![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of User:Ermenrich/sandbox was copied or moved into Germanic heroic legend with this edit on 2021-03-05T15:03:30. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Berig, you included a citation "Guðmundsdóttir 2000, p. 6. " that doesn't match any of the existing articles by Guðmundsdóttir in page numbers or year. Is it another article, or is there a mistake somewhere?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
English participation in Germanic heroic legend didn't suddenly end in 1066 and is still ongoing, with major legends appreciated in England even through the Norman filter as well as domestic tales. Hamlet, Havelok the Dane, Holger Danske, Robin Hood and even William Tell have historically been told to an English audience, given an English version, or came from England and retold elsewhere. All of these stories were enjoyed long before the printing press, so it's not merely global curiosity stemming from the internet either. 76.177.11.75 ( talk) 23:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
So, how does English culture not pass the litmus test, that English heroes and their tales are not counted Germanic? How can 1066 be any more than a fiction when West Germanic Anglo-Saxons and Franks are both equally defined as Germanic before the North Germanic Danes and Normans added another Germanic layer of society? Only afterwards are these nations somehow less Germanic, but how and why, except in doubling down on the Roman Catholicism which was the basis of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation? Romano-Germanic culture mean nothing? That's far more fundamental to Continental than Insular Germanic peoples, especially since England was the seat of power in the North Sea Empire. The very name "Germanic" could be suspect, because it denotes a couple Roman provinces and not some "Magna Germania" beyond, at least where this classification is considered to exclude former Roman provinces of Britain, in which English stories came to be based in "Britannic heroic legends" by virtue of geography rather than heritage. Jus soli vs jus sanguinis. Hair-splitting distinctions? Bavaria, along with Bohemia, have the same Celtic foundations. Iceland is about half Gaelic, a true Norse-Gaelic colony.
Those entrusted with the Germanic title are no more justly entitled than those who are not classified thus by you. If these flimsy walls of distinction are allowed to stand, who'd want to fit into such a box anyway? If Germanic is used so restrictively, it's not really the correct, factual category. But, hey, if Finland and/or Estonia can be seen as Nordic rather than Eastern, while England, despite equality or superiority of stature with respect to the Scandinavian nations under the Jelling dynasty of Gorm the Old, by virtue of shared Danes, Jutes, Angles and Saxons from common blood and geopolitics before Holy Roman and German Imperial domination of Scandinavia to eventually become Lutheran playthings in the Hanseatic and Prussian orbits, there's no substance of these classifications anyway. Under this framework, Iceland belongs more with Germanic diaspora, along with England as a second England in the Viking Age following the Völkerwanderung, of those nations surviving intact beyond the middle ages. Of course, a double standard invention will be used to excuse the biased ownership of "Germanic". Unlike Iceland, England is actually the land of a Germanic tribe, because Iceland was a mere outpost of Norwegian farmers, whereas Ingvaeonic nationalism and terminology such as the "Saxon race" actually was and sometimes is central to the English experience, since England is the focal point of North Sea Germanic statehood in fruition, unlike anywhere else.
107.77.192.167 ( talk) 13:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If you can prove that "Germanic heroic legend" is defined by a creed and canon law that corresponds solely to Walhalla (memorial) statue honorees, I shall demur accordingly. Taking the words: "Germanic" AND "heroic" AND "legendary" literally and at face value in this precise triad of factors, there's no way you can exclude what I included on that basis. Cnut the Great, Lady Godiva, Hereward the Wake, Siward of Northumbria and Robin Hood are all "Germanic" AND "heroic" AND "legendary". Just because they aren't part of the German Romantic nationalist movement from the time of Bismarck, doesn't mean they don't meet this definition.
In fact, the corpus of sources celebrated by German Unification includes subject matter properly belonging to Greco-Roman countries, like Ermenrich and Dietrich, who were rulers of formerly East Germanic countries, but which were assimilated by intermarriage or wilful identification with their claims to inherit the authorities of Greece and Rome, having taken over them and insisting they were rightful claimants to those glories, hence the HRE and also the Latin Empire or Frankokratia. In their absolute domination of the Mediterranean establishment, those Germanics (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) withdrew their Arian confessional distinction from Latin Catholics to become mainstream Chalcedonians without any discrepancies from their subjects. West Germanic nations all still have collective memory of Germanic origins, even if some of them speak Latin and had converted directly from Paganism to Catholicism later on, such as the Irminonic Lombards and Istvaeonic Franks, whose dominions became the HRE in the aftermath of their Arian East Germanic predecessors. One (East) became slippery slope to the other (West), but the only West Germanic nation having shared administration with North Germanic nations is England.
Those others have no right to arrogate terminology in favour of a false rendition of history to make it seem otherwise, like Nazi ideology, to justify German aggression and annexation of Scandinavian nations, the Nazis first cajoled them with Nordicism more properly befitting White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in respect to Germanic heritage than any ethnic profile for old HRE lands that never could quite separate themselves from Roman culture, because their ethnogenesis is at least partly dependent upon Roman heritage, unlike Englishness. Only the Ingvaeones of all West Germanic nations, even then except Saxons (and Frisians) but not Angles or Jutes, didn't become part of or attempt to replicate the Roman Empire, which means English society stayed as aloof as North Germanic nations in this respect, despite all nations under Cnut's rule or claims to have been subsequently made into giving tributary or feudal homage to the Irminonic and Istvaeonic copycats of Rome, whether Teutons or Franks.
We have a " No true Scotsman" fallacy of definitions, which is causing WP:BIAS to obscure the truth. It may seem reasonable to limit the eras of Germanic heroic legends to pre-Reformation examples, because the conflation of Germanic and Protestant could lead to too many edit wars. As much as I admire Gustav Vasa, it would be better not to have him or the Emperor, Tilly, etc as heroes and the printing press has removed most mystique turning into occasions of legendary materials building up to begin with. Most cases of other than factual expositions of individual lives since the press deal more with misinformation, propaganda and libel, etc, that may forensically be examined, unlike most sources before the press, that form essential characteristics of the characters in question.
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of User:Ermenrich/sandbox was copied or moved into Germanic heroic legend with this edit on 2021-03-05T15:03:30. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Look there and see WP:OWN and cybersquatting. Where is it Wikipedia policy that the exact phraseology: "Germanic heroic legend" must be stated to justify belonging in this article? I doubt this is the case for all added and edited by him, only nobody has been around to challenge his own positive participation despite this. It's a case of attempts in cornering the issue to be tailored for his subjective POV, which is why he spends so much time. Far be it for others to contribute to the information by inputting Germanic, heroic, legends outside the purpose he does, after he's crafted the article as a fork for his user sandbox. English is Germanic according to sources already on Wikipedia. Noted Anglo-Saxon personalities with renown for dashing and daring heroism already have articles here on Wikipedia. Legends about said English heroes are included in said Wikipedia articles. In order for Wikipedia to have internal consistency, there needs to be full faith and credit between wikilinks. To compartmentalise Wikipedia in such a way as to deny its own components is to discredit it. Therefore, no service is done for the common good nor Wikipedia's reputation. This article will remain a pet project of one user and those who look at it his way. That's what happens with mob mentality. Wikipedia is infamous for Wikilawyering.
Whatever way you spin it, there's no way that the mentions made are off-topic to the article. As Ermenrich himself admitted, he doesn't find merit because the focus isn't "typical" and I made many forms of rebuttal to improve the NPOV against systemic bias often structuring the topic to fit German Romantic nationalism rather than inclusive of all Germanic Romantic nationalism. That's why I addressed the widespread classification error conflating Germanic with German, which is itself addressed elsewhere on Wikipedia, but ethical and honest editors on this topic don't need reminding about pushing a loaded word to fit their agendas. Need it be mentioned that an equivalent of tendentious editing led to besmirching the word Germanic and the Swastika symbol, because of overidentification of them with Nazi failed policies attempting ownership of all their meaning, much more originally broader than their later reduction to politicisation? Due to inappropriate and narrow representation, Germanic and Swastika have themselves become practically "verboten". NPOV reclamation of terms and symbols is the only appropriate manner of presenting them on a website with the only stated purpose being free participation and free sharing of information. If German ideological constraints are definitively exclusive of any equivalent Anglocentrism per this article to enrich and balance it in true fullness, then the context must be frankly stated in the lede to be its true purpose and not hide undercover the trappings of purported neutrality. WP:BOLD fits my edits.