people to "cry OR" where there is none. It is enough already that WP is riddled with fake references and misrepresentation of sources. I changed to Orel from Kroonen because it enables me to give page numbers. Kroonen I only have access to online through the university library.--Berig (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it fascinating when the etymologies show signs of coming from somewhere else like with Angantyr just now! I'm a bit swamped at the moment but I'll get back to adding things myself soon I hope.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and focus on important things until you have enough time on your hands to start again.--Berig (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:Hrolfr Kraki: the misunderstanding was probably mine, Krause gives a lot of information about him (compared to most figures anyway) and I was trying to condense.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't blame you. Lots of things happen and it gets messy because of all the primary sources, and I have avoided summarizing it because of that. I have added Clarke as a source. Nerman is also good here, but it's in Swedish.--Berig (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PS, you weren't wrong, actually. I had forgotten that in Gesta Danorum, after escaping from Uppsala, he conquers Sweden and gives it to Hereoweard. Well, the Danes often defeat and conquer Sweden in Saxo's Gesta Danorum.--Berig (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry!--Berig (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't mention it!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame Simek for the strange translations, since the book was translated from his German by Angela Hall ;-). If you want to see some over the top translations, look at the stuff that Beowulf scholars produce. Why "Unferth" should be translated as "Mar-Peace" rather than "un-peace" is beyond me (I guess some would-be poets are at work), and Kemp Malone translated "Gibica" as "one whose primary quality is munificence" rather than, I don't know, just "generous".--Ermenrich (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

True. I will change some translations to what I feel is more palatable. Paraphrasing is what we do all the time anyway :-).--Berig (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Needing to have semi-protection on your talk must be pretty stressful. And probably annoying. Here's some pecan pie to make the pain and/or consternation go away. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vami IV, it's just a precaution for now!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Guðrúnarkviða characters

Do you think we should add all the extra female characters who appear in the Gudrun poems of the Edda but not in the Völsunga saga, or is that a low priority? The only characters who actually have a function in the narrative that are still missing are Gunnar's second wife and Högni's wife, I think.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should. There are probably several important characters missing, like Sigrdrífa.--Berig (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the three of them, and I'll see about adding some e.g. Oddrun and some of the other figures.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think I have basically all the characters in the Voelsunga saga and the eddic poems on the Voelsungs covered now. There may be some very minor characters still missing.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Great!--Berig (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I will re-read my favourite this weekend: Hervarar saga.--Berig (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I just reread the Völsunga saga and Ragnar saga for the first time. I'm waiting for a copy of the Saga of Hrolfr Kraki, but it's taking it's time. Then we probably mostly have a bunch of kings to add, right?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think so.--Berig (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Amales

Here is the full quote:

L'historien polonais J.Kolendo a interprété l'histoire de l'origine des Goths comme celle de la dynastie royale des Amales qui règnera jusqu'au VIe s. et dont Berig fut le premier roi.

Here is my translation:

"The Polish historian J Kolendo has interpreted the history of the origin of the Goths as that of the Gothic royal dynasty of the Amales that would reign until the VIth c. and of which Berig was the first king."

So, yes, he says that my namesake was the first king of the Amales.--Berig (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like Kolendo's interpretation rather than what Jordanes says. Here's a link to Heather, if you can't read it, I'll post the genealogy from Jordanes here, it's on page 104: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/301183.pdf?casa_token=OLTywKZN0igAAAAA:gEnw2TjoDewY749qoPsmFal6ihBj5QrlVQGD9A-Wj4D6Rl_hYa18UOgu-c7tHCtQDpozldnFCu07dY-sXu9LYfT3_DhPG1t_bqEGmxTAJnSsrq-fN436 --Ermenrich (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry! I trust you on this. I just wanted to show you where I got it from.--Berig (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ragnar Lodbrok

There are no reliable sources that confirm that Ragnar Lodbrok was either Danish or Swedish. When your article links to the "Viking series" to confirm that claim - it's even harder to take it serious. The Viking series itself points to southern Norway. His wife Åslaug came from that territory according to actual sources. I suggest you review your article at this point, or we will have this discussion again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halvdan the Black (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok says he was Danish, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. You’re removing information that is sourced.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! IIRC, the primary legendary sources talk of him as Danish or Swedish (not that it mattered much as they spoke the same dialect and had the same culture), but I have never seen that he was Norwegian. Maybe the idea comes from the TV-series.--Berig (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A question for you

G'day Ermenrich. Do you know how this IP vs. new account of the same user blocking works - I noticed that you posted here on block evasion, however, do you know does this works in opposite direction - IP gets blocked and reappear as new account?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Santasa99: I’m sorry I won’t be much help - I only caught him because he signed his post and was an obvious sock. If you have behavioral evidence you can always do an SPI though.—Ermenrich (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ermenrich, I really appreciate your prompt reply. You are probably right, it seem that there is no shortcut in my case, unfortunately. Thanks and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

question

why did you tell that other user that I was going to edit the Moses wiki page?... Bilto74811 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Because he's responsible for the current wording and I wanted to give him a head's up, Bilto74811. We seem to be working better together than I was expecting, but I didn't know that at the time I wrote the message.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think we can agree we dont need to "give heads up" to people of each others future edits moving foward. Bilto74811 (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Happy editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Dear Ermenrich, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths#RfC.--Berig (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Helferich and Hjálprekr

I wonder if the entries Helferich and Hjálprekr should not be merged. The names mean the same thing and the characters are probably based on the same historic person. If the characters may indeed be distinct it can be written in the entry.--Berig (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I was considering that, but I'm not sure which name would be primary, since neither is a major figure. Should we just go by alphabet?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You wrote both entries, so you decide :-). I guess the alphabet works and it is the one with most sources!--Berig (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Goths

Herr Ermenrich—Deine Bedenken bezüglich der Vermittlung des Gotenstreits sind verständlich und spiegeln zweifellos meine im Grunde genommen. Gleichzeiting, solche Anstrengung wird viel zu viel Zeit in Anspruch nehmen, was sich jedoch nicht lohnt. Nichtdestoweniger, tut mir Leid dass wir noch nicht einen geeigneten Freiwilligen gefunden haben. (lach)--Obenritter (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Schade ist es, Obenritter, kein Zweifel! Es wird sich aber keiner freiwillig melden, solange dieser Streit andauert, außer dass wir jemanden finden, der keinen bloßen Schimmer von der kontroversen Geschichte dieser Artikel hat... Niemand will aufgeopfert werden und niemand wird sich freiwillig aufopfern, denke ich.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Stimmt!--Obenritter (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Finn

There is a coding typo in the entry for Finn that I guess you have missed.--Berig (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! I am beginning to see the end of the project. We haven't got many characters left to add now!--Berig (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Are they mostly from the Sagabrot now? I've been adding a few that are basically only in the Þiðreks saga... I think we can "publish" the list of heroes on its own to replace List of Germanic heroes. Then we can put out the other two lists as independent articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

...if that's OK with Yngvadottir, of course, who created that list article!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There are some Danish, Norwegian, Geatish and Swedish kings to add, and some characters from Beowulf.--Berig (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC).

Yes of course :-) I see that was December 2010 ... I found the discussion leading to the split here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The lists

I am done with the 6th c. to 9th c. legendary Swedish and Danish kings now. I can take some of the pre 6th c. kings later, but most of them seem more mythological than legendary in nature to me. I will also wait with the Norwegian pre-Fairhair Yngling kings, as I am waiting for a book. What remains at this stage are some characters in Beowulf and some various notable characters. I am on a break this week so I will try to finish most of that. When the list is mostly done, I suggest splitting it up in separate articles and make List of Germanic heroes into a "list of list" with a template on top that can also be added to each subordinate list for ease of navigation.--Berig (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a Plan. Who’s missing from Beowulf?—Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite a few, actually. The work is so notable, though, that I will try to get as many as possible into the list.--Berig (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, maybe you can add some more refs to the info you have added. I know it is verifiable and uncontroversial, but it just takes one "tag bomber" to find the list and it will look spurious.--Berig (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there's just a few more figures who need to be improved with refs and possibly more info left now (Reginn, Rüdiger, and Wayland being the largest I think). There's also some more characters I should add, both from the epics and from the Thidreks saga, but some of that could be done after we've already published the list.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but first I would also like to add some of the early Yngling kings of Sweden and the later pre-Fairhair Yngling kings of Norway. I have prepared that part of the project with some books. :-)--Berig (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

PS, you are probably not going to like this suggestion, but if you are like me, the best thing may be not to launch it until we can't figure out any more characters to add. That may the best way of ensuring the best coverage and quality of the lists. I have some ideas about the template that I imagine having both as header and footer.--Berig (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template

This is a first draft of the template. You can modify it according to your preferences and move the lists into the subpages when you want. I thought the Rök runestone would be an appropriate illustration, as it is the first surviving list.--Berig (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks excellent!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :-). I think it should be put on both the top and the bottom of each subpage.--Berig (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've decided (maybe I won't keep this up the whole way) to just go through Gillespie and see who else looks like they should/could be added (generally figures who are either related to important figures or else perform some action besides existing).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Only a few names remain in the English tradition. I have added almost all that are relevant from early Norwegian and Swedish kings. I will fill in information about them and add a few characters that appear in their stories. Except for that only a few names from the Edda remain. When that is done I may add the protagonists from the lesser known legendary sagas, but no minor characters.--Berig (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Hugleikr Hygelac?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the historical Hygelac appears to have four versions in legend. 1) Hygelac of Beowulf, 2) Hugleikr of the Swedes, 3) Hugletus of Ireland (same story as nr 2), and 4) Hugletus of Denmark. I figure the Hygelac of Beowulf entry will be overly large, and the other incarnations may need their own separate entries, but they will of course refer to the historical Hygelac. I am a bit knackered now after a long Friday and will continue tomorrow.--Berig (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say - I'm a bit busy this week but I anticipate getting back to it soon.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! I need to focus more on real life myself at the moment.--Berig (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we'll need separate pages for each letter?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't, but they are easy to merge, anyway. It is also an easy way to see how big the pages are before we decide.--Berig (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of this recommendation:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

User:Berig/List of figures in Germanic heroic legend, B is now 16.2kB, while User:Berig/List of figures in Germanic heroic legend, A is 45.7kB, so the last one should probably be its own, considering possible future expansions.--Berig (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

PS, I think 50-100 entries could be a good guideline to each subpage when it is done, corresponding to what I guesstimate would be 50-100kB per page.--Berig (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

Hi! I am puzzled by the logic of your recent reversion of my edit to Konigsberg. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C3%B6nigsberg&type=revision&diff=1020048587&oldid=1020046512> It was part of the Russian Empire for 4 years, not 2. Are you suggesting avoiding all facts that the Russian Government uses for propaganda purposes, such as the Soviet Victory over Fascist barbarism? As far as I can understand, it was the capital of Russian East Prussia, but there is unfortunately no article about Russian East Prussia. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥}

Yes, and Moscow was the capital of Polish Russia too... Why don't you suggest moving Constantinople next?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can understand from a brief look at that article, unlike Kaliningrad which was officially incorporated into the Russian Empire, and was the seat of several governors, Moscow was not incorporated into Poland. Do you not find it significant that Kaliningrad should have played such a role in the Empire?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥}

all the Asian provinces . . of Rome

hello,

which other Asian provinces of Rome are meant by passage you reverted to? relevant diff . . if google doesn't show wikip articles for them to me with relative ease & the context within the article is light on that passing detail . . it's not easy for me or some other reader to know which Asian provinces of Rome are meant. I just wanna link to whatever additional Asian provinces of Rome that are meant. do the other ones besides Asia (Roman province) have articles?

thanks skakEL 23:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skakkle:, the "Roman provinces of Asia" is deliberately vague - we don't usually say "William Wallis invade Yorkshire, X-shire, and X-shire" we say "William Wallis invaded the north of England". As for which provinces, the same paragraph mentions particularly severe effects on Roman Syria and Cappadocia, both of which are linked, but that doesn't mean the effects of the invasion were limited to only those two provinces.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

hmmm, OK, thanks. your counter-example, though, seems to have a fitting name and is a well-defined region. ("The north of England" is an unmistakable thing; the term is not vague, deliberately or otherwise.)

It seems a bit further west across Anatolia (see the whitish yellow max extent) is probably the most that could be included, but surely not down into the Levant or up to the north & east side of the Black Sea or anything crazy like that. There just ain't a lot of Roman Asia to work with, apparently. unless I'm being imprecise with the time period? skakEL 00:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Roman Syria might count as the Levant. At any rate, the province of Asia does not look very close to where the invasion was.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Delimitations

I have been troubled by how delimit the scope of the lists we are working on. My present suggestion is to exclude all figures that *only* appear in non-heroic legendary sagas, Gesta Danorum, and chivalric sagas. That should be a working strategy. However, Þiðreks saga falls outside of the scope as it is a chivalric saga. Including it would oblige us to include other ON chivalric sagas and the non-heroic legendary sagas, and that is a profusion of characters. The only reason I can think of for including it is the Nibelung content.--Berig (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Berig, I would disagree about the Thidreks saga obliged us to include other chivalric sagas - it's always included in any discussion of Germanic heroic legend/poetry, and the majority of the content is heroic in nature, dealing with the ancestors and then lives of Dietrich von Bern, Widige, Wayland, etc. The only clearly non-heroic figures in it are King Arthur, Appolonius of Tyre, Isolde, and (I believe? he may actually be replaced with another character) Tristan, who play very small roles. Some of the figures only found there are undoubtedly from lost German heroic material, and some are invented by the saga author (although I did see an interesting suggestions that the Hunnic king Milias/Melias could be based on Melo, a king of the Sicambri - I've been debating whether or not to add it). The main problem is finding etymologies for many of the names.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, and I don't want to include the chivalric sagas. I agree that we should keep Thidreks saga, but we'll need to find a way phrasing the scope of the lists.--Berig (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Splitting a list

Is OK, if I split "List of named weapons, objects and horses in Germanic heroic legend" into "List of named weapons and objects in Germanic heroic legend" and "List of named animals in Germanic heroic legend"?--Berig (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead!—Ermenrich (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we should include that weird battle cow from Ragnars Saga?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! The Swedish battle-cow! In fact, there appears to be a much deeper level to Sibilja than just silliness. Scholars identify an old importance to the cow among Indo-European peoples that has not only left traces in the holy cows of India, but also in the fact that the world of the Norse was created by a cow, Audhumbla. We have also the idea that the blót, the sacrificing meant "strengthening", so it was believed that sacrifices could boost the power of a man or an animal. Lastly, the name Sibilja may actually be of Indo-European origins, and be related to the mythological Indic cow of plenty Savala (possibly the same name).--Berig (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments removed

You closed a thread for further discussion on the Germanic peoples Talk page but before doing so you removed my recent comments. Did you have a reason for doing this without informing me? I find it objectionable. Dynasteria (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any comments I removed, Dynasteria.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was getting ready to make three responses but only managed to save one. I'm sorry you closed the thread. Perhaps it seemed too difficult for some members to process. My responses were intended to be conciliatory. Dynasteria (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess we must've had some sort of edit conflict. I don't think it was going to go well in any case - better to just drop the matter in my opinion, before more accusations fly.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks! Dynasteria (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Germanic peoples lead

Trying to avoid the talk page again, but also to look at practical details. (Carlstak has a point that this is what needs to happen.) Starting at the lead, I think the problems are obvious. They are deliberate in a sense: there are too many big footnotes and similar asides in the lead, which were placed there to stop people misunderstanding what the article was about and why. Most of those asides are better covered in the body. Carlstak seems to think it is possible to remove the training wheels and boldly speak plain English, so I played around a bit and before talking about it more widely, I wonder what you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Germanic_peoples_drafting --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's probably better, but I think that it may still be overly focused on classical authors.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure we can avoid mentioning Caesar in the lead etc, but for the record the modern sources for my shortened draft were, if we wanted to add the footnotes, the same as the longer version it was based off (now deleted), and IMHO better than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Those sources represented mainstream scholarship, and for better or worse the idea was to summarize mainstream scholarship. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belgic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic (somehow)

Hi Ermenrîch! Away from all the drama, just out of personal curiosity and not directly related to any planned edit here in WP: do you know a good source which discusses in detail the absence of *kuningaz in Gothic? Since it was borrowed into Finnic and Slavic, one would think that East Germanic must have had the word too. I have only found a short passage about the question in Wolfram's "Gotische Studien II. Die terwingische Stammesverfassung und das Bibelgotische (I)", and a footnote in this chapter. –Austronesier (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, that is a very strange and interesting absence from the Gothic lexicon! D. H. Green in Languages and History in the Early Germanic world notes that the Gothic word for king is þiudans, and that this was common Germanic. On page 127 he says "there is no evidence at all that *kuniggs ever existed in Gothic (which could imply that the use of this latter word in the sense of 'king' postdated the Goths' trek from northern Poland which removed them from the main orbit of Germania)." My guess would be it got into Finnic and Slavic via North Germanic (although a lot of loans into Slavic are supposed to be Gothic).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

On p. 130 he adds a tiny bit more and also argues that we can't argue Slavic and Finnic took the word from Gothic. Aparently Ritter Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Entlehnungen, 1993,p. 167 argued fro a Gothic word *kuniggs.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! The chapter "Kingship" in Green's Languages and History in the Early Germanic world is exactly the kind of discussion I have been looking for. So it seems that the word *kuningaz was innovated in the NW Germanic continuum after the departure of the tribes that later appear as Goths, or had a different meaning (and it was not used by Wulfila because that meaning happened not to be of use for the Bible translation) and later evolved to mean 'king' in NW Germanic only. The latter would of course throw an interesting light on the question of cultural coherence. This goes well with Wenskus's idea that novel concepts (including novel tribal affiliations) could diffuse with ease across Germania because of shared language and customs (which is essentially also what Steuer gets from the archaeological record, although he rather talks about social organization, technology and economy instead of 'tradition'). –Austronesier (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for reviewing some edits and citations

Hi. How are you? Would you please take a look at [5][6]? Wario-Man ^talk 19:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I truly struggle to understand whether The phenotype of Turks changes by adaptation...[7] is meant in a Darwinist or Lamarckist manner? This is cringy... –Austronesier (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wario-Man, I'm doing well and hope you are too! The etymology in the first edit looks like bunk - never a good sign when the sources as 18th century and mix a bunch of things about Turkic this and Assyrian that. There's nothing inherently wrong with Herodotus quote, but it's clearly meant to justify the idea that the Tauri were Turks. The second one looks like racialist nonsense, and the ethnicity of the Xiongnu is unknown, not Turkic. I'd remove both edits, maybe keeping the Herodotus, assuming it actually belongs in that section.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: and Ermenrich, what do you guys think about this study? Acceptable or fringe stuff? Wario-Man ^talk 15:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Wario-Man, I find @Krakkos: is usually very knowledgeable about genetics. I'll take a look myself but may defer to her judgment - it depends also on whether the wording added to the article matches what the study says. Generally, I find that genetics studies often don't seem very well versed in the historiography or archaeology of the subjects they comment on, resulting in some very simplistic and easily refuted claims about e.g. how the Huns are obviously connected to the Xiongnu or the Hungarians are obviously connected to the Huns, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The main issues of some DNA studies is that genetics ignore all other studies by historians, linguists, and archaeologists. They propose their very own conclusions and theories. Anyway, I don't watch, patrol, and edit such topics anymore. Currently I contribute to another WP project. Just wanted to notify you guys about this stuff. Wario-Man ^talk 15:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I talked to Krakkos about some of those issues (this discussion). Wario-Man ^talk 15:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: The first thing I can see is that the editor carelessly inserted a reference to a preprint, even though the article has been published since 11/2020. Brutally speaking, this makes me doubt whether the editor is in a position to read and properly understand the paper, and extract its main points with due weight and without cherry-picking. The 214 samples discussed in the paper contain two(!) from Ashina individuals, at least the editor says so, I couldn't verify it yet. But this clearly is cherry-picking. It will take some intensive reading to check whether the text added in Ashina tribe properly summarizes the paper. As for the paper itself, the author list includes Wolfgang Haak, so I don't think it's fringe. But I agree that geneticists—instead of being content with providing raw data for discussion—have a tendency to boldly apply their findings to other disciplines (history, archaeology, linguistics), often co-opting theories that best fit their data. In this case however, the Discussion section in the paper looks quite careful and avoids simplistic postulations. –Austronesier (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, some sections of Turkic peoples needs to be rewritten. It's an important article but it looks like abandoned. If some editors improve it, there would be less issues on the related articles. Wario-Man ^talk 05:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnic peoples.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heinrich Beck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

quick note

Sorry, we were editing at the same time. I will stop now. (And of course I can't use the article talk page.) Concerning the term Germania Antiqua I think our article is problematic and should probably be merged away. I did not know it existed. It seems various editors have tried to end it in the past. Concerning the question of whether there was ever a real fully-formed Roman province east of the Rhine, first, please do yourself a favour and stop using the term (and concept) "revisionist" for every idea that has changed since you were an undergrad. :) This leads to polarizing and misunderstandings. Second, see the last two posts in the Teutoberg thread on the article talk page, by myself (giving GAO/RLA links) and Austronesier. Also (unless I made a mistake which is always possible) you seem to be reading Steuer to find what you think should be there. The Romans had a major project and the project changed over time. The details of their thinking are not known. But in reality there should be a way to word things which covers what we need in this article. Important: we can't make it the main article for every topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I think the direction in mainstream scholarship is concerned with the way the old narrative ignores, and even distracts from: (1) the importance, even before the empire began, of the Germani as soldiers for the new imperial dynasty; (2) the fact that the Romans kept campaigning in the summers after Varus, just like before (our readers will get the opposite impression?); (3) the importance, previously invisible because of the whole Arminius legend, of the Batavian rebellion, which happened later. Most historians now seem to see the Varusschlacht and Batavian rebellions as moments for a new cost-benefit analysis, and not a completely new direction. To be honest I think even our article is not yet handling these things well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich trying to avoid misunderstandings, and perhaps to help you refine your ideas as you work on the article, I have not answered your challenge for sources which use the term or concept "primarily", because I think this was not a challenge relevant to my point, and I am trying to avoid answering every challenge. FWIW I don't think we'll find any sources that have passed peer-review with that type of "primarily" wording. I think "A is primarily equal to B" must mean something like "A and B are substantially over-lapping topics". I suppose no-one is denying that Germanic peoples and Germanic-speaking peoples are substantially overlapping topics to some significant extent. But in the early empire, between Rhine and Weser, the details are important to get right IMHO.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Medieval text infobox

Hi, Ermenrich, I've just discovered that there is a template for a medieval text infobox, which could be of use in the heroic epic articles. It's not entirely suited to texts with widely differing versions, but it's better than the straightforward book template. I've had a go at using it for Ortnit — have a look and see what you think. --Pfold (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me, Pfold, I'll try to get around to adding it to the Dietrichepik articles when I get a chance!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Soviet War Crimes

Same as Königsberg. Please reconsider reversion.

And please don't be so fast with accusations.

Cortagravatas (talk)

Please stop making new sections on my page about the same thing. Discussion should be centralized at User talk:K.e.coffman#Edit at Königsberg who is more knowledgeable about these sources than I am.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll talk to K.e.coffman Cortagravatas (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

East Prussia

This is another topic:
What's wrong with this edit on the East Prussia page?
"The number of civilians killed in the war's last year and the postwar years until 1950 is estimated to be in the order of 300,000."
Do you think the Statistisches Bundesamt is an organization of the extreme right?
If you're only following another editor's instructions, please let me know. I'll talk to that other editor then.
Of course you are free to remove edits to your talk page. Whether avoiding discussion serves WP's purposes (apart from denoting insecurity) is another matter. Cortagravatas (talk)

This is an example of wp:primary - you need reliable secondary sources to make such a claim. And yes, there are concerns that the Statistisches Bundesamt inflated numbers of expellees etc. for political reasons in the early BRD.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

So now the German Statistics Office in 1956 inflated refugee/expellee losses for political reasons and is thus shunned by the same WP that dedicates or accepts a full page more or less sympathetically dedicated to James Bacque, an accomplished charlatan, whose fictitious 5.7 million unrecorded civilian deaths in East and West Germany between October 1946 and September 1950 are supposed to have been met with "far less hostility" by historians than his "Other Losses" nonsense.
Then I suggest you remove the table balance for Germany in 1937 borders (not including Austria or the ethnic Germans of East Europe): May 1939 to October 1946, which renders the figures from and refers to the same publication of the German Statistics Office.
Who, by the way, were the historians that addressed Bacque's C&M with "far less hostility", and in doing so "acknowledge the deaths of hundreds of thousands or more than one million of German soldiers and civilians working in Soviet captivity, and possibly two million who died in the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950).[citation needed]"?
Back to East Prussia, how about this:
"According to the German Statistics Office in 1956, the number of East Prussian civilians killed in the war's last year and the postwar years until 1950 was in the order of 290,000."
Or, as you are fond of secondary sources, how about this:
"Of East Prussia's about 2,490,000 inhabitants before the war about 511,000, thereof about 311,000 civilians, lost their lives in battle, flight, deportation or incarceration in camps."
Cortagravatas (talk)

Don't blame me for the state of an article - you are the one who is performing wp:OR to refute it - nor was I the one who reverted you on that article, so I'd appreciate you not discussing this Bacque fellow with me anymore. If you see problematic and/or unsourced and/or poorly sourced statements then delete them, but you can't insert your own analysis or perform wp:SYNTH. We need secondary, scholarly sources, and they need to be good ones, especially for wp:EXTRAORDINARY claims like that 80% of Königsberger died - and yet somehow scholars like Timothy Snyder and others who discuss the expulsions just haven't thought to mention it.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Good idea regarding Bacque, I'll do as suggested.
What about East Prussia?
And as you mention Königsberg: what happened there from 1945 to 1947 is mentioned in some of the anglophone literature (especially Clark's "Death of East Prussia" and MacDonogh's "After the Reich"), and in German literature it is mentioned for instance by Kossert ("Ostpreussen Geschichte und Mythos") and Schenck ("Das menschliche Elend im 20. Jahrhundert"). It is also mentioned in the German Federal Archives' 1974 report about Vertreibungsverbrechen. Figures are provided by Starlinger (primary source considered reliable by Kossert, Clark, Schenck and the German Federal Archives), Deichlinger (primary source considered reliable by Clark and Kossert) and Wieck (the same). Wieck's figures are his estimate based on Starlinger’s, for which he provides no further explanation, so maybe they don't count. Starlinger's and Deichlinger's are substantiated estimates borne out to some extent by Soviet documents mentioned by Fisch and Klemeševa, and thus more relevant. What I find extraordinary is that a demographic disaster of these proportions (according to my estimates matching various sources about 65% of the city's remaining German population in early April 1945 died, according to Deichlinger, Starlinger (primary) and Kossert (secondary) it would be in the order of 75-80%) is addressed in a more or less "by the way" - manner in sources other than eyewitness accounts. I wrote my article The Great Mortality in Königsberg also to put this disaster in a proper perspective. The Soviet Gulag was almost a health resort by comparison, and as concerns the mortality rate among a civilian population the closest comparators, unless I missed some, are Nazi mobile killing operations and extermination camps (where the mortality rate was almost 100%).
Cortagravatas (talk)

I would suggest using secondary sources like Clark. Wieck is to my understanding caught up in events - generally memoirs are not great sources. As I've said though, K.e.coffman (who is probably on vacation or something, so give her some time to reply) knows a lot more about this than I do so I would defer to what he thinks about the sources. I hope you can understand why we're naturally skeptical of claims about the expellees - as another article I think written by you at that blog says, many right wing figures in Germany like to inflate what happened to Germans before and after the war to deflect attention from the Holocaust and German crimes. I agree that the expulsions were terrible and actually reek of the same racialist-nationalist ideas the Nazis themselves had, and I'd like to hope that such a thing could not happen again - but then again, I'd also hope that a modern-day "West Germany" would not allow so many people involved in National Socialism to continue in positions of authority after the war, including many scholars who published on the expulsions and the former German east such as Walter Kuhn, Werner Conze, and Theodor Schieder, author of the Schieder commission on expellees.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References