User talk:JRB-Europe

Welcome!

Hello, JRB-Europe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Wim Klever, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kudpung (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Wim Klever


The article Wim Klever has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Kudpung (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Weapons Systems Evaluation Group


A tag has been placed on Weapons Systems Evaluation Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind talk  13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ed Wubbe


The article Ed Wubbe has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Razib Khan


A tag has been placed on Razib Khan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are misusing the speedy deletion tag. Best regards JRB-Europe (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Lucia's flood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kampen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I clarified this disambiguation JRB-Europe (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gallia Belgica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gand and Hainaut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Limburg (Netherlands)
 * added a link pointing to Kessel


 * Norbert of Xanten
 * added a link pointing to Clairvaux

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited County of Holland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frankish and Philips II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=725120567 your edit] to Dutch famine of 1944–45 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * was 1380; part of this number probably also included identified victims from Allied bombardments 550 deaths on March 2 (see Bombing of the Bezuidenhout) and German reprisals, on the other hand

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clipper (programming language), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Front end and Standalone software. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ripuarian Franks
Hi. Concerning this edit. One question I have is whether the Carolingians are really considered to be "Ripuarians". I have never found sources which show clearly how various modern tertiary works claim to know the exact boundaries between Salian and Ripuarian kingdoms. Indeed the best sources seem to see the questions of the bounds of these kingdoms as something that is debated and unsure? Do you have any good sources which can help us clarify?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Andrew, thank you for your comments. One good source that explains how both the Salian and Ripuarian Franks were already in a good position to take over after the Roman collapse in december 406 is the work of Jona Lendering and Arjen Bosman. "De rand van het Rijk, De Romeinen en de Lage Landen". I think this work is also translated in English now. It explains how both tribes after the for the history of the Netherlands and Belgium very important (battle of Chalons (end of the Gallic Empire) eliminated the Roman presence north of the "heerweg" Boulogne-Cologne (for a long stretch still the language border between the current Dutch and the current French language in current Belgium. The area became Frankish. They explain in detail how after 274 the Salians took Toxandria, from which they after 406 took over the Schelde-basin (Clovis operated from Tournai) and the Ripuarians were able to get the triangle area roughly between Cologne, Maastricht and Nijmegen. From there, after 406 the Ripuarians were able to penetrate both the valley of the Meuse and the Rhineland south of Cologne and later the Moselle valley. In the 130 years between 274 and 406 they had been in very close contact with the Romans, what explains that after 406 they were both far more able to include surviving Roman elements in there kingdoms than other and competing Germanic invaders. The amazing success of the Frankish kingdoms and their successor states is for a large part due to the way they were able to incorporate this Roman elements, the most important being Roman-Catholicism.


 * As far as the northern and western borders of the Ripuarian Franks are concerned the border was (and linguistically still is) the former forest area between the Scheldt and the Meuse-basin (Silva Carbonaria). In the two Limburg provinces they still speak a Ripuarian language/dialect (Limburgs - it even has its own wikipedia). The same goes for the Moselle valley. The language spoken there was also derived from the Ripuarian Frankish language. In the same way it's also easy to determine the border between former Ripuarian Frank and Saxon areas in both the Netherlands and Germany. For the areas were both Salians and Ripuarian invaders were a clear minority and the proto-French language already won out in the very early middle ages its not clear if we can linguistically determine the borders. Maybe somebody with excellent knowledge of Northern French dialects should investigate this. We however have military and political history, placement of riversystems and the organisation of the Catholic church in bishoprics. As far as the rivers are concerned the Meuse valley was clearly Ripuarian and the Schelde-basin was clearly Salian. The Rhine and the Moselle are also clear. I agree with your critique that for the north-eastern part of the Seine-basin the situation is less clear. I have no conclusive evidence that the Seine-basin was completely Salian. I for the moment will therefore qualify my statements. Maybe I will address this question later. Regards JRB-Europe (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that reference. I can read Flemish and will look around for it. One thing I am interested in is whether there is a really strong consensus for the types of definitive statements which I know that secondary and tertiary sources often make about Salians and Ripuarians. For example I know there is real primary evidence for the Salians being allowed to move into Toxandria (which we also have no exact boundaries for, but must have roughly been to the north of the road you mention). I also know that Cologne was Ripuarian. But you for example mention Maastricht, which is very close to Toxandria. Is there really any evidence about this? You also mentioned the Ardennes as a boundary, but is this just a standard assumption or really something "known" ? (Actually you mention Silva Carbonaria, which raises more questions about whether the boundaries of the term are clear today.) I have seen that there is serious debate is really strong sources such as the historian Guy Halsall about things often assumed in books such as the idea that Merovingians simply moved south from Toxandria. (He thinks they probably had their ethnogenesis within the empire around the Loire. Your comments above tend to make me think you are proposing a reasonable speculation, rather than something there is a clear consensus about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you can read Dutch and Flemish maybe it's good idea to also have a look at the wikipedia articles over the dialects that are spoken south and west of the Rhine. Zeeuws, Brabantic, West Flemish and East Flemish are descending from the language spoken by the Salian Franks, while Ripuarian and Limburgs are descended from the language spoken by the Ripuarian Franks. Also have a look at the article over Toxandrië. Even now, more than 1.500 years later, you can easily hear the difference between a village where they speak a dialect that goes back to the Salian Franks versus one that goes back to the Ripuarian Franks. By the way it's good that you challenge me since I was too hasty in making Nijmegen, Maastricht and Cologne the vertexes of the area that was taken by the Ripuarians after 274. The more correct vertices of this area are Cologne, Tongeren, Venlo, Duisburg. The original Frankish tribe that before 274 lived opposite the line Nijmegen-Xanten line apparently became part of the Salian Franks and moved south-west, since in Kleve and surroundings quiet a few people still speak Kleverlandish, a dialect directly related to Brabantic.


 * It's quiet well known were the borders of the former Silva Carbonaria were. The picture in the article is not far off as far as current Belgium is concerned. Maastricht is quiet far east from the former Silva Carbonaria. Directly west of Maastricht you have the Haspengouw (center Tongeren, in Roman times and in the early Middle Ages a very strategic area, since it's covered with loess. Areas covered with loess were in the early Middle Ages nearly the only areas where agriculture could raise a great surplus, perfect for sustaining elites. It's certain that the Haspengouw was occupied by the Ripuarian Franks. The idea of Halsell that the Merovingians had their ethnogenesis around the Loire sounds very strange to me. I haven't read his book(s), but to name a few things that speaks for an ethnologenesis of the Salians in the current Netherlands and in the western part of Münsterland in current Germany: the name "Salian" most likely comes from Salland. Merovingian is most likely related to the former river Merwe, now in a changed form, called the Nieuwe Maas. The name Merwe also lives on in the names of the rivers the Merwede, Oude Merwede, Nieuwe Merwede, Beneden Merwede, Boven Merwede all in the Rijn-Maas-Schelde delta. Two of the constituent tribes that formed the Salian Franks were the Chamavi (from the area with in Ottonian times was known as Hamaland and the Tubanti, the ancient name for Twente. Salland, Hamaland (now called the Achterhoek), and Twente are all bordering on each other. These territories are now all Saxon, not Frankish, and have been Saxon for as long as written history goes back (end 8th century). The reasons that a number of already existing smaller tribes amalgamated into the larger group of the Salian Franks around 250 was a great crisis. Individually the smaller tribes were in grave danger to be obliterated between the Roman border (then still the limes on the Rhine and the Saxons to the north. In order to prevent this they formed a successfull alliance that later in history became known as the Salian Franks, to distinguish them from the Ripuarian Franks. In an irony of history and with a considerable amount of luck (in the battle of Chalons in 274, the Rhine-army of the Gallian empire was completely destroyed, leaving the limes in Germania Inferior defenseless). The newly formed alliance of the Salian Franks got its lucky break and subsequently managed to consolidate their power for 130 years south of the Rhine, first in Toxandria, and after 406 also in the Schelde basin (center Tournai, see Merovech and Childeric I), after which under the extraordinary leaderschip of Clovis they managed to start the Merovingian dynasty around 500 AD.


 * I see no direct link with the river Loire. Can you elaborate over what Halsell exactly says ? Maybe there is some form of misunderstanding and he means something else with the word "ethnogenesis". Greetings JRB-Europe (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am aware of such theories yes, and the dialects etc. But I think you need to make it a project to try to collect the best possible published sources for all these connections, and ask yourself what wordings we should use. If they are just common and likely speculations, then we should report it that way. In this post however you are focusing on a new subject in a way: the boundaries of old tribes before the ethnogenesis of the Salians and Ripuarians. But coming back to the question of the Salians and Ripuarians and their boundaries, you mention the commonly asserted idea that Limburgish dialects are "Ripuarian". That might not be disproven but it is also not a simple as a modern dialect map might make it look. A big part of the area you are thinking of as Ripuarian would be "Toxandria". (Northern Belgian Limburg is a big part of the Kempen, which is I think fairly securely equated with the Kempen area.) But the classical sources we have mentioning Salians, which are actually very few, mention the Salians specifically in Toxandria. (They were moved there from Batavia, but had previously been north of the Rhine.) Indeed I think you also assume the Salians are the Merovingians, but I think the only connection is the use of the Lex Salica? However no one really knows whether the Lex Salica should be seen as simply Merovingian or Carolingian. (There are various legal documents associated with the Frankish empire including a Lex Ripuaria. But there is a lot of mystery.) As I mentioned before, there is a serious line of debate that the Merovingians were a cultural group which formed within France among Romanized military Franks (because very simply this is where all the records show them first appearing, and mainly appearing after that). Similarly I am not sure if anyone can really strongly link the eventual imperial Duchy of Franconia with the Ripuarians in anything but a likely story?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I feel a little bit insulted that you think that I assume that Salian Franks are the Merovingians. That is a very crude statement. Clovis started his career in Tournai. His father was buried there. There is no sign that Tournai ever was Flemish spoken. So his father would have ruled over Roman-speaking subjects. In fact as soon as Salian Franks crossed the "heerweg" Boulogne-Cologne after 406, they would have ruled over Roman speaking people. In his career Clovis first eliminated all rival Salian Frank leaders and surviving Roman led territories in the neighbourhood (among them Syagrius). Thereafter with an army whose core was Salian Frankish, but that would also have included elements of the groups he conquered earlier (probably including former Roman soldiers that had fought under Syagrius) and allies (his successes were such that he will have attracted more then enough willing allies), he defeated the Alamans (together with Ripuarian Franks) and late in in his career the Visigoths. He also fought the Burgundians. Also important is that he was able to become ruler of the Ripuarian Franks in Cologne. In the mean time, somewhere around 500, he converted to Roman Catholicism and forged a highly succesfull alliance with the church. The amazing success of the Merovingian state and it's successor states is for a large part due to the way that Clovis was able to incorporate the conquered Roman elements, the most important being Roman-Catholicism. Apparently most subject must have felt some loyalty to it, otherwise the Merovingian state could not have existed for 250 years. In this Merovingian state at least in the first decades but probably longer the original Salian Franks formed a very important military and political elite. The rulers of the Merovingian state were descendants of Clovis. After 639 (death of Dagobert I) the de facto power over the Merovingian state shifted to the Austrasian mayordomo's. Regards JRB-Europe (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Charlemagne
Charlemagne was the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No he was not. He was the founder of the Frankish empire, that collapsed in the second halve of the 9th century. Otto I the Great was the founder of Holy Roman Empire in the middle of the 10th century. JRB-Europe (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"The Holy Roman Empire only becomes formally established in the next century. But it is implicit in the title adopted by Charlemagne in 800: 'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire." UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire wikipedia page even lists 800, and then 962. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the German (Das Reich bildete sich im 10. Jahrhundert unter der Dynastie der Ottonen aus dem ehemals karolingischen Ostfrankenreich heraus.[2] Mit der Kaiserkrönung Ottos I. 962 knüpften die römisch-deutschen Herrscher (wie zuvor die Karolinger) an die Idee des erneuerten Römerreiches an, woran bis zum Ende des Reiches zumindest prinzipiell festgehalten wurde. Das Gebiet des Ostfrankenreichs wurde erstmals im 11. Jahrhundert in den Quellen als Regnum Teutonicum oder Regnum Teutonicorum (Königreich der Deutschen) bezeichnet;) and the French wikipedia (Il se considérait, du Xe siècle jusqu'à sa suppression par Napoléon, comme le continuateur légitime de l’Empire d’Occident des Carolingiens, mais également de l’Empire romain) articles. The statement in the English wikipedia that "On 25 December 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor, reviving the title in Western Europe after more than three centuries." is simply wrong. JRB-Europe (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed this to "On 25 December 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor". In case someone doesn't notice what I have changed. I have changed the link. JRB-Europe (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He did revive the title. UtherPendrogn (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Charlemagne did revive the title but he was not the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. JRB-Europe (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of scholars regard Charlemagne as the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, although few use that term for the period before about 1200. It is true that Charlemagne revived the imperial title in Western Europe after more than three centuries (save for a few Byzantine territories in Spain and Italy). Srnec (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Most scholars of medieval history that I'm aware of regard Charlemagne as the founder of the Carolingian empire not as the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. JRB-Europe (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably should have said that most scholars working in English treat 800 as the more pivotal date than 962. In neither case was a new empire "founded" on the date in question: Charlemagne already ruled the Franks and Lombards before he took the imperial title, as Otto I ruled the Germans and Italians before taking the same. Peter Wilson's Heart of Europe (2016) begins with 800. Joachim Whaley, in the first of his volumes on the modern empire, places "the Reich's origins ... in the translation of the inheritance of the Roman Empire northwards by Charlemagne." In my experience, this is typical. You cannot talk about the origins of the Holy Roman Empire without talking about Charlemagne. Srnec (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think that I want to talk about the origins of the Holy Roman Empire without talking about Charlemagne. The only thing I state in the discussion above is that it is wrong to say that Charlemagne was the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. I think the current wording of the second paragraph of the article Holy Roman Empire is acceptable. JRB-Europe (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable, but you didn't change it. Srnec (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)