This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ermenrich. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ermenrich, please re-consider your revert, [1], and please re-read your source.
pp is an abbreviation used for page numbers and the source does show page numbers, which are not the numbers you use, so the citation is clearly wrong. I have nothing against citing columns, but then not using "pp". Why would you edit war over something like that?
The sentence you quote does NOT justify any statement which implies that history got the term Germanic from linguistics, which is what your wording is saying over and over. That can't be what you mean? In contrast, the paragraph you quote from starts with Caesars Germ.-Begriff ist eine grundlegende Voraussetzung für den modernen geworden. Also see the following paragraph.
Your replacement of Romanticism and Geist with a 21st-century sounding "stable group identity" completely changes the meaning, quietly converting the "traditional" definition of the lead into the ONLY "modern" definition today. It also makes the source such much more accepting of the 19th century paradigm than it is. (Actually Timpe, your source, seems to like the polycentric ethnogenesis idea. But this is an idea you've gone out of your way to remove from Wikipedia.)
One problem throughout the current article is that you treat the controversies of the term Germanic as a single monolithic criticism whereby extremists want the term to be used in no way at all, apparently making no attempt to understand them. Actually even Goffart says that the term is clear in linguistics, and he seems to leave open to the idea that it is clear for the early Roman empire. The whole controversy about the term Germanic is not about extremsists who irrationally hate a word, but about it being almost inevitably connected to assumptions of links between different groups in very different times and places.
The strictly linguistic approach which Hachmann perhaps uses (I haven't read him) is in contrast clearly not popular with most proponents of applying the linguistic definition to real peoples. We know that for sure, because then you have two choices: 1. the alliance of Arminius and other non Jastorf Germanic peoples from before the time of linguistic evidence should not be in this article except in speculative sections; 2. you could reject the arguments for the Jastorf culture, take the old Volksgeist / Kossinna route, and assume peoples never change language. Neither of those positions is popular are they?
More generally, the passage you've replaced without any consideration was not well-written or clear. It is quite possible that your intentions are different from what I read it to be saying, but that would be all the more reason not to revert me quickly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Simple things:
First sentence you reverted to: The modern definition of Germanic peoples has never been a term used to denote the Germanic languages?
This appears to concern scholars in the 19th century, but I guess that is not what you mean: Indications that some groups identified as Germani by Roman authors spoke Celtic languages were taken to exclude them from this ethnic unit.
Your revert also insists on over-linking to "Germanic languages" and describing the definition of Germanic languages itself as controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Andrew, this is much too long for me to read. I have other things to do with my life than play semantic games with you. As I've stated several times, you're ignoring the fact that the source is not solely the GAO. See Steuer p. 30:
Am wenigsten umstritten ist der Germanenbegriff der Sprachwissenschaft; denn „germanische“ Sprachen haben ohne Zweifel Gemeinsamkeiten, weshalb sie so definiert worden sind, und von der Philologie aus wurde der Begriff dann in die anderen Disziplinen übernommen. Man spricht deshalb auch von „germanischsprechenden“ Bevölkerungen (Abb. 2).
Wie gesagt, entscheidend ist, dass der Begriff „Germanen“ ursächlich und überzeugend von der Seite der Sprachwissenschaft her zu definieren ist. Die Definition des „Germanischen“ von der Sprache her ergibt sich aus der Überlieferung von Namen und Texten im beschreibbar eigenen Idiom. Und dieses macht wie alle Erscheinungen des Lebens eine Geschichte durch.
If I felt like it I could dig up even more such references. It is simply a fact that linguists such as Grimm invented this terminology, invented "Germanic studies", "Germanic languages", and yes, "Germanic peoples", which you continually insist on misidentifying with a group called "Germani" in ancient sources, despite the fact that the "Germani" in Roman sources are merely one manifestation of "Germanic peoples" and not necessarily very closely connected to how people actually use the term in scholarship. Or do you think Germanic heroic legend has anything to do with the Germani?
There is no way to change the abbreviation in the Harvref to columns - it's standard practice to just cite them as pages on Wikipedia. And they are the standard way to cite a German encyclopedia/reference work.
If you actually think something is unclear, then clarify it, but I often find your edits unnecessarily aggressive and this one seems to miss the point.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Ermenrich, I did not see this reply before because you did not use a "re" template. I will put this page on watch. In the meantime you've posted other remarks elsewhere. As often you raise LOTS of issues, and you pepper it with distracting accusations and distortions. However, this time I will go through them, because I get a feeling we do both want to understand each other better, and stop talking past each other. I also will not be answering such remarks on the article talk page, and I hope the posts of Carlstak and Krakkos make it obvious now why you should post your many asides, speculations and questions about what I am thinking, to our user talk pages and not the article talk page. Also, please at least this once, don't complain about the length, which reflects many comments you have been making about me in various places, but just take your time and read it when you have time. No one including me is giving you any deadline, but if you answer without trying to understand me then things just go in circles, and that is an avoidable problem. One long post seems acceptable, if it can break a circle.
I have other things to do with my life. Funnily enough, I also have a life, but I am not going to demand that fellow Wikipedians have to help me with it. We work here as volunteers and most of us don't know each other in real life. From my side, I also don't insult you for making too much effort here do I?
play semantic games How can we talk about your assertions about definitions, without talking about semantics?
you're ignoring the fact that the source is not solely the GAO Of course the GAO is not the only source. But did I say otherwise? These types of insinuations are silly. You and I have both been using it. It is a handy reference sometimes, as we both know, especially if we are trying to keep our responses "to the point". 2 examples: If it disagrees with something, it is unlikely we should call that thing a field consensus. BTW, to keep my answers short, I've often restricted myself to commenting on sources because you used them. Of course we both know that we could both cite more. We shouldn't be pretending otherwise.
The quotes from Steuer are not relevant to the reverts you've been doing. For example, when did Germanic language spread west from the Jastorf culture according to him? His citations of Geary imply that he thinks it happened under Roman dominance? Were the Germanic peoples between Rhine and Weser Germanic-speaking for the Arminius rebellion and Batavian rebellions? Do you have a source to answer that question in any conclusive way? (I am genuinely interested in anything worthwhile you have for this, even if it is not useful for WP.)
If I felt like it I could dig up even more such references. Again, this is a bit schoolboyish? We can all dig up more "gotcha" quotes yes, and talk past each other, like Krakkos does, and then we'll be back to the problems of the past. If that is the direction we are going, then that is disappointing, surely? The fact is that we both know there is diversity of opinion. In this case and many others the practical questions are often about whether to treat things as a field consensus or not, and no number of individual secondary quotations can prove this. Works which review the literature such as GAO, Steuer, the Interrogating edition etc are therefore important, and it is also vital in such cases to try to keep discussions collegial because this is a job that requires editorial judgement, not gotcha quotes. I thought we both thought that way?
No, using pp is NOT a standard way to cite columns, and there are solutions. But more generally why do you keep insisting on proclaiming things down to me even in cases like this where you are obviously wrong? I think this style is really unhelpful and keeps discussions going in circles. If you need technical advice, just ask. (Or ask someone else.)
"Germanic peoples", which you continually insist on misidentifying with a group called "Germani" in ancient sources Not just me. In English, "Germanic peoples" is a translation for "Germani" (and German Germanen). Over the years, we have found no authority to say these are two different terms. Both terms are thus subject to the same problem of having multiple definitions. Some Wikipedians, over the years, have suggested that we can use the two terms as if they are not just translations of each other, and that would perhaps be handy, but WP does not set new definitions, no matter how handy. We have to deal with the multiple definitions. And individual editors can't demand that, for example, the article on the Trinity must be written from a Catholic viewpoint.
the "Germani" in Roman sources are merely one manifestation of "Germanic peoples" and not necessarily very closely connected to how people actually use the term in scholarship If I understand correctly, you are saying that the Roman and linguistic definitions might have a surprisingly small overlap? If so, I don't disagree, at least for some periods and regions (although many people clearly disagree with us). I think you misunderstand me on this. Also, I am not the one demanding that we need to select one definition and make WP speak from that position.
The bigger practical question for us on WP is whether the linguistic definition can be treated as the only common modern definition, and whether the "Roman" definition can be treated as "dead" and no longer commonly influential in modern usage. IMHO there is a strong emotional demand among both some Wikipedians and some scholars that most of the western Roman Germani, and certainly those involved in the Arminius and Batavia revolts, were Germanic peoples and that's that, no matter what language they spoke. So we can't say the Roman definition is not used anymore. These peoples are certainly NOT called Germanic because of linguistic evidence. They are called Germanic because people still follow the Roman definition for this specific period and region. People look for evidence that they spoke Germanic, because they want to keep using that Roman definition at least for this period and region. That's a simple fact isn't it? Somehow we need to deal with it.
Can you please explain what you were referring to on the article talk page as the chief counterargument to the nonexistence of the Germani, cited from the GAO article on the subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Ermenrich in your recent post, you keep restate/misstate what I've been saying: 1. I do not claim that Tacitus mentioned Germani speaking Gaulish. 2. I have consistently presented Liebeschuetz as being different from all our other secondary sources, who, as you know, consistently insist that the Roman definition is different from the modern linguistic one. OTOH it almost seems like you are insinuating that all talk page discussion of primary texts is forbidden, so to speak. This is clearly not true. FWIW, WP:BURDEN applies to people adding information, not the ones raising reasonable doubts about it on a talk page. And strong claims require particularly strong sourcing. 3. I am also surprised that you still don't seem to see a difference between Tacitus mentioning the existence of one or more Germanic languages different from Gaulish, and what Liebeschuetz says (ALL Germani described by Tacitus spoke ONE language). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Re: re-adding mention of your work on Exodus to your user page
Damn, Ermenrich, you wrote most of the article. Great work. I can see exactly which parts you wrote using the "Who wrote that" browser extension for Chrome or Firefox that puts a link on the left-hand side of an article page. See mediawikiwiki:Who Wrote That?. Doug Weller pointed to it. You might find it useful, if you don't already know about it. Carlstak (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
SPI
Howdy. FWIW, even though the suspected sock voted 'oppose' in the RFC-in-question. That could easily be an attempt to throw off suspicion. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, I wonder if Haldir was a new user at all. They put on enough of a show of having a different personality (voting against Haldir, broken English) with that other account that it fooled Bbb23. Maybe all of the weirdly specific things about them were part of a show (Italian, interested in Sweden, preferred "they/them"). I've seen long term abusers do similar things before, like one who had me thinking he was a woman from Iceland until he got blocked as a longterm sockpuppeteer at SPI...--Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts you might have on this Wario-Man? They were interested in things like the Rouran Khaghanate with one of their socks and Haldir made articles related to Mongolian history.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know a pro-Sogdian LTA case. Rouran topics were/are the playground of User:WorldCreaterFighter; e.g. see the edits by one of his socks Special:Contributions/AsadalEditor. WorldCreaterFighter does have a pro-East Asian bias (plus some kind of agenda against both Indo-European and Turkic topics) while Haldir Marchwarden just looks like a history fan. Another LTA case who targets Eurasian topics is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34. That Tirgil34 is a pro-Turkic, anti-IE, anti-European, and anti-Iranian paid shill with a political and nationalistic agenda. I didn't find any similarities between Haldir and him. But looking at Haldir's edits and behavior, he does not seem to be a new user. Haldir's pro-Sogdian quest is something new in my WP book. Wario-Mantalk01:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Austronesier, I also haven't read the book, but I did come across that review. I wonder if there are any others? For the most part the only sources that come up in Google Scholar are Vennemann or McWhorter themselves.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The YouTuber Thomas Crawford (who has a PhD in Germanic linguistics from U of Minnesota) has also referred sort of disparagingly to this thesis a few times in his videos.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If there were any substance to the theory there should already be a lot of literature on the "Hebrew influence" on Germanic.--Berig(talk)15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The etymology Vennemann and Mailhammer propose for "erþō" was actually also something that crazy guy who kept trying to claim that the Germani came from Iran and that Linear Elamite was actually Gothic was pushing, interestingly.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, it must be hard just to let go. In my field, it's Laurent Sagart who at one point 30 years ago had an interesting idea that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but still he keeps defending it on every occasion. And people get tired of reviewing/refuting the same kind of weak evidence again and again. –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
MojtabaShahmiri. I'd say it's not conclusive yet, but he really hated the steppe theory because he wanted the Germani and Indo-Europeans to be from Iran. Check out his academia page sometime if you really want to see some crazy stuff, such as the existence of an "Asgardi" tribe in Iran around 3000 BC...--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! That map of Norse mythology over western Iran and eastern Mesopotamia! That is cringeworthy fringe!--Berig(talk)19:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The academia page is really quite fascinating I find. Like, when I go there I have a hard time looking away. Like a train wreck or something.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
[3] - Someone loosing his job and health because of editing in WP is 100% believable, but "who is guilty" is something entirely different. Perhaps the participant feels he should not edit in WP and does just that. I do believe that he and a couple other participants feel harassed. One can say it after looking at their comments. But whatever. I would rather not be involved to this case in any way. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
If that’s case he’s better off not editing Wikipedia. I certainly know that editing here can cause stress, but we all have a duty to take care of ourselves, and I find it hard to believe that someone could become so involved here as to lose their job - though I of course could be wrong. Blaming specific people is certainly not ok though.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, this is not OK without providing some supporting diffs. But a number of contributors (starting from the one who initiated the thread) made a number of accusations or claims unsupported by any diffs. The exception was only FR, but I do not think his diffs are convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
But I understand your comment. When I look to a page like this, do I want to participate in the endless discussions? Of course not. So, I am effectively pushed away from the participation. But does it mean I should go to AE and complain about these contributors [4]. No. If I do that, everyone will say, "hey, this is just a content dispute, and you even did not get yourself really involved in discusson". My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy holidays to you as well! Oy, him again? I’ll have a look in the next couple days. Feel free to remind me if I don’t start looking by Thursday.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Take your time, I will also read through some of my earlier encounters with previous incarnations of theirs (mostly in pseudo-ethnicity articles alà "[Insert some arbitrary language-family] peoples"). –Austronesier (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I've posted some initial findings over at Doug Weller's page - unfortunately this particularly master happens to have a lot of interests and a lot of socks making it very tedious work indeed.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring
It is most unpleasant of you to warn me about edit warring, you having reverted a factual edit based on claims I have clearly revealed above to be wrong, and then revert me again with no explanation while refusing to engage in discussion. That is edit warring. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥
At least I think it is - but apparently you were right to warn me, so I wish you well!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥
Thank you Xx236! Please let me know if you see any other problems - there's obviously a ton more that can be said about Conze and I've relied entirely on sources I can access online so far (and some of these are so convoluted my eyes glaze over), so there are sure to be omissions or things that could be fleshed out better.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Nahuatl
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my last edit in the Nahuatl article. I changed the spelling to the new orthography that, according to INALI, is the orthographic norm or spelling standard, not the Classical one. I even added the image showing the Illustrated Nahuatl alphabet (by INALI and, thus, the government of Mexico) in another section below. Languae (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Languaeditor, you'll need to start a discussion on the article talk page and also point to where you've found these orthography rules. For the most part what you posted seem to represent modern Nahuatl languages that are quite divergent from the classical form (lacking saltillo, missing syllables, etc.). Also the use of marks stress marks(?) found in IPA and things like underlining characters, though I know this is something done in other native languages to represent "whispered" vowels, do not appear like a standard system to me. I think it's possible you've confused phonetic transcriptions for an orthography.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I speak Nahuatl, and Nahuatl speakers are promoting this orthography because, as I said before, the INALI has stablished as the standard for Nahuatl. It's not lacking saltillo, it's written with 'h'. If you want to know more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You can see how the government of Mexico is using that standard too. Languae (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Languaeditor, you changed the names to Nawatlahtolli, mexkatl, mösiehuali̱, melaꞌtájto̱l, mexikanoh. Can you explain why "mexkatl" (which is missing a saltillo) is missing an i (Mehxicatl) or what's going on with the underlined letters in "mösiehuali" and "melaꞌtájto̱l", as well as the use ' in the latter? Why is there an umlaut in "mösiehuali"? Is this meant to represent one variety or (more likely) several different varieties of Nahuatl? As I said, this needs a discussion on the talk page.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the third and fourth names are representing two different varieties (which don't use the other three names that I added, because those should be there too), but the other three are using the INALI standard orthography. And, of course, you're not a speaker, because you would know that "Mexkatl" is the name in Nahuatl for the language and "Mexihkatl" is the name of the people. Check this: 1 (it's using the old orthography because it was made before the standard). If you look for "mexcatl" and "mexihcatl" you'll know the difference. And you're right, I'm going to add a new section there. Languae (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
There are talks at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether WP:SCIRS (or parts of it) should be upgraded to guideline or policy. I would like to know if you have any comments since you have been involved with WP:SCIRS in the past.
Hi, Hunan201p, I've been barking up this tree for a while and honestly I don't think this is worth the effort any more. Wikipedia is just going to have bad genetics sections, and maybe SCIRS wouldn't help even, I don't know. Sorry.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg
Hallo Ermenrich. Letztes Jahr habe ich mich hier dafür ausgeprochen, den Artikel Legends about Theodoric the Great in Dietrich von Bern zu verschieben. Dies ist geschehen was ich begüße. Ich habe nun eine Korrektur eingebracht (ausversehen als IP), wiel dort stand, dass es im Mittelalter nie Zweifel an der von Identität Dietrich von Bern mit Theoderich dem Großen gab. Frutolf von Michelsberg schlug aber tatsächlich vor, dass es einen anderen Dietrich gegeben haben könnte, auf den die Sage zurückgehe. Dann hast du revertiert und ich habe es wieder etwas abgeändert eingebaut und mit besserer Quelle versehen. Ich hoffe es passt so....
Du hast damals zu den Thesen Heinz Ritter-Schaumburgs einiges geschrieben. Im folgenden gebe ich es wieder und schreibe meine Meinung (in deutsch) dazu, falls es dich interessiert.
"Frutolf was trying to figure out why the two figures were so different, that isn't an endorsement of him actually thinking there were two Dietrichs."
Genau das hat er vorgeschlagen.
"The go to position for hundreds of years was that the oral tradition was a "lie", but the fact that this was constantly repeated only shows the strength of the identification."
Wieso orale Tradition? Ritter vermutet, dass die Sagen im 8. Jahrundert oder früher aufgeschrieben wurden. Noch vor dem älteren Hildebrandslied. Evtl. unter Karl dem Großen.
"People said Homer lied too - but as I said, no one thinks there was "another Troy" somewhere else."
Interessanter Vergleich. Aber es wurden auch schon zig andere Berns (neben Verona und Bonn) vorgeschlagen. Und bei der Ilias sagten anfangs auch alle, dass die Sage erfunden sei oder ewig weit weg von der Wirklichkeit, bis Schliehman Toja ausgrub.
"And R-S is not "still" fringe, he will always be fringe."
Ich glaube auch. Da ist irgendwie ein gewaltiger Groll auf Seiten der wenigen Germanisten zu spüren, die sich mit dem Thema überhaupt noch beschäftigen. Ansonsten interessiert das eh keinen mehr.
"To quote one reviewer of his book:
" Ritter's work smacks of dilettantism at every turn. The author has apparently not consulted the voluminous scholarly literature on the Thidreks saga, the Nibelungenlied and the Dietrichepen, not even William J. Paff, The Geographical and Ethnic Names in the pibriks saga (Cambridge, 1959). "
Aus meiner Sicht ein sehr durchsichtiger aber völligunrelevanter Vorwurf.
" He is so naive as to believe that tales that have come down for hundreds of years in oral tradition would contain reliable details with regard to time and distance."
An manchen Stellen geht Ritter sicher (zu) weit. Die Ths ist sicher keine Chronik. Aber dass zahlreiche Ortsnamen, Personen und Hergänge recht genau von den Sängern über 200 Jahre erhalten werden konnten, würde ich nicht ausschließen. Wenn Dietrich um 530 gestorben wäre, dann hätten die letzten Zeitzeugen um 580 gelebt. Wenn Karl der Große die Heldenlieder um 780 aufschreiben ließ, dann wären dies etwa 200 Jahre oraler Tradition. Außerdemkönnte es ja auch vor Karl dem Großen Texte dazu gegeben haben.
"He cites the most unreliable manuscript of the saga, the Swedish version. "
Ein ganz wichtiger Punkt. Die Annahme Ritters, die er sehr sorgfältig belegt, halte ich für plausibel. Leider habe ich dazu noch nie eine ausführliche Gegendarstellung gelesen, die auf seine Argumente eingeht.
"He calls the work realistic, ignoring all the dragons, giants, dwarfs and impossible events that are depicted."
Das die Sage legendenhafte Züge enthält, heißt ja nicht, dass alles frei erfunden sein muss. Fabelwesen waren für die Menschen damals teil der Natur. Die Riesen wirken in der Sage auch nicht sehr riesig (2 m?), die Zwerge nicht sehr klein... Gregor von Tours schreibt etwa auch, dass Nicetius von Trier bereits mit Tonsur auf die Welt gekommen ist.
"He does not seem to realize that the armor and castles described are thirteenth-century armor and castles, and that the work shows a strong influence of chivalric literature."
Die Burgen (befestiger Hügel) und Schlösser (befestigter Platz in der Ebene) sind in der Ths eigentlich gar nicht beschrieben. Die Kampfweise und BEwafffnung ist teilweise aber klar hochmittelalterlich. Das sind mit Sicherheit Zufügungen aus einer Zeit, in der man sich nicht mehr vorstellen konnte, dass ein König kein Wappen hattte und man die Lanze früher nicht unter den Arm klemmte.
"He identifies Bertangaland with Bardengau, ignoring the fact that King Arthur is associated with it, so that it is obviously Brittany, and shows the influence of the Tristrams saga and other chivalric literature. "
Niemand weiß wie Artus in die Dietrichsaga kam, aber Artus ist ziemlich sicher keine historische Figur. Es könnte umgekehrt gewesen sein. Dass die "Erfinder des Britischen Artus über einen Artus in Bertanga um das Jahr 500 hörten (aus der Thidrekssaga) und dachten, dies müsse jener Britische König gewesen sein, der am MOns Badonicus siegte. Als Argument sehr zweifelhaft.
"He interprets Niflungaland as "Neffel-gau-land," although the -ga- is obviously the genitive plural ending of the suffix -ungr. "
Finde das eigentlich schon recht überzeugend. Die Neffelungen.... Aber vielleicht waren sie ja woanders her. Finde persönliche Andere Ortsnamen der Sage für stichfester. Ballova(Balve), Dune (Dhünn), Bern (Verna=Bonn), Susat (Soest), Musula (Mosel), Osing, Rhin (Rhein).....
"He interprets the runes on the Soest fibula according to their shape rather than in accord with the traditional concepts they bear, not scrupling to distort his drawing of the n-rune to make it look more like an I-rune, and thus furnish the reading atalo instead of atano.""
Stimmt. Aber vielleicht hieß er Atano... Oder sein Sohn hieß Atano...
Du kannst das auch einfach ignorieren, wenn es dich nicht weiter interessiert.
Ich sehe gerade, du hast wieder revertiert. Les dir nochmal Heinzle, 1999 (seite 21) durch. Kann dir die Seite auch kopieren. -- (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)..ups, das war wieder ich als IP--Altaileopard (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)"
The first paragraph should only contain the most important facts about an individual. The fact that he died before his appeal was heard is not one of those. His conviction is - it's provided a precedent in Germany for convicting other concentration camp workers. At any rate, why are you posting this here and not at the article talk page?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Does that mean that you do not object to the other information I added in that edit? I am posting on your page because you gave an unclear edit summary.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥11:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Ad-hominem
Hi, Ermenrich. Sorry to bother you, but [6] this edit about what another user is allegedly "trying" to do, similar to something that's been said already on the same talk page, and which the user denies, could be seen as a comment about an editor rather than about the article. I prefer not to see that kind of comment. I like to see talk about the article on the article talk page; talk about user behaviour on user talk pages; and speculation about what other editors are thinking (or "trying" to do) is usually best kept to oneself in my opinion, especially as pertains to an editor one is in a dispute with. I'm not saying I'm totally without hypocrisy myself on some of these things. I'm also putting a comment on Altaileopard's talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Manyareasexpert. Since the invasion started I haven't been able to devote much attention to Wikipedia (there are enough other things to worry about), but I appreciate you're taking the time to do this. I may comment there later.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Kansas Bear. I was pretty sure anyone arguing that Herod had access to "census records" was saying bunk, but I thought just focusing on the edit warring rather than using the talk page made more immediate sense than looking into it.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I had not seen that, thanks Pfold! Pretty exciting! I guess this will be the second new Erec addition that actually displays the text in the transmitted form.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, less necessary for Erec than most of the other stuff. All the same, nice to have the facsimile on the facing page. --Pfold (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
To elaborate on the topic of Slavic in the Avar Khaganate, I must say the article provided is very fringe. It presents the idea that Common Slavic rapidly broke up after the fall of the Avars, which isn't true, because it doesn't account for the fact that Late Common Slavic (c. 800–1000) existed, so Slavic was likely still mutually intelligible after the breakup of the Avar Khaganate.
The Avars were known to have oppressed their subject Slavs, as is known from contemporary Bavarian writings. The Primary Chronicle is a later mix of earlier manuscripts and talks of similar oppression (using Dulebi Slav woman as draft horses for their carts!), perhaps exaggerated, but the language used is telling. The Avars didn't allow Slavs in high positions of power as the Bulgars did, which DID lead to Bulgars becoming assimilated by Slavs over a few hundred years. The Avars were strikingly homogenous in their ethnic makeup until the fall of the Khaganate which is when groups of Avars start fleeing to present day Northern Austria (Avarian Austria). If it counts, this may be when some mixed Avar elite may have adopted Slavic as a lingua franca.
The article also talks about bilingualism and how Slavic spread but that's a beast of its own. It either spread from agricultural community to agricultural community (as a lingua franca) or was spread by sheer masses of Slavs migration around. In my opinion the most likely explanation is the latter. This is also backed up by genetic evidence. The Slavs did assimilate locals where they went but also forcefully so. As a farmer outside the big cities (in the Balkans) you either tribalized, i.e. became a part of a Slavic tribe or you perished. The cities were native 'strongholds' for a while until they too assimilated into the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibby01 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ermenrich. In your sandbox ([7]), you plan to rewrite the Germanic religion article, and I saw the portion about the discussion about the Divine Twins in Germanic. Is it possible to use what is already written and copy it to the "Divine Twins" article? With proper attribution, of course. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice to meet you here, I don't think our paths have crossed before. It certainly does seem like there are several socks and suspicious IPs editing the article and/or AfD. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Netherzone for turning your talk page into a battleground. I was just hoping you might recognize the sock master. Before Feb 24 I wasn't even slightly interested in this topic area beyond an occasional interest in geographic names and some strange encounters at Religion in Russia with a now-banned Russian nationalist who insisted that saying that the country was not nearly 100% Russian Orthodox was "Russophobia".
Anyway, 666hopedieslast's second edit on Wikipedia was a revert of an edit he didn't make [8], which strikes me as very suspicious. Within a few days he had made drafts for three pro-Russian "journalists". This one that he's working on will really make your hair stand on end [9]. I wouldn't be surprised if a little digging made it obvious who the sock master is.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Notification
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Eine bestimmte Person, eine, mit der wir alle gestritten haben, hat noch mal den Inhalt der Germanen-Seite angegriffen...einfach Quatsch! Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a new edit from User:Intrepid on the Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where he appears to be using my account and my signature for his own purposes. I'd just closed a split request because of no support for it according to Wikipedia policy for WP:SNOW. However, I'm now discovering that Intrepid has reversed my close because it apparently did not suit his purposes, and then used by signature and my closing comment attributed to me to make it look as if I was continuing the thread rather than closing it. I thought it was improper at Wikipedia to use another editor's account in the way User:Intrepid has used my edit and my signature in order to pursue his own edit purposes. He then decided not to leave any comment of his own using his own signature to state his own cause, but left my signature alone as a type of "piggyback sock puppet" (as its called on the Wikipedia sock puppet page) in order for him to keep the thread open for his own purposes (eventually he did add a comment of his own). Can this be corrected, and why would he misuse another person's edits and signature in this way in order to press his own purposes? ErnestKrause (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi ErnestKrause, I would suggest taking this to an admin and providing diffs. This is a pretty serious accusation that needs an admin. If you don’t know any admins, then you can go to WP:AN, but make sure you provide diffs. I think you also need to notify IntrepidContributor if you go to AN.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back on this. After seeing your participation at SPI regrading his relation with another account, my thought is that this may be a larger issue of continuing that original SPI. The diff for Intrepid changing over the use of my edit with my signature is here: [10]. Following his unauthorized use of my edit and my signature, he then made the following edit to show why his preference was to press his own POV against that of other editors who were clearly opposed to the thread here: [11]. He then used these edits as a platform to launch into a string of edits on the Talk page there which I'm putting into small font here:
Since I'm not experienced with SPI, and this appears to be a continuation of the previous SPI which you had knowledge of, any assistance from you is appreciated since you've been following him much longer than I have. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi again ErnestKrause - to quote a diff, you need to post something like this [12], otherwise I don't see the content that has been changed. You can find that by going to history and using the "compare versions" feature and then copying and pasting the link (between two square brackets).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
So you're saying he moved a post made by you so it looked like you supported a position that you did not? Is that the correct understanding of the situation?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
My edit was to Close the discussion, based on explicit Oppose positions taken by other editors on that thread, and Ermenrich's unauthorized use of my edit and my signature was the full reversal of this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I would better not act as administrator in this topic area. If this is just edit warring, DS should be a reasonable instrument to use. Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this [13] shows IntrepidContributor moving a post by ErnestKrause in order to make it look like he supports a position that he does not.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Ermenrich. Apparently this warning discussed above did not succeed, and User:Intrepid appears now to have started making disruptive edits on the Talk page of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article commented on here: [14]. Is the edit conduct of Intrepid within accepted Wikipedia policies? ErnestKrause (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to make you aware that the page on Charlemagne is a real mess. I've been too busy to deal with it for some time, but it remains on my radar. Es ist doch beschämend, dass eine Wiki-Seite über eine Person seiner historischen Bedeutung so lange vernachlässigt wurde. If you are so inclined -- once you've got Germanic paganism under control -- take a look at it. Obenritter (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
You've reverted my edit in Mundzuk referring to WP:FRINGE. Can I ask why do you deem Alfréd Tóth as unreliable? At the bottom of his work Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian we can read about him. I think he passes the guideline.
ALFRÉD TÓTH was born in 1965 in St. Gallen (Switzerland), his native tongue is Hungarian. Received two PhD's (1989 Mathematics, University of Zurich; 1992 Philosophy, University of Stuttgart) and an MA (General and Comparative Linguistics, Finno-Ugristics and Romanistics, University of Zurich 1991). Mr. Tóth is since 2001 Professor of Mathematics (Algebraic Topology) in Tucson, Arizona. He is member of many mathematical, semiotic, cybernetic and linguistic societies and scientific board member of eight international journals. Lives in Tucson and Szombathely where his family comes from. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyone deriving Hungarian from Sumerian is fringe. Hungarian is a Uralic language and Sumerian is a language isolate with no proven connections to any other language. The genetic affiliation of Hunnish is also unknown but it is probably Turkic, not Uralic. Beyond that, Toth's "Hunnic-Hungarian Wordlist" is not published by a reputable academic publisher.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't accept this reason. Please note that before the end of communism, studies with inappropriate results were suppressed, and that recent discoveries distance Hungarian from Finno-Ugric more and more (genetic closeness and cultural closeness already disproved by MKI). It's not fringe to derive something from Sumerian if the whole Finno-Ugric kinship theory is standing only on shared vocabularies. Tóth is a linguist. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Not published in a WP:reliable source, so it doesn't matter whether Toth is a linguist or whether you disagree with the academic consensus that Hungarian is a Uralic language. You cannot add fringe sources to Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.
Not when they go against academic consensus. The idea that Sumerian and Hungarian are related is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that requires an extraordinarily good source, not a PDF someone uploaded.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The book is from the trustworthy Hungarian Electronic Library, not a random PDF. The thing that predecessors of ancient Hungarian words can be found in Sumerian is acknowledged by Finno-Ugristics. Please read this article: JSTOR2741589.
Tóth's work is indeed not from a reputed publisher, but reliable enough.[1] It won't overthrow the domination of academic sources. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ermenrich,
Just I have a general remark about the languge thing, not about the Sumerian thing. The people in all nations are mixed over the centuries. Speakers of an Uralic language does not mean that the origin of all people in the nation is Uralic. The problem is that the Finno-Ugric theory started as a language theory then it falsely became the theory of the origin of the Hungarians. For example, the Afro-Americans are speaking English, but they did not originate from England. For example, I think we cannot determine the origin history of an Afro-American person in New York from the English language. By the way, there are only some hundred allegedly Finno-Ugric words in the Hungarian language and the connection between the both language is more fare than between the English and the Russian. Because the Hungarian language is very old, we can find similarities in many other languages as well, for example, the Hungarian language has a 10x higher word match with the Turkish language. For example, the Avars, the Pechenegs, or Cumans also became Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin, they speak a “Finno-Ugric” language, but their origin cannot be “Finno-Ugric”. Finno-Ugric name is a wrong term, according to this category, the speakers of the Ugric branch are Mansi 12,500, Khanty 31,000, and Hungarian circa 15 million speakers. It should be called the “Hungarian language family” based on the number of speakers. The Finno-Ugric theory, this origin of the Hungarian people theory, this linguistic and cultural identification forced on the Hungarians for 150 years, but today it has shrunk to a third, there is no longer a theory of origin, there is no longer a common cultural landscape. For example, Hungarians have a golden deer or a miracle deer cult (like Scythians and Huns), a flying táltos horse that eats ember (the táltos is a figure in Hungarian mythology, a person with supernatural power). The northern Finnish and Uralic folks have a bear cult. The Hungarians used blood oaths like the Scythians, the Hungarians were fearful horse archer warriors and used the same weapons as the Huns, Avars, and Scythians, while the Finnish and Uralic folks did not. The Finno-Ugric experts don't know what to do with the new international and Hungarian genetic researches, which clearly proved the Hungarian-Hun-Scythian relations that were declared several times in foreign medieval documents and all medieval Hungarian chronicles. If you check the TrueAncestry website, nowadays many people and many Hungarians make a personal DNA test, based on these results, compared with an archaeogenetic database the Hungarians have this Scythian connection that was claimed in the medieval literature, according to the recent genetic researches the Huns also were Scythians. Today the Finno-Ugric origin dogma is over. Nowadays in Hungary, there is a paradigm shift in Hungarian prehistory. In the 1960–80s, the framework of the prehistory research was based on Finno-Ugric linguistics. Nowadays Hungarian prehistory is based on a new methodology: archeology, archaeogenetics, analyzing the old sources, and reconciliation of the researches of academic disciplines. Many contemporary Hungarian historians and genetics refuse the Finno-Ugric origin theory. The new books in the schools are teaching again the Hun-Scythian-Avar origin and the Finno-Ugric version is just a theory category.
(In Hungary it is beleived by many people, even many academics, The Habsburgs invented the Finno-Ugric theory and it was forced to be the official mainstream Hungarian origin theory after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution war in 1849, this theory is only 150 years old, this theory started only as a language theory then it was falsely converted to the origin of the nation theory. The Hungarians had a lot of revolution wars against the Habsburgs, and they wanted to rule the Hungarians, and the Habsburgs also incited always the people of Central Europe each other with the strategy of “divide and conquer”. That is why the Habsburgs wanted to take the real history of the Hungarians. The Habsburg agents, Paul Hunsdorfer and Jospeh Budenz who never spoke Hungarian were placed in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and they worked in the 1860–80s to make the Finno-Ugric theory as official linguist and origin theory of the Hungarians. This theory was good during the Soviet occupation which promoted Pan-Slavism. In an occupied country, it is not expected to teach the truth, the authentic history of the occupied people, but what is imposed by the occupiers, what suits them.)
The real content is the Finno-Ugric theory, that a Scythian folk, the Mansi which used horse burials even in the 19th century, the Mansi moved to the north to the forested regions from the steppe zone in the Iron Age, they could give words to north, then these words were taken by the local fisher and hunter folks. The Finno-Ugric peoples lived in the north, there are possible connection with the Scythian peoples who lived southward, but the culture came from the south to the north and not inverse, so if the Finnish language has some similar words, it means the Finno-Ugric peoples was taken words from the Scythians in the past.
OrionNimrod (talk)
Gyula22, please stop this nonsense. The idea that Sumerian and Hungarian are related is a fringe theory and does not reflect academic consensus. See Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. These are all pushed by Hungarian nationalists who for some reason think speaking a Uralic language isn’t great enough or something. They are fringe nonsense and you aren’t adding them to Wikipedia.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gyalu22: History is a complex thing. Linguistic history is part of that jigsaw puzzle. Operating with labels such as "Finno-Ugric" to denote ethnic identity is a fallacy rooted in the 19th century. This fallacy persists to the present day, but only in ideology-driven pseudoscience. And it is outright silly to cite cultural and anthropological evidence to support or devalidate linguistic hypotheses. Hungarian is firmly established as a member of the Uralic languages, period. Nevertheless, it has absorbed many features from Turkic and Slavic languages. This is a direct consequence of the diverse origins of the Uralic-speaking Magyar elite that supplanted itself on a local Central European population.
Any assumption of Sumerian links to Hungarian or to the Uralic languages as a whole remains tenuous, and the article by Fodor which you have linked to above says exactly that. "The camp of the partisans of the Sumerian ideology" (as Fodor calls them) simply have failed to produce solid evidence. A more recent attempt (without any Hun-Hungarian axe to grind) to trace Sumerian to Proto-Uralic by the Assyriologist Simo Parpola[15] is an interesting step towards a non-ideological inspection of the data, but has been criticized as speculative and methodologically problematic in peer reviews. In short, all the Sumerian-Hungarian (or Sumerian-Uralic) stuff remains fringe. –Austronesier (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Just please let me clarify I am not a "partisan of the Sumerian ideology", and I'm not trying to deny the Uralic-Hungarian connection, but trying to give more scope to the new direction of the study of history. The dispute came from my mistake of overpresenting. I acknowledge that these investigations aren't competent yet. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Noted. But you must agree that saying things like "The Habsburgs invented the Finno-Ugric theory" (and a few other things in your longish post above) strongly contributes to such misunderstandings (I hope it is just that)—and I have to admit that they have not been fully dispelled by this clarification. –Austronesier (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Austronesier, I joined to the conversation just a general feedback relating the language and the people, I commented that part as just simple talking, but I see Wikipedia did not sign my reply, so I did it manual. As a Hungarian I can confirm that these views are very general in Hungary, nowadays in Hungary, there is a paradigm shift in Hungarian prehistory. In the 1960–80s, the framework of the prehistory research was based on Finno-Ugric linguistics. Nowadays Hungarian prehistory is based on a new methodology: archeology, archaeogenetics, analyzing the old sources, and reconciliation of the researches of academic disciplines. There are a lot of new genetic researches like this academic source: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1OrionNimrod (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh it was you then. In this case, my most sincere apologies to User:Gyalu22.
There hasn't really been a paradigm shift in scholarship. The complex origins of Hungarian prehistory have been known to linguists, archaeologists and historians for ages. The real paradigm shift only happens in public identity-seeking. Most scholars hate it when their research is co-opted in such a manner. –Austronesier (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
By the way I am talking about history, not about the language, just my inicial comment was that I think language classification and a history of a people could be not the same. Of course, this needs time, but I am reading and checking always the latest researches of academic disciplines and I am listening lot of conferences and the presentation of historians, genetics, etc regarding the contemporary things, just check out my Current Biology link above. And also international researches matches with these things (for example not only the Hungarian scholars are making excavations and genetic studies in Hun cemeteries, for example https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4, and https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/). And I can see the changing, many 21st century scholars say these things what I mentioned, there are many already, and in future it will be a lot of publication and supervision of outdated historical views regarding the early medieaval and prehistory of Hungarians. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
No one disputes that the Hungarians came from the Eurasian steppe and would thus have genetic connections to other people from that area. Where these studies (mostly by Hungarians) go awry is when they suggest that somehow suggests "continuity" (whatever that means) between the Huns and the Hungarians. Any connection is very slight, as the genetic results show if you actually look at the percentages. Much of this research is related to the right-wing Orban government and should be treated cautiously: Gyalu claims that results "used to be" suppressed, and yet it was Orban who kicked out the Central European University, which publishes books that are critical of Turanianist approaches.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed the situation is quite complicated, the Hungarian conquerors also mixed with the locals, there is a genetic continuity from the Bronze Age, continuous migration of the steppe folks from east to the Carpathian Basin according to the genetic studies. Not only the modern studies say the similar things, there are lot of historian works from the early and late 20th century, the years of the 2000s, which research the similar things, and I think the genetics is math, an exact science. I also do not think that the more than 1000 years old foreign German, Byzantine, Italian, etc sources would be "Hungarian nationalist" which wrote clearly "Hungarians = Avars = Huns = Scythians", Anglo-Saxon map from 1040 write "Hunorum gens" (Hun race) to Hungary. But of couse this is more complicated. If you check yourself the MyTrueAncestry website, many Hungarians and other people make a personal DNA test, compared with an archaeogenetic database the Hungarians has a significant Scythian ancestry, I think 10-20 years later we will be more smarter when we have much more DNA. In that Current Biology study, the Hungarian conquerors had approx 30% Hun + 30% Sarmatian + 30% Ugric component, according to the study, the proto-Hungarians and Huns admixed around 300, later the old Hungarians integrated more additional Huns during their way on the steppe zone. The genetic studies proved the Hun, the Avar, and the Hungarian populations were present during the centuries together in that huge steppe zone, and genetic continuity was detected between them, that is a kinship relationship can be demonstrated. A significant part of the Hungarian conqueror elite showed themselves to be of Hun or Avar descent, with varying degrees of Iranian (Alan) and local admixture. The western end of the Eurasian steppe zone is the Carpathian Basin, and the eastern end is the Ordos region. This 8000 km long area was the ancient homeland of the horse archer Scythian folks, they were a tribal confederation, the Hungarian tribes were among them. The name of the tribal confederation always came from the name of the strongest leading tribe, who was raised on the shield, who was the elected leader among them. The Huns were also not only Huns. There were many steppe folks also (Iazyges for example) in the Carpathian Basin, but it called "Magyar-country" in Hungarian language because Árpád was raised on the shield from the Megyer tribe, and this tribe and he was the elected leader. But it was more tribes always in the Carpathian Basin. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
First, I don't know why I can't contradict Orbán. You say it like it would be a crime in Hungary.
Second, you use "Turanianist" similar to the Nazi card. I read that Turanism is the want of a Eurasian unification or close cooperation. I don't know how did you figure that out or why do you want to know others' personal views, but indeed I think cooperation between nations (see the excavation of the Ar Gunt cemetery in Mongolia by the MKI) is good, however, it is far from truth that we're so similar that we could unify. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
you use "Turanianist" similar to the Nazi card. I read that Turanism is the want of a Eurasian unification or close cooperation. I don't know how did you figure that out or why do you want to know others' personal views, but indeed I think cooperation between nations (see the excavation of the Ar Gunt cemetery in Mongolia by the MKI) is good, however, it is far from truth that we're so similar that we could unify.
Hi Erminwin. I didn't mischaracterize Turanism in any way, it means cultural and political movement proclaiming the need for close cooperation or political unification between peoples who are claimed to have special cultural, linguistical or ethnical relation and to originate from Inner Asia and Central Asia according to the article. I'm not a supporter of that (nor ever shown any signs of being so), so please don't give me phrases like that and assume bad faith in the wake of that. Apologies for the previous misunderstanding, I mixed your name with Ermenrich's. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gyalu22:: Even so, I won't take Turanists' claim for just "close cooperation or political unification" at face value, given (1) many Turanists' pseudo-scientific cherry-pickings of evidence to support their pre-conceived notions, geopolitical and racial agendae, and horrendous acts (in the Ottoman Empire's case: e.g. the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide; in Turkey's & Republic of Azerbaijan's case: falsification of history). To me at least, it's like taking at face value, out of willful ignorance, the "Heritage not Hate" lie peddled by bad-faith-acting racists displaying the Confederate battle flags.Erminwin (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason the include such ridiculous "academic" (or, even, pseudo-academic) standpoints, which strengthens the nonsense Sumerian Hungarian language affinity. In any article (except of course Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins). Anyway, none of academics consider "The Habsburgs invented the Finno-Ugric theory and it was forced to be the official mainstream Hungarian origin theory after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution war in 1849". Most of the pro-Finno-Ugric linguists lived long before the 1848 Revolution (János Sajnovics or Antal Reguly). --Norden1990 (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
"The Hunnic language cannot be classified at present,[4][5] but due to the origin of these proper names it has been compared mainly with Turkic, Mongolic and Yeniseian languages,[5][6][7] with a majority of scholars supporting Turkic.(Savelyev, Jeong)"
Does the Savelyev/Jeong reference support the statement "a majority of scholars support Turkic" since there is no page number given for the reference? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
it seems you [Erminwin] are only interested in talking about me [Giray Altay] in the context of making arguments ad personam, on other pages, and without pinging me [Giray Altay] 1, 2, 3
Erminwin, unless he’s following you around I don’t think it counts as hounding. It certainly looks like battleground though ( and the thing about pinging is frankly odd).—Ermenrich (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hmmm, Mann Mann I can see some potential connections to a few other new editors who have popped up recently too, maybe some old ones. For instance Volgabulgari is, evidently, a Volga Bulgarian (or has been accused of such by another new user), which could relate to the "fictitious persona" and "socks fighting each other" aspects... There have been quite a few of these new accounts popping up lately, maybe related to the Discord LouisAragon discovered instead of Tirgil34.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
My running theory at the moment is that the sockmaster (whether Tirgil34 or someone else) may have set up siloed socks who edit only on certain topics to avoid drawing too much suspicion. They may even be trying to change the apparent level of their English between socks.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
And by the by: given that Kurya (khan) is a Ukraine-related topic, I wonder if the blocked Crimean tatar-obsessed Devlet Geray might somehow be connected as well. The similarity to GA's name and the tendency to file specious claims to ANI are noteworthy.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Ohara Shoson (Koson), Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.
Hi Ermenrich, Thank you for all your contributions and article improvements during the year. May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health. Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Sure! Don't even feel you need to ask permission to borrow sources. WP requires attribution if you copy the text from elsewhere in the Encyclopedia though, so just mention that in your edit if you do. If you'd like some more, let me know and I will see if I can provide them.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, Ermenrich, if it is possible, I'd like to see those sources you used for the vocabulary comparison table on that article that mentions the Afr-As root to die (reconstructed as either *maaw- or *mawut-). I tried to check the references on which the table was based on, but could find the list of cognates across the daughter languages, since I plan to cite them in the article about Mot (another cognate). KHR FolkMyth (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The list of cognates are from Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova's Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary, if that helps. I was able to find it as a free PDF somehow online a few years ago, you might still be able to.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afroasiatic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatalization.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
Oh goodie! I love me a good sock hunt ;-). Yes, I’m well, hope you are as well. I haven’t been particularly active in classics here for a while, hope the topic area is holding up ok.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Eh, it's not their worst edit, but seems unnecessary at best and a vector for their weird religious POV-pushing: the source does not, unlike their edit, explicitly link the "Mitratas" on the seal with the god Mithra... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moloch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Laing.
Hey! I just wanted to say that the piece you're working on in your sandbox is looking really good. Certainly a valuable contribution. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Bloodofox! Glad you like it - I have to say, figuring out how to coherently discuss the proposed Proto-Afroasiatic verbal system is not an easy task - very little agreement. At some point, I'll hopefully have it condensed down to two or three coherent paragraphs.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Then it's relief to got answer from you. I'm trying to contact with a Check User, you'll shame for these comments in few days hopefully. Akatziri (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Beshogur. Are you connecting me with a banned user? I also received a report about my photograph in my first edits, you reported me due to possible copyright violation. I'm not sure what your problem is. You did this because of this suspection? Since, I joined Wikipedia you keep revert my edits and report me without warning me. Please investigate my account, IP address, device, and even my location. If you find I'm not him please apologize from me.
Copied this from the Hun page and added it to the Onogur page. It has a reference from Kim Hyun Jin, which I directly copied and pasted. I also did something similar on the Hungarian page. Could you please address these issues and provide guidance to me? Akatziri (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Huns and Hungarians
Hello, @Ermenrich. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Unfortunately, I made the same addition on the Hungarians page, but I later removed it. Subsequently, another user named @OrionNimrod, who has made successful edits on the Hungarians page, added more information.
This was my edit:
"Hunnish origin or influences on Hungarians and Székelys have always been a matter of debate among scholars. In Hungary, a legend developed based on medieval chronicles that the Hungarians, and the Székely ethnic group in particular, are descended from the Huns. However, mainstream scholarship dismisses a close connection between the Hungarians and Huns."[2][3][4]
This was his edit:
"The 20th century mainstream scholarship dismisses a close connection between the Hungarians and Huns.[5] However in the 21st century, the modern science of archaeogenetics revealed the Hun heritage of the Hungarian conquerors, it was a significant Hun-Hungarian mixing around 300, and the remaining Huns were integrated into the conquering Hungarians."[6][7][8][9]
I am new in Wikipedia, I am still learning how it works. But I can see that both of these additions were pointing a different thing. Additionally, my knowledge of reliable sources is quite limited. I have noticed your numerous successful edits on the Huns page. If you find these source appropriate, could you please remove the section stating "Modern scholarship generally dismisses a close connection between the Hungarians and the Huns" on the Huns page and include academic findings that suggest their connection? If you choose not to include them due to insufficiency of sources or for any other reason, could you kindly explain why?
Hi Akatziri, I have removed that edit as not properly sourced. Lots of editors try to use WP:PRIMARY genetics sources to make grand claims about ancestry. Until we have WP:SECONDARY responses to those claims, they really shouldn't be there though. There are many, far more likely reasons why Huns and Hungarians would have some shared genetic material than that there is "continuity" or "heritage" between them, as both originated on the Eurasian steppe, where peoples mixed and fell apart constantly. It's unfortunate that this particular issue has gotten wrapped up in Hungarian (and pan-Turkist) nationalism. I expect we'll have a much clearer sense of the matter in a few years.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
^Engel, Pál (2001). Ayton, Andrew (ed.). The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895 - 1526. International library of historical studies. London: Tauris. ISBN978-1-86064-061-2.
^Maróti, Zoltán; Neparáczki, Endre; Schütz, Oszkár; Maár, Kitti; Varga, Gergely I.B.; Kovács, Bence; Kalmár, Tibor; Nyerki, Emil; Nagy, István; Latinovics, Dóra; Tihanyi, Balázs; Marcsik, Antónia; Pálfi, György; Bernert, Zsolt; Gallina, Zsolt; Horváth, Ciprián; Varga, Sándor; Költő, László; Raskó, István; Nagy, Péter L.; Balogh, Csilla; Zink, Albert; Maixner, Frank; Götherström, Anders; George, Robert; Szalontai, Csaba; Szenthe, Gergely; Gáll, Erwin; Kiss, Attila P.; Gulyás, Bence; Kovacsóczy, Bernadett Ny.; Gál, Sándor Szilárd; Tomka, Péter; Török, Tibor (25 May 2022). "The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians". Current Biology. Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns
^Keyser, Christine; Zvénigorosky, Vincent; Gonzalez, Angéla; Fausser, Jean-Luc; Jagorel, Florence; Gérard, Patrice; Tsagaan, Turbat; Duchesne, Sylvie; Crubézy, Eric; Ludes, Bertrand (30 July 2020). "Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia". Springer Nature. East Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I'd like to get your take on Origin of the Huns. It seems to me that this article concerns the origin of the Eueopean Huns. Yet, we see in the genetics section the same content from Damgaard, et al. (2018) regarding the unrelated Tian Shan Huns, as well as the Neparáczki et al. 2019 paper that was seemingly controversial at Talk:Huns. Am I missing something here, or do these studies really belong at Origin of the Huns? It is questionable to me whether or not the Damgaard one even belongs at Huns.
Well, Hunan201p, Origin of the Huns is a bit more general than "Huns", as it includes other "Hun" groups (necessarily, since its those connections that inform how we think of the origins of the Huns). Thus I think the Tian Shan Huns definitely belong there (they're used as genetic evidence on Hunnic origins), despite the problems with associating them with the European Huns. I'm not certain they belong in the "Huns" article, but my sense is there's an argument for them to be there.
The genetics section of Origin of the Huns is not in the best of shape, having mostly been added by socks and POV pushers after I created the article. A good trimming of things like Y-Haplogroups and the removal of a lot of claims that are clearly connected to Hungarian/Turkic nationalism is certainly in order (on the former see here also available at de Gruyter via the Wikimedia Library).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hunan201p: The question of the origin of the Huns is a multidimensional one, since the Huns as they were perceived in contemporary historiography were a mixed bunch. So essentially, the origin of the Huns first entails identifying the individual components that were the parts of the sum called Huns. And the next step is to trace to the origin of each of these components. Biological anthropolgy is certainly one way to do this, but archeological and other kinds of evidence are equally important.
In some studies, the multidimensionality is collapsed in favor of identifying the component with the strongest East Asian affiliation as the "actual" Huns, and the other components as associates/confederates. Patterns observed in elite burials at least seem to confirm that notion. So the strategy by Maróti et al. to introduce the "core"-label is actually a good one, since in that way they don't deprive the non-East Asian individuals of their "Hunnishness".
As for Tian Shan "Huns", they are relevant because of their potential cultural link to (parts of) the European Huns as seen in their burials. And they are quite interesting insofar as the elite "core" ancestry is only found with an "outlier" individual, and not with the bulk of the sampled population. If there is in fact any continuity from the Xiongnu to the European Huns (via the Tian Shan Huns?), it would have involved a very limited core elite (@Ermenrich: reminds me a bit of Wenskus' Traditionskern). –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Afroasiatic
The most recent sources from 2018 to 2023 clearly state that the majority of scholars place the origin in NORTHEAST Africa, not simply "Africa" in general. Also, it is made clear that although the languages diversified from proto-Afroasiatic in northeast Africa, their ultimate origin prior to this is in the Levant in the Paleolithic, as per all of the genetic studies. The people are from the Paleolithic to early Neolithic Levant. 50.100.222.203 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, i Just wanted to ask why die you changed my addits. It is clear that the thidrekssaga's origin was not German but Low German/Low Saxon. Why did you changed that. Best wishes, Lennart Westfäölsk Meyewiärker (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I suppose if an indefinitely banned user really added the material than this new guy outed themselves as a sock and should be blocked, right? Even if it's not actually true, that seems to be the logical conclusion: either they're trying to trick us into thinking they're an indefinitely blocked user or they actually are; in either case, probably WP:NOTHERE.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Since you gathered the evidence, would you mind posting to SPI about it? I'm not sure where everything is - I think they'll just go ahead and block him since he appears to claim to be a sock.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind at all. I know it's not a big deal, but I need to do my morning routine, some reading and organizing of material in my notes for Michelangelo's David, then shift gears and do that later today.;-) Carlstak (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I am confused as to why you reverted my edit rewording the redundant sentence on Pontius Pilate and what your interpretation is of MOS:REDUNDANCY, which I cited, is. "Spouse" is a gender-neutral term for wife, so having a contorted unnatural sentence to fit "general practice" should be avoided. I assume that wife is also a much more common word than spouse so it does not clarify anything about the language or Pilate for that matter. Even if it did help some people with limited English, there is a seperate Wikipedia for that. It doesn't tell us anything extra about Pilate and I can tell you it is not general practice to do this as bolded text has been removed from my own edits as it does not match the title. What are your thoughts on this? – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk}19:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I read the guideline on the purpose of userpages and seen as I'm talking about your specific edit I think it is fine. If this had become a discussion then I would have copied it there. Though I do like the idea of centralising the discussion, I suspected (perhaps arrogantly) that it would not be so contentious and since you have restored my edit I am assuming I was right in my suspicion? – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk}17:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
ß
Hello Ermenrich, i'm terribly sorry that i let you down in 2021 at Talk:ß#Nibelungen manuscript and Talk:ß#Ȥ/ȥ. As to the latter, i now understand what you meant and agree with you. As to the former, it seems we now have nice pictures that don't need any postprocessing, and i'm not so sure if they would be improved by blurring, as i volunteered back then. Or do you think that would be an improvement? ◅ Sebastian Helm🗨20:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@SebastianHelm:, I’d say everything looks good as it is. My only request might be if you have access to a pre-1996 Duden so we can finally verify the rules about writing SS or SZ when ß is capitalized.—-Ermenrich (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ermenrich :) Do you happen to have sources for the etymologies of the two personal names likely containing the *thuris component by any chance? It'd be great to work them into my next iteration of the Jötunn" page but I can't find references for them after a quick dig. Any help would be really appreciated! Ingwina (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure! Check out Altdeutsches Namenbuch by Foerstemann under "Thursja". It's old but still a pretty standard reference.Based on him it wasn't a very popular naming element since almost all the obvious names are variants of Thurismu(n)d or Thurisind, but it seems significant that two members of the Gepid royal family used it. There's a more recent source from 1968 that improves on a few of his etymologies (I doubt that people have accepted his connection of Thusnelda to *thuris, for instance, which he attributes to Grimm). You should also have access to perhaps more recent sources through the Wikimedia library if you go to de Gruyter, including the Reallexikon. Their search feature is very bad so it's probably best to search "Germanische Altertumskunde Online", go to that database, and then try something more specific - almost all the Germanic related stuff (in English and German) is somehow associated with the Reallexikon so it should come up. @Berig: may also know some sources, since we both had to find tons of name etymologies together while putting together Lists of figures in Germanic heroic legend.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Apparently there's an entire MHG short text called (probably by modern researchers) "Der Turse". Based on what I can see from the lexeme database he eats people, which isn't usually a trait of Riesen in Middle High German tales. I don't recall a single giant trying to eat Dietrich von Bern. He's also married to an apparently human wife who tries to help the protagonists who happen upon his house in the forest (where else?). Fascinating stuff, and I bet hardly anyone's ever written on it.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to be racist against a group of white people in Europe, who mostly don't really consider themselves a distinct ethnicity anyway. If you're looking to improve the lot of Low German speakers today, the article on the Thidreks saga on Wikipedia is really not the place to do it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
there are also black speakers of Lower Saxony. Yes, I’m sure there are dozens of them. Being recognized as speaking a minority language is not the same as seeing oneself as a distinct ethnicity.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Please stop violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The ones I cited to you make it clear that citations go at the end of the supported material, and that consecutive cites of the same source in the same paragraph are not permitted. Unless you're disputing this, please adhere to these guidelines. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This: because a Fair Use image can only be used on one dedicated page. Bots will keep removing if used on another page. Each new page requires a new upload, with a new, specific, rationale. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk)16:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess so. Maybe change the size a bit to avoid the "same image already exists" error message when attempting the upload. And, most importantly, the rationale has to be fine tuned to make Fair Use legitimate on your page... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk)16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Giving these to everyone involved in the article who has not obviously marked themselves aware:
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
== Introduction to contentious topics ==
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi Mann Mann - I've been doing some work on Huns recently, but I can't think of any new pages that aren't already in the template! There are topics that probably do deserve their own pages but I'm not in a position to work on them now unfortunately. Hope you're doing well yourself!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't worry, Mann Mann, I have no doubt Giray Altay will be back under a new name - if he hasn't already returned. One of the weird things about him was that his socks sometimes worked siloed on completely unrelated topics.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Whenever you have a chance and if you are interested (assuming so from your work on Nazi scholars), I recently rewrote the article on Walter Gross (politician) but it could use a second set of eyes and any additional content you might have access to in the interim. If not, keine Sorgen...hoffe ich alles bei Dir gut ist. Obenritter (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Obenritter! I will try to take a look! Life's sort of caught up with me at the moment, so I may not do it soon though!--Ermenrich (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I was just kidding on my "remove all cognates" edit—I had actually left it exactly as you had it previously.
I hope that was clear & it didn't make you feel like your work was unappreciated; I, for one, am glad some actual experts run through these pages now & then...
(—as much as I wish that described me, if 'm'honest, I seem to have picked wrong: "Better go with o-chem over linguistic history," Himaldrmann thought, to himself. "It's... sort of... interesting; it'll make me ol' pa proud; and: it's lucrative! I definitely won't end up neither wealthy nor happy, ha ha!" ...—but the Nornir laughed with him.)
...so at least someone is out there rectifying historical-Germanic-linguistics–Wikipedia for us dilettantes!
Yes, Glottolog is conservative, but it is very reputed. Given the decades of misunderstandings and misnomers for languages of Africa, surely that is not negative?
Additionally, if one is using words like "a majority" some quantification would be expected? Where is that conclusion drawn from? Who are those specialists? Certainly not typologists, for instance. Kielitieteilijä (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI, comments about an article content belong on that article's respective talk page.
You'd have to check the sources, but they are obviously specialists in Afroasiatic linguistics. It's sourced to: Sands, Africa's Linguistic Diversity (in article bib), and this meets WP:RS/AC. You can also check Gragg 2019 (also in bib) and Huehnergaard 2004 (ditto). The fact that not all specialists think its AA is also mentioned. Glottolog is noted as conservative, so they count among those who question that link. I'm sure without much digging I'd find more descriptions of most specialists agreeing that Omotic is AA.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Kielitieteilijä: We usually don't cite Glottolog (or mention it in-text: "Glottolog classifies...") because it is essentially a project that rests on the expert judgement of one person who mostly has a good instinct and reflects academic consensus, just like we do. But Harald Hammaström is not bound to consensus, and often reflects minority positions or novel proposals that are compelling to him, but are not necessarily fully in line with academic consensus. In the case of Omotic, we don't you rather cite Güldemann? Hammarström largely follows Güldemann's views anyway when it comes to the classification of the languages of Africa. And Güldemann's handbook is a high-quality source. His criticism of many families and subgroups that – according to him – are not supported by sufficient evidence is not shared by all of his colleagues, but his views are notable and can be added to the article with in-text attribution. –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
He certainly could add more on the negative views, but he shouldn’t change the AC statement without a new AC statement that it’s no longer the majority view.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
A tribe origin is shrouded in mystery
hello. @Ermenrich I saw that you have created many articles and spread information to people like origin of hunas etc. Although I know you will not be interested in it. If you have time and you are interested in it then can you shed light on the origin of Abhiras because the origin of these people is most shrouded in mystery. Because these people have been heavily confused in Brahmanical writers and inscriptional records. 2409:4085:9D8C:7980:0:0:8109:4E06 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
,_Egrets_in_Snow,_1927.jpg)
