Talk:Oium

message: User:Pia L comes up with a recent scholar mentioning Oium. She is distorting Andy Merrill's intentions, I think. Has she read page page 125, about "the fantastic description of the swamps of Oium"? And about the author's "sleigh of hand", tricking the audience? /Pieter Kuiper 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise you Pieter to read Wikipedia:Civility. Do not make questionable allegations on the way other editors use references.--Berig 13:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You think? You better be sure before you make accusations like that, mister; rudeness will only take you so far, then it's down to business. Please explain how the sentence: "Jordanes' account of the Goths' history in Oium was constructed from his reading of earlier classical accounts and from oral tradition" distorts this scholar's "intentions"? Are the direct quotes from this very well regarded scholar perhaps questioned by you solely because you think that they appear to somehow thwart your own intentions (whatever they may be, except your already declared intention to delete any and all mention of Scandinavian or Icelandic sagas and legends from Wikipedia)? The direct quotes, as per the ref tag: Merrills, Andrew H. (2005). History and Geography in Late Antiquity, p.120: "The influence of oral tradition in this passage [the passage introducing Oium] is palpable. Classical and scriptural parallels for the over-population motif, the Arcadian description of the Scythian Canaan and the broken bridge image do suggest that Gothic migration stories had not survived uncontaminated by contact with the Mediterranean world, but they remain recognizably the tropes of oral tradition", and p. 121: "Jerome and Orosius had identified the relatively unfamiliar Goths with the Scythian Getae of ancient historiography. [...] In the wake of this authority, the identification of Oium could be made with little comment". I expect you to either explain yourself or apologize. Yes, I have read page 125 about the fantastic descriptions of the swamps. And???! If you feel that the stuff discussed on page 125 is missing from this article, I'd be pleased to add more, but considering your deletion crusade, I did not even contemplate that as something you would be begging for. The "slight of hand" and "trick" references you mention are concerned with, dare I say the word, Scandza. Merrills suggests that making Scandza the home of the Goths was tricky business for Jordanes, because there was no prior written evidence for this controversial assertion, and therefore it had to be introduced by a "sleight of hand" by the author. To accomplish this, he squeezes the stuff in between his well-documented passages about Britain and Scythia, thereby hoping that having the new in the middle of old stuff that was already considered established because it had literary precedent, would do the trick. Now what is your problem? Is your aim to have more discussion about Scandza in this article? PS. The ref tag you deleted was not mine and I did not have a chance to check it before it was deleted. However, rest assured that it will be reintroduced if your "false quote" accusation regarding that quote was also something you were just "thinking". Pia 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look lady, Merrill also wrote on p 120, after the passage you quoted: "The term may, of course, have been a simple invention of Jordanes or Cassiodorus, intended to lend a witty verisimilitude to a knowingly derivative origin myth". Merrill's opinion (with a reference to Green) is that this was a real toponym - I will grant you that - but states that Jordanes "happily" continued a tradition of identifying names and regions. In my opinion, the wording of the article does not give a good impression of what Merrill intends to say. As I understand his pages, he is very sceptical of Jordanes' methods. The sentence in the text with the reference and the quote does not reflect that very well, IMHO. /Pieter Kuiper 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the Merrills quote I used does not even talk about the term itself, it talks about the possible influences on Jordanes' ideas/description of the area, and in particular, the possible influences on his account of the events when the Goths arrived there (which involves the bridge motif, etc, as related by Merrills). Also please note that the very first sentence of this article already comments on the term in a similar fashion, namely by making clear that Oium was a name used for Scythia "according to Getica (Jordanes)". Yes, Merrills does indeed write that the name may have been made up by Jordanes, in a section that followed the discussion about influences on his motif, etc. And???! Does the quote I chose to reference a statement I found in this article (while attempting to weed out unsourced statements) somehow contradicts his idea about the name itself, in your opinion? What exactly is your accusation against me? Failure to add a quote that you thought was more interesting? If you needed help to add the quote that followed the one I chose, you could have simply asked. I do not appreciate your attempts to discredit me or other contributors here, at all. I will add a ref tag with the Merrills quote about the term to the very first sentence of the article, so that the uncertainty about the origin of the name becomes even more obvious. Pia 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not get this excited. I meant to say that your wording (in my opinion) did not reflect Merrill's intentions. But I must admit that I do not completely understand Merrill's position (I am just seeing a few pages on books.google.com). Jordanes was pretty poor on geography - he even speaks about Troy and Ilium as two different cities. So I do not know what Merrill's broader picture is about Jordanes' geography. /Pieter Kuiper 13:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you don't completely understand Merrill's position, why do you make such a fuss accusing another editor of misunderstanding Merrill's intentions?--Berig 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merrills 

message: :[outdent] About the statement above "I think it would be good to put such uncontroversial stuff in the lead": Absolutely, Pieter. Please add "claims that has clear support" and "uncontroversial stuff" that will "cause no footnotes" to the lead. You want to move down the etymology section and put the section about king Filimer in the lead instead? No objections. You want Jacob to write a section about Kulikowski under "Settlement"? No objections. He, he, well, that would be great, but why don't you give it a try yourself, and as an added bonus, you'll get a chance to demonstrate your far superior use of footnotes compared to Jacob's and my own. But a note regarding ideologically based edits of yours to other Jordanes related articles; please find a quote below from From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, a 2006 book edited by Thomas F. X. Noble, Director of the Medieval Institute and Professor of History at University of Notre Dame:
:"It is often necessary, however, to remind Central Europeans of the plain fact that a history of the Goths is not part of the history of the German people and certainly not part of the 'history of the Germans in foreign countries.' No such ideological controversy surrounds the Celts, for example, [...] because there has been 'no threat of annexation or war.' Clearly the Goths are no threat either [...] nowhere in Europe did the Goths achieve the status of a nation, they dissolved at their downfall into a myth accessible to everyone. The result has been a long history of attempts to lay claim to the Gothic tradition".
:Please realize that your use of ideology (as it showed its naked face here) appears to "lay claim to Gothic tradition" (and to Jordanes in particular) on behalf of modern racist German ideologies. Placing a writer active in the 6th century into an ideological framework of the 20th century, or back-projecting modern racist/expanionist threats on a text from the 6th century (as also indicated by your addition of a Nazi sympathizer to the lead here), does not appear to have "clear and convincing support" among any reputable historians today. The various misappropriation of Jordanes' text and of other classical and medieval writers, their manuscripts, and the political uses of various migration and ethnic origin myths through the ages, does have an important place in articles on Wikipedia, IMO (sigh, repeating this stuff is starting to bore me; if it wasn't for what I feel I must add now, I would have just linked to the previous thread ). However, that discussion is missing one ingredient: IMO, theoretical discussions about historiography, about historic methods, the historicity of texts and oral tradition etc., needs participation by Wikipedia editors here who have at least some basic knowledge and background in history, and who have more well-researched opinions about theoretical issues and about history discourse and about how the construction of history has evolved, especially a clearer concept of what source criticism of 6th century texts entails — and who are willing to put in the work by adding references to that scholarly discourse (like Jacob and Berig), or else, I'm afraid, we might end up with more of the above additions, as well as random deletion of article text that consists of simple descriptions of what the ancient texts say, or worse, we get additions of stuff that only serves to reinforce misuse of this 1500 year-old text on behalf of this-or-that 17th or 20th century racist/imperialist/expansionist/reactionary/this-or-that ideology. Pia 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me laying claim to Gothic tradition? I tried to cut the Nordic stuff here by "Wiglaf" and "Berig", and it was Pia L who put it back in. But yes, I suspect that Oium was extensively mentioned in the works of Gustav Kossinna. He should probably be mentioned in this article. Was he the first to make the Wielbark connection? /Pieter Kuiper 06:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have only tried to remove information added by Wiglaf, according to the article's edit history. If you know anything on Kossina's views, you are the man to add him to the article (with references naturally).--Berig 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one am sick of descriptions of the Goths as "Germans" as opposed to "Germanic." I've considered purging the Wikiproject Germany listings from those Gothic talk pages where they appear, but there are other persistent problems throughout Wikipedia. (OTOH, I accept certain moderate-migrationist and assimilation, as opposed to elite dominance, interpretations because (1) the Gothic language is a Germanic language, so the Germanic languages did spread between Central and Eastern Europe; the only questions are the direction and time, and Central -> Eastern, 3rd Century seems reasonable. (2) the Gothic language includes few if any signs of Slavic adstrata (as compared with its Greek, Latin, Celtic and Iranian superstrata). (3) the Gothic conversion history - martyrologies, etc. - don't fit in with distinct Gothic elites and non-Gothic subject populations (4) I can't explain the presence of 10,000 Gothic troops at Adrianople (as in Ammianus - and that's the lowest currently-accepted estimate) without assuming they came from among hundreds of thousands of refugees and/or local rebels (who need not be with the army, would would probably be all over the diocese). The demographics don't work that way, and, in any case, refugee populations are skewed towards women, children, and the elderly.) Jacob Haller 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am sick of the descriptions of the Goths as Scandinavians, Swedes or Västgötar, and I hate the Template:WikiProject Norse history and culture, which is stuck on hundreds of talk pages. /Pieter Kuiper 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree ... Jacob Haller 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't intend to get involved in the (in my mind) utterly ridiculous disputes driven by what the author above labels "attempts to lay claim to the Gothic tradition". What I find totally unacceptable though, is the fact that the "Gothic tradition" dispute seems to have spilled over into articles about such things as medieval Icelandic sagas, early Norse poetry, 6th century geography and myths, etc., etc., and rather than being improvement drives to ensure that articles are sourced and balanced, it now involves mostly content deletion, or as here, suggested "blanking", personal attacks and resistance to have stuff sourced that doesn't fit into one particular user's personal point of view. It's pretty obvious that the three states this user confesses to be oscillating between here ("infuriated", "sick of", "hate"), in this thread and the thread above, are hard to combine with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. I know I should say "chill, please", but I find it too hard to be serious about this anymore after the realization that grown men are engaging in kindergarten tit for tat over this. Man, you guys are really getting your knickers in a knot over this thing. "The real history", "blanking", "not giving consent to keep"?? Sorry, I’m trying not to laugh, but this is getting absurd. I'm finished with this topic. Pia 06:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with Pia L, and I subscribe to her description of the situation.--Berig 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of ideas

message: Notes for the future of this article from the deletion discussion:
*Krakkos:  RGA Link: 
*Peterkingiron: 
*Austronesier: 
*Apparent disagreement:  and myself, and probably , saw that RGA article as a basis for further work (both reduction and further expansion if possible).  and  apparently don't see it that way.
*Proposed resolution of that: Studying primary and tertiary sources in historical subjects often leads automatically to secondary sources (if they exist).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It may come to your relief that I count Günnewig's article in the RGA as a secondary source, in spite of the overall tertiary character of the RGA. But FWIW, I just wanted to set a threshold, not to delimitate a bandwidth. Tertiary RS are great!–Austronesier (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if debate was needed, yes tertiary sources are not all the same. The RGA gives a sort of literature review in most articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: Section deletion done. Here is the diff so it can be easily examined and material can be recovered in the future or moved to other articles if needed: .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking forward 

message: The POV was in the eye of the reader who quite misrepresented Günnewig's text by reversing the emphasis of the original statement. I think my tweak is more in line towards NPOV. I also believe that a statement about the historicity of Jordanes is ledeworthy, since the very existence of Oium hinges on this one source. –Austronesier (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree with your revision. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure, your (historical, but maybe in parts fictional) royal highness! :) –Austronesier (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Günnewig (2003)