Talk:Angles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is flagged as needing an independent reassessment or validation of its current rating. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
|
WikiProject Ethnic groups priority open tasks:
|
|
Are they the same as the "Teutonic Angles"?
Contents |
[edit] Wetman et al. on Angle usage questions
" The region's shape, 'an angle' is generally believed to be source Angle toponym, although some suggest angeln as in "to fish" as an alternative." I had to remove this. People have no concept of how modern is 'cartographic imaging' --as attributed to the 5th century or earlier here. Or maybe this was tongue-in-cheek. User:Wetman
Um, yeah - they DIDNT NEED cartography. Look at a map its not a large region. Its not some new theory - its existed for centuries. Youre erasing my contribution without even knowing that the angles were teutonic - are you for real? How could you have any backround in history, i mean enough to tamper?
- That, I am afraid, is completely false. 'Angle' is a fairly recent Latinised import into English of the Old English 'Engel'(From which comes 'England', etc.) The mathematical shape 'Angle', on the other hand, comes directly from Latin itself - 'angulus'. Up to the end of the 6th century, English and Latin barely met. They could not have borrowed the term. Deriving it from 'to fish' is more likely, but probably untrue. Despite the apparent similarity, they come from different roots. The fact that the theory's been around for centuries makes it almost certainly untrue. We knew next to nothing of linguistics until the 19th century.
[edit] Faassen on historical theory and technique
- Kenneth Alan, I think it is misleading for you in the edit comments to be saying "rv vandalism" while you're doing nothing of the kind. There is a factual argument about ethymology going on, and such an argument should not be called vandalism. It should be resolved on the talk page if possible.
- Note to others: Kenneth Alan propagates on wikipedia an apparently mostly private theory on the history of Germanic peoples. I've created a Vanir/Aesir theory page for it, but he persists in continuing to add statements on history and etymology as factual when these are at the very least contested. Martijn faassen 00:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for your statement about the vandalism rv. I'm happy to hear we can continue to work with each other.
-
-
-
- Back to the debate about your theory: I can't very well go find the source as it's generally not specified. You have very kindly provided a list of source material, but sources for individual theories I haven't been able to track down yet. Of course I'm limited to what I can check nonetheless, but a reference to particular historians, books, papers, data that supports particular theories would be very useful. Not just to me, but because it improves the whole encyclopedia with more information.
-
-
-
- What I'm worried about is a continued pattern of statements from you as fact, while these frequently disagree with other historical theories. Fact is difficult in science, and history is full of interpretation. The very least you can do when you add these statements making clear this is a theory, not a fact. Preferably with sources of support for this theory.
-
-
-
- The only theories that should be described as fact are theories so widely accepted by such a variety of experts it is considered to be virtually uncontested. That the earth is a flattened sphere for instance. That the planets orbit the sun due to a gravitational force. Even then one should be careful; these theories turn out to be far more contested than the people who consider it uncontested like to think. I myself for instance consider the basics of evolution by natural selection as a given, but many people disagree with me and insist it is called a theory. And they're right, even though I think they're wrong about their assessment of this theory.
-
-
-
- I think the theories you propagate are not near to being uncontested, so they should not be described off-hand as if they are. This again adds value to an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should not just contain knowledge but also knowledge about knowledge. Martijn faassen 22:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
- To put this out of the way, I am not part of some movement to suppress knowledge about anything, including European tribalism. In fact I would like to know more about it, and this is part of my attempt to learn more. You obviously have some ideas you feel are very important, also on an emotional level. This in itself is not bad as everybody has their own ideas. How wikipedia tries to resolve this is by including all theories and to qualify them carefully. I think this is good science and good in an encyclopediac venture. I think your passion for your own theory influences you to sometimes remove stuff that conflicts with your ideas and replace it with your own theory. This worries me.
-
-
-
- I am rather dubious that there is a historical theory about the origins of the Germanic tribes that can be described as so agreed upon by everybody in the field that it is next to fact. I think such theories are very rare in history; I can't think of an equivalent theory for the origins of any other people in the world. We have theories for the origins of the Indo-Europeans, the Aryans in India, the Etruscans, the Latin tribe, the Greeks, the Turks, the Aztecs, and so on. We don't have facts. We have evidence and debates. As long as multiple competing theories exist one should not be described as fact. Even with a single extant theory it may not have enough evidence to be described as fact.
-
-
-
- I know there are multiple competing theories for the origins of Germanic tribes, if only because I've seen you remove statements that conflict with the theory you added to wikipedia. Please leave the originals in, add your own theories (described as theory), and wikipedia will be more enriched by it than if either of them were left in it by themselves. Martijn faassen 12:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm glad you agree. I'm not blaming you for all that's wrong with these articles. I'm just asking you not to aggravate the matter. Add your theories as theories, leave the original theories in (as theories). Later on we can get back to it and restructure it. I'm willing to help, but I cannot do it now, as frequently I can't even recognize that a debate exists before I check the history of an article. It's not stupid bureaucracy to take some care when editing an article.
-
-
-
- You believe that an important part of history is being suppressed. So don't contribute to the problem and suppress other people's theories, no matter whether you think they're wrong. Put them both in, and let the reader figure out the truth of it.
-
-
-
- By the way, I don't think I quite fit in your ideological framework (either as pro or con). Could you please leave me out of it? Martijn faassen 21:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] Dissociation of Ynglings
- The Ynglingsaga is available on the web at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/ynglinga.html with no mention whatsover that I can find that Angles are descended from Yngvi. (I also own a more recent English translation.) I have removed this reference. The Ynglings in the Ynglinssaga are in any case a royal family in Sweden from whom later descend the Kings of Norway.
[edit] Etymological comments
- Angling means "hooking" from Old English _angel_ hook, especially a fishhook. The mathematical word _angle_ is from Latin _angulum_ 'corner'. Both are descendants of PIE *ang-/*ank- "to bend".
- From http://www.wordreference.com/English/definition.asp?en=Angle :
- Angle
- noun a member of a West Germanic people from N Germany who invaded and settled large parts of E and N England in the 5th and 6th centuries a.d
- [ETYMOLOGY: from Latin Anglus, from Germanic (compare English), an inhabitant of Angul, a district in Schleswig (now Angeln), a name identical with Old English angul hook, angle², referring to its shape].
- No Latin is needed.
- _Ing_ words do not appear in the Old English dictionary at http://penguin.pearson.swarthmore.edu/~scrist1/scanned_books/png/oe_clarkhall/b0176.png with any relation to marsh or swamp. In any case _Ing_ is not the same word as :_Angle_ and even possibly unrelated to Norse _Yngvi_ though scholars usually suppose a relationship and I think that relationship likely.
- User:jallan 16:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Angles/Frisians Mystery
I don't think it is really so mysterious that Angles are mentioned in historical sources, while archeologists find evidence for a Frisian migration. When Bede talks about Angles, he is talking about a political group; he's associating them with kingdoms such as East Anglia. When archeologists talk about Frisians, they talk about a cultural group, identified by excavated objects. It could simply have been that cultural Frisians were politically Angles. This would not be unusual, for example today, cultural Frisians are politically either Dutch or Germans. --Chl 01:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The article contains extensive edits made at 22:01 on 27 Oct 2004 by User:24.255.40.174, an alias of the banned User:Kenneth Alan. The accuracy of the article cannot be relied on until they have been edited out - MPF 17:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Classics fixes
I didn't see anything wrong some careful classics couldn't fix, but I went into the article late. Also I do like the pictures if you don't mind. Illustration is one of the virtues of on-line presentation. You do need the Latin, as the early sources are Roman (and Ptolemy, who wrote in Greek but was later Latinized). Also we are only reinventing the wheel here. The small size and non-angular shape cast doubt on the angle, which is one of the reasons why a larger angle was postulated. All the problems you are arguing about really are problems of the topic and have been argued a good many times before. Another advantage of an on-line encyclopedia is that it gets the topic together for a large number of people. One disadvantage of course is the limitation of space, but you get around that with interlinked articles. I hope you do not get too angry with each other. On learning of a new fact or an error one ought to be able to say "oh yes, of course" and do a 180 degree volte face if that is warranted. Embarrasing, isn't it? Has to be done, has to be done.Dave 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.
- -->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
