[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Lutici

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rethra

[edit]

Regarding this edit: Rethra is the most common name for the main Lutician temple/deity (>10.000 hits on google books). Radagosc yields no hits at all, in a googlebooks search, the 7 returns are false positives. Radgosc yields 47 mentions on google books, most of them unrelated. Rethra is one of the central topics of this article, this article is designed to deal with both Rethra and the Lutici, that's why Rethra is bolded in the lead and Rethra redirects here. The newly created stub Radagosc, now moved to "Radgosc", does not in any way cover Rethra as detailed as it is covered here. I am thus reinstating Rethra as the 2nd topic of the article, and list Radgosc under alternative names. If indeed the article "Radgosc is expanded to an extent that coverage there exceeds coverage here and is moved to the most commonly used title, one can de-bold Rethra here and link it. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radagosc/Rethra was a PLACE. Lutici were a PEOPLE. I don't know how much clearer this can be made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assemblies and the temple of Rethra were the central, combining, identity-establishing elements of the Lutici, who were not a "people", but a federation of tribes. It thus not only makes sense to cover Rethra in this article, it is also inevitable. That is why Rethra is bolded in the lead and covered here in detail. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, no one's saying that Rethra should not be covered in this article, so I don't know what you are talking about. What is also obvious though is that a PLACE, is a different thing than a PEOPLE, hence, it should have a separate article. It wouldn't make sense to redirect "Berlin" to "Germans", either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare article text and original

[edit]

It's hard for me to tell but could someone compare the text presently in the article:

The main deity worshipped in Rethra was reported as Zuarasici by Thietmar (VI, 23), and as Redigost (Redigast, Riedegost) by Adam of Bremen (II, 21; III, 51) and Helmold (I, 2).[63] This is interpreted by historians and linguists in different ways: probably, the different names mark the transition from an appellativum related with the Iranian root xvar, "sun", to a distinct personalized deity with the name Riedegost.[63] This could then have been adopted as the name of the temple (Rethra) and as the name of the tribe settling there (Redarii).[63] Following the alternative hypothesis, it was the other way around: Adam of Bremen and Helmold mistakenly adopted the name of the temple site as the name of the deity, which was correctly identified by Thietmar and corresponds with Svarožič or Svarog.[63] According to a third theory, Riedegost was the second name of Thietmar's Zuarasici.[63]

with that in the original source which is here [1]

It's hard to tell exactly, what with just going by google translate, but it does look like it's possibly too close for comfort and should be paraphrased some more. For example Vielmehr handelt es sich dabei um ein Appelativum, das mit iranisch Xvar etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, seems a competent enough summary to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, "Swar", probably derived from a Indo-European word like "Xvar" still means "Heat" in Polish (and a few other languages) so "Swar" was probably just the old Slavic word for "Sun". Also there's some difference between "Swarog" and "Swarozyc" though it's not exactly clear. Presumably the second was the son of the former (per the fact that it's a diminutive) although since mythos weren't static it's likely that at various points in time they were considered to be the same person. Another possibility which I saw somewhere is that it was actually a sort of Duality, like the Christian Trinity (and by the 9th-10th century Christian beliefs would most certainly have influence the pagan Slavic religion, even if the Slavs were still pagan).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source questions

[edit]

Who's "Herrmann (1985)"? Is it not in the bibliography or am I missing something?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neiße vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert by East German archaeologist de:Joachim Herrmann (Archäologe). I will simply add it to the bibliography. Hans Adler 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I was just looking at that and didn't make the connection. Interesting that it's a source from Communist East Germany.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's only logical because almost all of the former Slavic area in Germany was part of East Germany. (I think West Berlin was the only exception.) The book has gone through several editions; the first was in 1970. It appears that he was East Germany's top archeologist; and he was also a member of a top West German archeology institute. Unfortunately, nothing seems to be available online. I have always been fascinated by that part of history but know almost nothing about it. Hans Adler 22:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a snide inside joke/remark. I got no problem with it. The book's actually at a nearby library. Actually, this part of the article doesn't have much to do with Radgosc/Rethra so I was just asking out of personal interest in medieval demographics/life expectancy etc. It also reads a little... "dry" in the article text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at removing well sourced material

[edit]

I'm sorry but in regard to this [2] where in the world do you get the idea that this is based on a "bad source" (whatever that is). It's a reliable source. The material is faithful to the source. A place called Stralow or Strzałów did exist at the time and even if somehow it didn't, then you can always take the map to refer to a locale. Again, it's based on a reliable source.

Please stop removing well sourced content for POV and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT reasons.Volunteer Marek 06:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. The material/reference introduced by you claims that Stralsund existed in 1121. That is a novel claim contradicting everything published so far. If you can substantiate that with high-quality sources, which I doubt, then the material can be re-introduced. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing exceptional here. A place called "Stralow" or "Strzałów" existed. And like I said, the map indicates locale.
Look. It's a reliable source. It's a faithful reproduction of material in a reliable source - it's pretty hard to fake a map. You got nothing to stand on here. Stop making stuff up and drop the POV and IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And stop it with the edit warring - you're up to 3 reverts in less than 30 minutes without a halfway decent reason.Volunteer Marek 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though it was your inability to follow BRD that provoked an edit war here, I self reverted and tagged it as disputed linking to this discussion just to let this not reflect badly on me. You have got 24 hours time to back up the claim that Stralsund existed in 1121 by good sources, else I proceed withn following BRD and remove it for good. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works, and you really shouldn't lecture me about BRD when you just reverted 3 times in 30 minutes. I don't know why you think that you can make these kinds of ultimatums either. I don't have to back up the claim that Stralsund existed in 1121 (which is actually an irrelevant red herring you're bringing into this). All I have to do is provide a reliable source that the map is based on. I already have done that. If *you* have a problem with the source then take it to reliable sources noticeboard.Volunteer Marek 08:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just provide the sources. No historian has ever claimed before that Stralsund existed in 1121. If you want to introduce such a novel claim which, if it could be substantiated, would mean that the history of Stralsund has to be rewritten, then you need good sources to back that up. If you can't, this information needs to go. Verifiability alone is not sufficient for such a claim - Wikipedia:Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. 24 hours of time should be sufficient if the claim you make could be substantiated by dedicated sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a version of the map without the word "Stralsund" in there, which should address this little pretext.Volunteer Marek 14:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does of course not solve anything, because you left Stralsund in the map and in the text, you just deleted a name and call it only Stralow now. Where are your sources for the exceptional claim that place existed in 1121? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is reliable. The map is based on the source. You are just invoking some personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no substance to your pretext. Stop removing sourced info. Take it to WP:RSN if you want to.Volunteer Marek 22:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources is policy. Provide such sources and we don't need to argue. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no exceptional claims being made here. You pulled that out of thin air. Please stop being obstinate.
Anyway, since you seem more interested in starting edit wars than resolving the disagreement, I've brought this up at WP:RSN myself: [3].Volunteer Marek 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded the Michalek dispute to DRN to have the discussion centralized and mediated in an appropriate venue. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - please note that the relevant discussion on this issue is here [4], at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Additional sources for the material above are [http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-historyczny-Polski-Polish-Edition/dp/8370000169 here] and here. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names table

[edit]

The table "Table: Spelling variants of "Lutici"" seems to be WP:UNDUE. Of course there are many different ways to spell the name of this tribe. I don't think a table of all the variants is necessary nor is it really appropriate to class these variants into "Latinized form", "Anglicized form", etc. That part appears to be pure original research. This is something that could go into a footnote but in the main body of the article it just takes up unnecessary space.Volunteer Marek 02:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly helpful, and common practice, to list the spelling variants used in literature. Given the amount of variants used here, the best way is to sort them in a table. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it may be helpful, but 1) these forms should be backed up by sources, and 2) it would probably work better as a footnote. The most common names are already listed in inline text.Volunteer Marek 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

This statement "Whether the Lutici were ethnically identical with the Veleti remains unproven.[1]", cited to Lubke, appears a bit strange. The ethnic identity of both is pretty clear - West Slavs. Furthermore, given that West Slavic wasn't differentiated yet, I don't think there were any linguistic differences. I understand roughly what this is trying to say - it's not known if they were the same people and how closely they were related - but the phrasing appears very awkward. I tried to find the "Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde" but the K-M volume does not appear to be online. Can we get the exact quote for this? And if possible a link (maybe I missed it)?Volunteer Marek 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is: Eine institutionelle und ethnische Kontinuität zwischen Wilzen und Lutizen [...] ist aber nicht nachgewiesen. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's in the "[...]"? Volunteer Marek 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a subordinate clause that this is sometimes suggested by the use of a combined name (W-L) Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lutici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove expansion tag

[edit]

I think it is ok to remove the expansion tag. The article has a size of over 62,000 bytes and the source article only 13,000. There is nothing to gain from. All the best Wikirictor 20:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the expansion tag. It links to the wrong article (Abodriten) anyway. All the best Wikirictor 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lutici&oldid=1203799906"