Talk:Lotharian legend

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany C‑class Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Lotharian legend appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that according to the Lotharian legend a medieval emperor declared Roman law the law of the Holy Roman Empire?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lotharian legend.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Philip Melanchthon

... that the disproven Lotharian legend was ostensibly invented by the German Lutheran reformer and theologian Philip Melanchthon (pictured)? Source: Watson, p. 235
- ALT1: ... that the disproven Lotharian legend tried to explain, why Roman law as outlined in the Byzantine Corpus Iuris Civilis was the law of the Holy Roman Empire? Source: Oestmann
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Temple of Piety ~~(not started/ongoing)~~

Created by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 19:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lotharian legend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

New enough, long enough, no copyvio detected, QPQ done. The image is acceptable but cannot be used because it isn't in the article.
I don't really like either hook. The word "disproven" seems unnecessary to me. "Ostensibly" also. I don't think you can say " Byzantine Corpus Iuris Civilis" without a link, but it's either that or Roman law (not both). Likewise, I find "German Lutheran reformer and theologian" a little longwinded. Might I suggest:
- ALT2: ... that, according to the Lotharian legend, it was a medieval emperor who declared Roman law the law of Germany?

This is from Oestmann, but it would need to be stated more directly in the article. I think the interesting thing to a broad audience is that this is a legend explaining how Roman law became the law of Germany. @WatkynBassett: Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: I really appreciate this feedback and your idea. I sometimes struggle with what is of interest to our broad audience and I see that your ALT2 is much better suited to the task. I will think about how this could be incorporated in the article and will report back soon. WatkynBassett (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: I added "It explained the application of Roman law in the German territories by virtue of a decree by emperor Lothair III." to the article body. Does this suffice? - After reading the hook one more time, one issue I see with ALT2 is the use of "Germany". Germany at this time only existed as the HHR, so maybe we could link Germany to "Holy Roman Empire"? WatkynBassett (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With new wording/citation in article, ALT2 is good to go. I think unlinked Germany is fine and [[Holy Roman Empire|Germany]] may be too much of an easter egg, but the promoter can add the link if they want. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man. I was just reviewing this nomination. It had been waiting for a review for 15 days and I get beaten by half an hour. Congratulations to both of you :D Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating!

Thanks very much for this article. Very interesting indeed! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it that my articles on niche law topics are interesting to some! WatkynBassett (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

@FULBERT: Thank you for taking the time reviewing the page. I am, however, a bit puzzled by the tag. Are you concerned by my broad usage of the Oestmann source? It is by far the most detailed English source therefore I think it is essential to cite it widely for accessibility. Reviewing it I see no close paraphrasing and Earwig does not pick up any relevant passages - the German quotations are clearly in the public domain, because the text is from 1532. WatkynBassett (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WatkynBassett Thanks for inquiring about these; your reasoning makes sense. I removed the tag. FULBERT (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very quick reply – thanks for the nice exchange, FULBERT! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]