Talk:Þiðreks saga

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

Badenhausen
As discussed on Talk:Legends about Theoderic the Great, Rolf Badenhausen's website is not a reliable source. It is also incorrect to state that philologists and historians have begun to reject the identity of Dietrich von Bern with Theoderic the Great. This is a fringe view promoted by amateurs inspired by Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg's book from the 80s, which has been roundly panned by experts in the field. These views are perhaps notable, but they should not be in the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See further https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legends_about_Theoderic_the_Great#Rolf_Badenhausen (last edit 30 March 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tympanus (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The re-referenced article by Rolf Badenhausen, who compares Frankish and Saxon history and historiography with Þiðreks saga by means of Ritter-Schaumburg and other publications, is in accordance with all policies referring to WP:nor and WP:npov (...)
 * WP:Nor: The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this: If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; if your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents...


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


 * Dietrich von Bern, estimated king of Verona cisalpina = Bonn on the Rhine:
 * Hans-Jürgen Hube (PhD, Humboldt-University Berlin)
 * Laurenz Lersch (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)
 * Hermann Lorenz (PhD, University of Leipzig)
 * Franz Joseph Mone (Prof. PhD, Heidelberg University)
 * Josef Niessen (PhD, University of Bonn)
 * Karl Müllenhoff (PhD, Humboldt-University Berlin)
 * Karl J. Simrock (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)


 * Historiographical milieu of Thidreks saga:
 * Willi Eggers (PhD, University of Hamburg)
 * Hilkert Weddige (PhD, University of Munich)
 * Roswitha Wisniewski (Prof. PhD, Heidelberg University)


 * Dietrich von Bern as Frankish king Theuderic I:
 * Kemp Malone
 * Laurenz Lersch (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)
 * Hermann Lorenz (PhD, University of Leipzig)
 * Josef Niessen (PhD, University of Bonn)
 * Karl Müllenhoff (PhD, Humboldt-University Berlin)
 * Karl J. Simrock (Prof. PhD, University of Bonn)


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


 * History, historiography and archaeology of continental Saxons:
 * Martina Giese (Prof. PhD, Universities of Potsdam and Würzburg)
 * Matthias Springer (Prof. PhD, University of Magdeburg)
 * Wilhelm Winkelmann (PhD, Universities of Tübingen and Münster)

--Tympanus (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rolf Badenhausen has a degree in engineering. His website is not a reliable source. He is a wp:fringe figure.
 * To elaborate: the majority of the scholars mentioned above DO NOT support Ritter-Schaumburg's conclusions. Simrock did, but he died 1876. Kemp Malone died in 1971. wp:AGEMATTERS.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, it looks like the user pushing this fringe idea might get unblocked. Alternatively, he's threatened to edit war using "students". I'd appreciate it if you kept your eyes on this article and potentially others dealing with Dietrich von Bern.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich, thanks for pinging me on this article and keeping an eye on it. Evidently I didn't have it on my watch list, and I've added it. I'll keep an eye on it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Theoderic the Great
Dietrich von Bern is not Theoderic the Great. Article should be updated. 79.106.203.125 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Unclear what part of the text you are referring to, but the scholarly consensus is that Theodoric and Dietrich are the same.-Ermenrich (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Didriks Krönika
as our resident Swede, I was just wondering if you:
 * 1) thought there was enough on the Didriks Krönika here to warrant it being its own article. It now has its own section (mostly about its creation), but it also appears in the manuscript and influence sections;
 * 2) knew of any more literature on it, possibly in Swedish, or how to find such literature. I'm able to fake reading Scandinavian languages to some small extent but I'm definitely not fluent.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I should probably add - there's a lot of pseudo-academic publication inspired by Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg that needs to be avoided as WP:FRINGE on this topic, as Ritter-Schaumburg argues that the Swedish version is the original for some reason. Anything that calls it the "Svava" should be avoided.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't know of any quality literature on it, but I will tell you if I find any. I believe the topic is of the kind where are likely to either find imaginative right-wing interpretations of the Ritter- Schaumburg kind or snarky and deriding left-wing ridiculing of early scholarship.--Berig (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

As for making it an article of its own, I believe the information may reach out to more people by staying in the old article.--Berig (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have had a look and found: I hope it helps.--Berig (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Didrikskrönikan : handskriftsrelationer, översättningsteknik och stildrag by Henning, Bengt. 1970.
 * [https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1753459/FULLTEXT01.pdf A phd on Swedish Medieval Literature.


 * Thanks! I believe that’s the only book on the Swedish version!—Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

German vs. Low Saxon
In the article about the Thidreks saga, the information that it is the only work translated from German into Old Norse is simply wrong, since the sources for this prose come from the Middle or Old Saxon language area. The author himself states so at the beginning of the work. I also found it useful to mention that "German" didn't have the same meaning then as it does now and was in no way related to the German language or Germans. Why did you changed this. Westfäölsk Meyewiärker (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (moved from my personal take page). There is debate about where the sources come from (Low and/or High German). Some probably are "Upper German" (for instance, if the Nibelungenlied was used as a source, which I personally find likely), others are likely Low German, maybe oral. The specific information you are trying to change is cited to this sentence by Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson (2012): In this article we will introduce one of the central translations from French, the Strengleikar and the only extant evidence of German translations into Old Norse, Þiðreks saga af Bern. Now you're not going to be able to argue that scholars writing in 2012 are using the word "German" in some different way than people used it in the modern period. We simply don't know exactly what language or dialect the sources were in, though we have surmises. In any case, the sources do not discuss them as "Low Saxon", which is not a name used for Middle Low German. You appear to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because you dislike the association of Low German with German. Whether or not Low German is a separate language, it is usually discussed and studied together with High German, especially in a medieval context.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a source clarifying that the sources are either High or Low German in origin.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the way you wrote it, it sounds like Middle Low German and Middle High German can be combined under "German". However, this is not possible, since these are two highly developed languages. I would put it like this: There is no doubt that the sources of the Þiðreks saga were mostly Middle High German or Middle Low German.[19] It is thus the only extant example of a translation from (Low) German to Old Norse.[20] Westfäölsk Meyewiärker (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For several years, Low German has been taught in Germany within its own academic discipline:Low German Philology. In addition, there is no debate as to whether Old Saxon or Middle Low German should be treated as an independent language. This debate only relates to the modern language level, since there is no standard Low German variety. In addition, the author of the Thidreks saga reports at the beginning of the work that the following stories were brought to him by German men. Since the word "German" did not mean the German cultural area at that time, but the entire continental West Germanic language area, I thought it useful to explain that "German" only referred to the German language area from the 16th century. The term was misused under National Socialism to see the Dutch, who also called their culture "German" during the middleages, as part of the German people, which is of course wrong. Although they called themselves "German", this primarily meant "Germanic" and had nothing to do with the German language and culture. Can we agree to omit etymological explanation of the word "German", but I insist to add that it may be the only work that has been translated into Old Norse on a Low German or German basis to avoid discrimination of Low German, which has been legally punished in both the Netherlands and Germany for several years. Is it okay, when I add Low German/ German? Westfäölsk Meyewiärker (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)