Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Scope

Since the date of the first sound shift is mainly scholarly guesswork, I suggest that we start with the Nordic Bronze Age. It would align the project with both Template:Germanic peoples and the daughter project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture.--Berig (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:UCS, I would say that's fine. The folks as WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome cover the Minoan civilization and things seems to roll on quietly and productively. Unfortunately, we're talking about Ancient Germanic culture, so all bets are off...
Archaeologically, I think its justifiable. Linguistically, however, everything before the First Sound Shift (FSS) is Pre-Germanic. Indeed, the reasoning behind the absolute chronology of the FSS primarily consists of a string of conditional arguments surrounding the word "hemp", which are not all that convincing, IMO. However, I have not found anyone willing put the FSS earlier than ca. 500 BCE, and some go so far as to suggest that the causes of the FSS are probably directly connected with the start of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
I don't have a problem with including NBA as a closely related topic. But I worry that explicit inclusion as part of the scope will draw some heavy fire from various quarters, as - though commonly agreed upon as a no-brainer - when pushed, the connection becomes difficult to substantiate.
For the same reasons, I think the Germanic peoples template suffers from similar problems. I'm surprised no one has tried deleting it entirely, to be honest. As recent discussion on List of Germanic peoples shows, people require that Ancient Germanic be clearly delineated from Germanic (i.e. "modern" or "contemporary" Germanic) before they can think straight and edit productively.
Forgive my ramblings. I think it would be best to hear the opinions of others on this. —Aryaman (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you're right. One thing I've often ran into problems here with is people seeing the word "Germanic" and instantly thinking Deutsch rather than Germania, sending them into a frenzy. A project like this will help! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task force proposal: Runic studies

I would like to propose the creation of a task force dedicated to runic studies. The details of my proposal are as follows:

Scope: This task force will focus upon the improvement of any and all articles related to runes and runic inscriptions as part of the Ancient Germanic Studies WikiProject.

Specific Goals:

  • To apply and/or create standards for the transcription, transliteration and translation of runic inscriptions in Wikipedia articles.
  • To establish a uniform, MoS-compliant method of citation and referencing in all relevant articles.
  • To widen the research base for credible resources in runic studies and incorporate them into the appropriate articles.
  • To establish a 'standard' method of treatment (e.g. outline structure) for particular 'species' of articles, such as those on individual runes and those on inscriptions found on artefacts, etc.
  • To establish and maintain proper categorization of all relevant articles.
  • To maintain/continue proper categorization of related media, i.e. images used in runic articles.

Possible partner WikiProjects:

If created, this task force would have its own page, and would be responsible for developing its own MoS-compliant standards and for generating its own to-do list.

Comments are encouraged. —Aryaman (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sooner such standards are established, the better. Would you like me to start it?--Berig (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't think of a more appropriate person to do the honours. :) —Aryaman (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well needed. Sounds great to me! :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Thanks for you support. I'll think it over and I hope to finish a version before the end of this month.--Berig (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Count me in! --Skadinaujo (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Assessment will eventually play a significant role in this WikiProject, and it is typical for WikiProjects to have an Assessment page detailing any topic-specific requirements for rating articles within that WikiProject. Although many WikiProjects do not take advantage of the potential offered by a project-specific rating system, we are free to do so, provided that our criteria meet or surpass those otherwise universal to Wikipedia.

Personally, I find the Wikipedia requirements for Start- and B-Class rather indefinite. I also feel that before an article can earn the 'Start-Class' rating, it should represent the results of a thorough research phase, and all the pertinent information should already be present. (In this sense, 'Start' should mean that the article contains all the necessary citable information and is now ready to be edited with a view towards presenting that information in a coherent, MoS-compliant manner.) These, however, are my personal views, and I would appreciate it if others would voice their opinions regarding the possibility of creating a clearer, and perhaps more stringent list of assessment criteria for this WikiProject. —Aryaman (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. No one seems to be volunteering here, so I will present what I propose for our project-internal quality rankings. I hope others will have things to add and/or correct here, as I do not want to attempt determining these things on my own. (Please compare the following with: WP:ASSESS) —Aryaman (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub: The article is a rough collection of information.
Start: The article is a collection of all pertinent information related to the topic, representing the results of a thorough research phase, and all cited information has been noted with proper (Harvard) references. Further, the information has been organized according to a coherent outline, and the article has an appropriate lead.
B-Class: The article is well-developed, with a good lead, multiple headings, one or more images, and includes any relevant templates. The article discusses the topic in a neutral and balanced manner, and provides proper context to the average reader, being sufficiently wiki-linked and dab-linked where appropriate.
GA-Class: The article exhibits uniformity in style and voice, both in itself as well as in comparison with other GA-Class articles. It is composed in error-free (British) English, and attention has been paid to details such as units of weight and measurement, dates, etc. Footnotes appear at the end of their respective sentences, and give additional information to interested readers where appropriate. Overall, an excellent article which could only be improved in terms of style by editors outside our WikiProject.
Just as a comment, I am not a fan of British spelling and, as it relates to this project, sticking to the older "American" spelling may be more appropriate rather than the Anglo-French (See:American and British English spelling differences) preferred when "British English" was standardized. I recommend either we stick with "American English" or we just treat it article-by-article - that is to say whatever is there first ought to be the standard of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
..Otherwise, I am perfectly fine with these standards! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think British English is more appropriate in articles on European matters. The standards look fine to me too.--Berig (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can agree to go either way depending upon precedent, as suggested by Bloodofox. It might be helpful to add a hidden comment to an article indicating preferences to avoid unnecessary edit conflicts in the future. —Aryaman (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting citations, footnotes, etc.

[edit] References

I think it is very important that we establish what style of reference/footnote formatting this project is to use. The WP:MoS describes several possible methods, and leaves it up to editors to choose one appropriate to their field.

In my experience, most theses, articles and books treating our subject use Harvard referencing. I have been using a slightly modified version of this style in my articles (where no other format is given): an in-line (end of sentence) footnote containing a standard Harvard reference and a References section giving full citation of the work. I find this to be a superior method of referencing, not least of all because it enables editors to include valuable information in the form of footnotes which might not be considered directly relevant to the article itself. (See, for example, the notes section on Ring of Pietroassa.)

I would like to hear from other editors on this subject. —Aryaman (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I am also fine with converting articles we collaborate on into this style as well, such as the articles I've recently requested collaboration on here as well (Alu (runic), Tuisto). :bloodofox: (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just looking at Tuisto, which prompted me to post the above. Granting that the other members agree, I would like to write up a section for inclusion on the project page specifying our use of Harvard standard. I think it is within out "right" to request that editors outside the group contributing to AGS-related articles use the same format. Citations without page numbers, etc. are quite tiresome to track down and should not be added in the first place, really. And I find citations with "abcdefghi Johnson, J (1978)" to be rather unsightly. Adding {{refbegin|2}} ... {{refend}} is enough to ensure a compact references section. —Aryaman (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I have always used Harvard referencing when writing IRL, I think giving references in notes is more versatile and appropriate in WP articles. If I want to move down a great deal of information in a note, I simply use Harvard referencing in the note to show my sources.--Berig (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, on WP it is important to give sources for information that is so mainstream and common knowledge in scholarly circles that no scholar would source them in real life articles. In such cases, I think Harvard referencing could be undue since it could make the particular referenced source look like the ultimate originator of the information.--Berig (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your premise, Berig. And this is where the mighty Cf. comes in handy, e.g. cf. Mitchell (2001:13). Also, Harvard does not prevent us from adding clarification in the footnote itself. —Aryaman (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Yes, you're right that the cf. annotation can be used for that purpose. Still, using notes conscientiously makes paragraphs look cluttered, but using Harvard referencing they would make them look even more cluttered. Moreover, even if we went over completely to Harvard referencing, I'd prefer using notes for references such as newspaper articles.--Berig (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, another reason for objecting to making Harvard referencing the standard is the fact that I have written and expanded between 200 and 300 articles by using notes for references. The vast majority of these articles are theoretically covered by this Wikiproject. If we applied Harvard referencing, there would be a huge workload trying to make the articles consistent in style.--Berig (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in "one sentence, one footnote". If a sentence has more than one citation connected with it, they are to be included in the same footnote and separated by a semicolon at the very least, if not addressed outright as separate notes within the same footnote. There is no need to clutter a sentence with a footnote every other word. And I don't consider one footnote at the end of a sentence "clutter". As far as newspaper articles are concerned, that's fine by me.
As for the workload of reworking old articles: this is not to happen tomorrow or anything. But uniformity is, eventually, going to come to Wikipedia - especially if it is going to release print versions of the encyclopaedia. Articles need to be worked through one at a time as it is. And I don't mind reformatting references, provided all the required information is present. —Aryaman (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of notes appears to be the most common way of referencing on WP. However, although I am reluctant, I'm ready to agree on Harvard referencing as a standard. But, it's on condition that the other members of this Wikiproject, Skadinaujo and Bloodofox, support it. This is a decision that everyone has to agree on for it to work.--Berig (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, we (Bloodofox, Skadinaujo and I) just came to a similar conclusion during a recent discussion of additions to Alu (runic). So, I think we're good to go on this. —Aryaman (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Affirmative. –Skadinaujo T•C 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

If it has not been mentioned yet, I think we should state our method of dating for the sake of clarity. I am pretty sure most here generally use the Common Era terms instead of Anno Domini. This is something that should be very consistent. –Skadinaujo T•C 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely prefer CE and when I edit an article where AD isn't already standard, I use this system. If there are no objections, I propose that we do the same. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I was implying :) The reason I put up the comment was so that newcomers or Anno Domini users can be informed, by making it clear on the main page of this project. As a result of such a decision, I suppose we are all legitimated to change between AD to CE of any article falling under our scope, if nothing else is stated. –Skadinaujo T•C 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

I'm familiar with WP:NAME. Especially the part which says:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Fair enough. But aren't we - by which I mean those of us interested enough in this topic to look up articles relating to it on Wikipedia, let alone edit them - by virtue of the very fact beyond the general audience? Can a person looking up a rune from the Elder Futhark or a pre-Christian Heathen deity really be considered general audience? In my eyes, they've already crossed that line. And, as far as this topic is concerned, we have crossed the line in as much as we treat a subject which is simply not "readily accessible to a general audience". Some specialist interest, and foreknowledge, can be assumed on the part of our reader. The key question is: how much?

What are our peers doing? I, for one, take Rudolf Simek's Lexikon der germanischen Mythology to be a great example of how to get naming conventions right. The book is directed at a general audience, though assuming a bit of advanced interest on the part of the reader, and yet remains interesting and useful to those who have advanced knowledge of the subject. The Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde is another great example.

Sadly, we, the Wikipedia community, are far from attaining these standards. In terms of naming, I'm afraid articles like Týr would be laughably sophomoric if viewed by the likes of Simek or Hoops.

I'm not saying Simek and Hoops are the final authorities on the question of naming conventions (and, by extension, the split/merge issues that arise as a consequence). I'm sure there are others that are equally skilled, and I would be happy to hear what the other members of this project think. But I do think that, if we are going to get serious about increasing and improving our coverage of Ancient Germanic culture, we need to open our eyes to similar work already accomplished in the field and, to some degree at least, follow suit. —Aryaman (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to be as accessible as possible but without compromising anything at the same time. A few internal links and explanations can solve many of the problems associated with technical terms and symbols. I'm not a fan of abbreviations at all though and I think we, as a project, should actively avoid them as much as possible. Perhaps I misunderstand - is there anything in specific you are referring to? Can you give me an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to stick with the previous example: Týr. If you compare this entry with a reference work like Simek's, the discrepancy becomes apparent. His entries:

  • Tīw or Tīg (Anglo-Saxon): (1 paragraph)
  • *Tīwaz: (1 paragraph)
  • Týr: (Old Norse) (5 paragraphs)
  • *Ziu: (Old High German) (2 paragraphs)

These are four different entries in Simek, all with content specific to each, all with clear "links" (Simek uses the inline arrow →) to the other entries in the series. (This, in opposition to the practice of simple "redirecting", e.g. "Tuisco: → Tuisto") The reason is clear: anyone working with source texts or other literature is going to look up a specific form of the term and expect to find detailed information on that form. Simek does not attempt to write an entry on the figure Tīw/Tīg/*Tīwaz/Týr/*Ziu, but instead one on each form. To do otherwise is to make an assumption which, strictly speaking, is synthetic in nature. I see no good reason for us to press all these together in one article. Dablinks and See also were invented to deal with exactly this kind of thing. —Aryaman (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a point and I agree with it. I think most of these problems can be solved by simply sticking directly to the sources and purging what isn't sourced in favor of what solidly is. The Týr page is a good example of an article just asking for a complete rework and it's be a solid target for this project. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heathen prayer

Sigrdrífa praying.
Sigrdrífa praying.

At WikiProject Mythology, a request for Germanic heathen prayers to be listed at the prayer article has been made. I can think of two accounts off hand, the Anglo-Saxon Æcerbot (which I just quickly created) and Sigrdrífumál plus there's that Varoon uploaded and the beautiful image by Arthur Rackham (the one on the right). Can anyone else think of anything? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know that a long-time point of contention among scholars was whether or not the first half of the Wessobrunn Prayer was Heathen in origin (pointing to parallels with the Völuspa) - a position which appears to be categorically (and with little to no good reason, IMO) refuted by modern Germanisten (though some thoughtful theologists view it as the result of Heathen-Christian syncresis). Maybe that article needs to be worked over as well - it flatly states: "The concept of creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) described here is however genuinely Christian." Seeing as the same thing has been repeatedly claimed regarding the creation in the Völuspa, I find the whole argument highly suspicious. Anyway, I'll keep looking for possible inclusions here. —Aryaman (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We should begin by collating the obvious sources for material which could be of use here, such as Grimm's Teutonic Mythology (Vol. I, Ch. III) and Grönbech's Culture of the Teutons (Vol II, Ch. X Prayer and Sacrifice), both of which deal with heathen prayer in the greatest detail the material allows. (Both of these works are available in English on-line and I'm pretty sure everyone in this group has already found and downloaded them. If not, get them now. If you need links, drop me a note.) If I'm overlooking a major work here, feel free to leave a reminder. Also, we need to mention any contributions we can make from our own private collections. For my part, I have a (German language) copy of Derolez' Götter und Mythen der Germanen (1963) which contains (Book III, Ch IV) a chapter on prayer. Not much substance to get out of it, but some interesting discussion nonetheless. There is a mention in Simek (2003) regarding Víga-Glúms saga (9) and the possibility of a "prayer to Freyr", but I have not followed up on that yet. Others are invited to mention what resources they have at their disposal below. —Aryaman (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A solid approach as usual, Varoon. While a full treatment is ideal, we can also just give a basic overview of the subject matter for now and then fill it out. I think we can start by listing potential prayers here outside of the two obvious ones I've mentioned before. Here's a basic draft of what we've mentioned so far:

Accounts of prayers to the gods in Germanic paganism survived Christianization though only a single prayer has survived without the interjection of Christian references. These references include the Valkyrie Sigrdrífa's prayer to the gods and the earth in stanzas 2 and 3 of the poem Sigrdrífumál compiled in the Poetic Edda in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources. The 11th century manuscript for the Anglo-Saxon charm Æcerbot presents what is thought to be an originally pagan prayer for the fertility of the speaker's crops and land, though Christianization is apparent throughout the charm. One of the Sagas of Icelanders, the Víga-Glúms saga might contain a prayer to the god Freyr. The 8th century Wessobrunn Prayer has been proposed as a Christianized pagan prayer and compared to the pagan Merseburg Incantations, the latter recorded in the 9th or 10th century.

(Of course, without the references.) Do you think the "Thor Hallow These Runes" (as presented on various runestones) counts as well? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is something Grimm specifically addresses in one of the later sections (somewhere in Vol. III, I believe) of Teutonic Mythology: in ancient Germanic religion, there appears to have been no strict division between prayers, blessings and curses, and three three often blend into one another. This, argues Grimm (if I recall correctly), is not to be seen as a "shortcoming" of the religion; simply as one of its defining characteristics. I will have to do some more re-reading, but I would leave it out for now, as its inclusion without some kind of clarification would invite a whole slew of additional material, as I'm sure you easily recognize. But we should definitely keep it in mind for a future, more thoroughly researched version of our contribution here. —Aryaman (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked through volume III today and didn't find anything. However, I did find a section regarding prayer in volume IV, chapter III ("Worship") - is this the section you were referring to or is there more that you can recall? To summarize, Grimm states that one prays to the east for Odin and to the north for Ulf, that prayer is directed at the sun, and no sacrifices occur after sunset. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note, a prayer to Odin is mentioned in chapter 2 of the Volsunga saga where King Rerir is granted a child after Frigg sends him an apple, which is dropped on his lap by Frigg's servant while Rerir is sitting on a mound. Rerir's wife eats the apple and is then pregnant with Volsung (after Rerir dies of sickness and after six years of pregnancy, yikes) but dies soon thereafter. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)