Jump to content

Talk:Ongentheow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ongenþeow)


Untitled

[edit]

Why the capital Þ (rather than þ)? dab 13:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't notice the difference. I will fix it when I have finished my next two articles.--Wiglaf 13:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This Egil is different from the Egil, brother of Weyland of the Völundarkviða right? Should we do a disambiguation at Egil? 217.162.61.210 15:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date

[edit]

I had deleted the date on this character from a tale about dragons and monsters. User:Berig reverted and put back the date of "ca 515". No source was provided. Now, the only 'contemporary' mention of a king with a similar name is by Alcuin in his life of Willibrord, an event around 710. This suggests that Berig's date for this figure is two centuries off. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Pieter Kuiper, but OR like the one you express above is no reason to remove a date. Feel free to add fact tags, or modify based on what sources like Nationalencyklopedin, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon or Fornnordiskt Lexikon say. If you check out any of these three sources you'll find out that it is your OR that "is 2 centuries off".--Berig (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Berig saying that all or any of these references are putting the date "ca 515" on this character? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ongentheow is mentioned in Beowulf 2924, in context well before the (well-dated) death of Hygelac; therefore certainly sixth-century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Beowulf is not a history book. It is a story with monsters and dragons, which most scholars assume was first written down around 1000 or so. Anachronisms are likely. Why dating the story based on Hygelac? Why not take Ongendus (710)? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because we know when Hygelac died; he was on a raid in Frisia, as Beowulf says, which was independently recorded and dated by a Frankish chronicler. The internal (relative) chronology of the Beowulf story is clear, consistent, and (as far as I know) compatible with such external evidence as exists. Do you have a source for identifying Ongentheow with this Ongendus, and if so, who is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chief source here appears to be a footnote to Talbot's version of Alcuin's Life of Willibrord, which says (in full) "Ongendus has been identified with Ongentheow of Beowulf." By whom? The reference that led me to this (E. G. Stanley's essay on "Beowulf" in The Beowulf Reader, p.48, n.46 says that he (Stanley) sees no basis whatever for the identification. We should probably notice it anyway; but I must agree. Ongentheow was a King of Sweden, of the House of Uppsala; so Widsith, Beowulf, and the Heimskringla concur. Ongendus is called, in the only reference we have to him, rex Danorum, and he reigned, like Radbod of Frisia, within reach of the Frankish kingdom. He may well have been a member of the Swedish royal house, with which his name alliterates, gone conquering in modern Denmark; but to identify him with Ongentheow is to empty Ongentheow of all content, even the second root of his name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is seriously in doubt that Beowulf is independent of Gregory of Tours, because the Hetware-detail is probably from a Frankish chronicle. And the poem may have taken Ongentheow's name from Alcuin. Is there any mention of Uppsala in Beowulf? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the derivation of Beowulf from Gregory has been suggested - everything has; but this would also be better for a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curt Weibull suggested literary dependence on Frankish chronicles (Hygelac# note-4), and I do not think that he was the only one. If I remember correctly, I have seen this in a terminus post quem argument in the dating of Beowulf. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongendus and undue weight

[edit]

Pieter Kuiper has started edit warring again about the inclusion of the Danish king Ongendus. If he can indeed find secondary sources to support his apparent claim that the identification with Ongendus has equal scholarly support with the identification with Egil, I can accept that they are given equal weight. Otherwise, he has to be reverted.--Berig (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berig started edit warring. Berig provides no sources for the identification Ongentheow=Egil. Why should I be required to dig up further scholarly support for the obvious identity of the names Ongentheow = Ongendus? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You started reverting without discussion Pieter, not me[1]. As you are apparently unfamiliar with the topic, Pieter I suggest that you consult the article Angantyr in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, the article Beowulf in Ohlmark's Fornnordiskt lexikon or why not Birger Nerman's book from 1925 that I know you have read. The identification between Ongentheow and Egil is so generally accepted (unlike your theory) that you can see Ongentheow referred to as "king Egil in Beowulf".--Berig (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohlmarks och Birger Nerman are terrible sources for Beowulf interpretation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that Ohlmarks is not the best of sources, but his book is widely used as a work of reference.--Berig (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still you put Ohlmarks in as a source for your interpretation of choice, and you dare to talk about WP:UNDUE! And your eternal Nerman, a provincial Swedish nationalist. The heaviest reference you produce, Sune Lindqvist, is one of the less scholarly pages in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, making references mostly to Nerman. That recent reference to Bo Gräslund, well, also he is a Swedish archeologist, writing in Swedish for a Swedish market. At the same time you are moving out of the lead a serious scholar like Luitpold Wallach (University of Illinois). I could also add C.H. Talbot. Or Nicholous Outzen, if you prefer to take the really old guys for their word. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slandering scholars that disagree with your personal convictions won't help you, Pieter.--Berig (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when a scholar notes that Ongentheow has namesakes, it is *not* the same thing as suggesting that they were the same legendary character.--Berig (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is trying to suppress scholarship that goes against personal convictions here? I am just trying to get inte the lead the opinion of some serious scholars that do not agree with Berig's bunch of Swedes. Give readers the possibility to make up there own minds. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you are engaging in WP:SYNTH, Pieter.--Berig (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - it seems that mentioning an alternative is perceived as a dangerous threat to the Great Nordic Wikipedia Synthesis of Scandinavian Mythical Hiistory. Of course the article should be restructured, starting with what is certain (the literary character in Beowulf), moving parallels and the attempts of historical interpretation further down. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you you are fighting some kind of strawman, Pieter? I thought that your agenda was collecting "awards" on your userpage[2][3].--Berig (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Why Ongenþeow? Every source I have ever seen in Modern English spells his name Ongentheow, including texts and translations of Beowulf, which clearly could use thorn if they wanted to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Swedish WP

[edit]

Pieter Kuiper insists that this article be linked to sv:Ongentheow [4] instead of to sv:Egil (kung). Unfortunately, that article violates WP:COATRACK in the sense that it claims that it is only "older scholarship" that has connected Egil with Ongentheow, something that Pieter Kuiper has added there[5] and something that he has tried to insert here as well. So far Pieter Kuiper has failed to provide any scholarly support for his assertion either here or at Swedish WP that the two characters should be kept distinct. It is unacceptable that this article be linked to his OR on Swedish WP when there's a better article to link to.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berig is driving his/her convictions too far. I do not believe that current scholarship identifies the literary character of Ongentheow with a different name in a different litterary tradition, but that is not the point here. Of course this article's language link should connect to the corresponding article in other wikipedias, whatever the content (and sv:Ongentheow is definitely about the Beowulf charcter). Berig is pushing POV-pushing to novel extremes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP editing is not about adding what people believe, but about adding what can be found in reliable sources. So far you haven't shown any RS for dividing Egil/Ongentheow into two different characters. The fact that you've managed to do so, so far, on Swedish WP is only because of the lax policy against OR that you find there.--Berig (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, Berig is starting her interlanguage linking war again. Of course this article should link to sv:Ongentheow. Anything else is just private sentiment. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not project your own editing habits onto others, Pieter. They have been forced to block you on Swedish WP for edit warring and you should learn that Wikipedia is not a battleground and to respect WP:NOR. Provide RS for your point of view or you'll be reverted again.--Berig (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berig is warring, and has diverted the iw link away from sv:Ongentheow since September 29. Berig's conviction that this should lead to sv:Egil (kung) is obviously not the neutral point of view. And now we get the usual personal comments, because Berig has no valid arguments to link to anything else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article corresponds to both articles on Swedish WP and so both can theoretically be linked. However, it is unacceptable to link to an article riddled with your OR, Pieter. Moreover, the fact that there are two articles on Swedish WP is due to your OR as well, so linking to the article of your preference doesn't solve the problem in any way.--Berig (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berig is behaving in the same way as Drork and others when they tried to suppress language linking to the Arabic wikipedia, see Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Arabic interwiki. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← This seems more like a Swedish Wikipedia issue than an English one. en:Ongentheow should link to the corresponding Swedish article, which in this case should be decided on the respective talk pages, in my opinion. Can't we take this at sv:Diskussion:Egil_(kung) instead? A compromise would be to either merge the two, with a proper section discussing the comparison – or to split this one. –Holt (T•C) 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Holt. You are a sensible editor and I respect your judgment. If you think it's best to link to sv:ongentheow instead and let Swedish Wikipedians handle the problem, it should probably link there.--Berig (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ongentheow. 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) 11:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ongentheow&oldid=1206788719"