User talk:Ermenrich

Wikisource

Howdy, Ermenrich! Thanks for protecting us from the Huns! Don't delete my reference to Lisbeth Nypan please, because it is connected to Merseburg Charms by Bang. The Russian ones, I agree, need proper research. By the way, there are a similar Ukrainian spell as well from Poltava-ish area, but I can’t find it.

I’m not familiar to reference rules here, ’cuz am mostly active in Wiktionary. Do you think is it okay to add Wikisource references in names like I did in the edits about Huns and Þrymskviða, as I write a name of the person I refer to, but by clicking on it you get to his Wikisource text? Or do I need to refer it by adding extra template? How do I do it? In the reference list?Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tollef Salemann. We need to use WP:reliable sources to add things to Wikipedia. The sources have to say exactly what we use them to say (with paraphrasing), otherwise we run the risk of WP:synthesis, which is not allowed. I've reverted part of your addition at Huns for this reason as well - it's not sourced except to one 19th century source, who may or may not be considered relevant by today's scholars (which runs the risk of adding WP:FRINGE content. If you have any questions, I'm happy to help! It's not my goal to keep people from editing Wikipedia, just to keep article standards high!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be useful to learn how to add inline citations, such as the {{sfn}} and Harvref bibliographical templates as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I have used sfn in other cases, but here I have used Wikisource referring to his name. I have read his book about Huns and stuff and I’m not a fan of it, that’s why I wrote that he has "speculated". Do you think it is not worth to mention him at all? He seems as a big guy in early Swedish ethnography. Also, his source (the farmers) mentions that this Swedish Hun leader went to Rome, so it can be related to the Huns depicted in newer legends. Should I maybe rewrite it? Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Tollef Salemann, I wouldn't include it unless it's mentioned in more recent sources. WP:AGEMATTERS.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Swedish Academic Dictionary (SAOB) enlists "hunahär" as both Swedish legendaric army of "Huns" and the archaic name of the historical Hun Army. Also, as I wrote there, the first mention of the Swedish Hun Army was not even mentioned by Cavallius, but you find it in SAOB. For the third, already Olaus Petri made distinction between legendaric "Swedish" Huns and real Huns. I see, we may both find Cavallius problematic, but the legend itself is not made up by him.

That’s why I think it worth to be mentioned on the same rights as information about Huns from Tidrek of Bern Saga, which is also completely nonsensical. Both this saga and the Swedish folk tale were inspired by the Huns, despite getting their history wrong. Not completely wrong, as you see the one of accounts mentioning seige of Rome. Tollef Salemann (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your sources - are you using modern, academic sources that are still current? You seem to be referring to sources even older than Cavallius. What exactly does the SAOB say? If there's just a word that means "Hun army", that's not really anything at all. I can cite a German word that means Hun army and it's not worth adding.

I don't dispute that there may be a legend, the question is WP:RELEVANCE - if not discussed by current scholarship, we can't include it on our own volition.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

No, per SAOB dictionary it does mean this legendary army, but sometimes was applied to the historical Hun army, otherwise also meaning the Wild Hunt. SAOB mentions another very old source which Cavallius forgot about. But I get your point, it’s needed more sources on this subject, especially modern. I’m gonna try to find them. Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Nazi scholars

Sometime ago, you asked me to work on the topic of Nazi scholars, which I've not had much time to do. However, I did recently strengthen the page on Walther Wüst, which could probably use some additional review; when and/or if you feel so inclined. To date, I've not scoured German sources for him, since I am not presently on faculty anywhere, limiting my access accordingly. Nichtsdestoweniger, hoffe alles bei Dir gut ist. Obenritter (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Obenritter! This guy certainly seems a pretty committed Nazi (even if he was maybe originally an opportunist, given how late he joined the party). I will try to take a look myself at some point.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Odoacer edit

"One of these is that his name, "Odoacer", for which they claimed an etymology in Germanic languages had not been convincingly found, arguing instead that it could be a form of the Turkic "Ot-toghar" ("grass-born" or "fire-born"), or the shorter form "Ot-ghar" ("herder")."

"One of these is that, no convincing Germanic etymology for "Odoacer" having been found, it could be a form of the Turkic "Ot-toghar" ("grass-born" or "fire-born"), or the shorter form "Ot-ghar" ("herder")."

Your comment: "this changes the meaning of the sentence - and only they claim no convincing Germanic etymology has been found. The people proposing a Germanic etymology certainly think it's convincing!"

I follow you; but the core problem is, first, that the sentence is ungrammatical, and, second, that it is awkward and overburdened. The "for which" demands that "his name" remain the subject of the "that" clause; but the sentence carries on "arguing instead", as though "they" were now the subject. It is not strictly necessary to say that they claim a convincing etymology had not been found; my edit does not say in Wikivoice that no such convincing etymology had been found; because "One of these" means "One of these arguments", so everything following is a description of their argument.

Proposed:

"However, historians Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez explored the possibility that the name Odoacer was not Germanic. They argued that it could be a form of the Turkic "Ot-toghar" ("grass-born" or "fire-born"), or the shorter form "Ot-ghar" ("herder")."

As for the cut matter about "ethnic background lying elsewhere" &c., I think we can trust the reader to infer as much from this phrasing. I think this is neater, and that little of real consequence is lost. Regulov (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

"... or the shorter form "Ot-ghar" ("herder"), and hence that Odoacer himself was not/may not have been ethnically Germanic." Regulov (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Regulov! This really belongs on Talk:Odoacer! Please repost your comments over there. I've also already changed the sentence already in a different way that should fix the grammar.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)