Talk:Scandza

message: An anonymous user added this: 
:It should be noted that it is clear that Jordanes hadn't been to the island himself, but described it on basis of legends and famous geographers' imperfect knowledge about the north of Europe, from days when it is considered that it was a common belief that the earth was round and flat.
In what way is it clear that it was based on legends? Unlike many later authors such as Adam of Bremen there are no supernatural creatures such as people with dog heads. What strange information Jordanes provided was correct (as far as it is possible to confirm it) and most of the tribes he mentioned can be identified. I find it clear that it was based on accounts of travellers such as Rodwulf, instead. Moreover, in what way is it relevant that contemporary people believed that the earth was flat??? I will remove this highly POV criticism.--Wiglaf 15:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well certainty is a rare animal in research. I'd prefer to start the article on a positive note, and then let the identifications speak for themselves and most of them are not questioned, AFAIK. I will give it a thought, though.--Wiglaf 11:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, saw this discussion. Scandza seems to be a deliberate misassociation to Scotland by the "Screrefennae". They later claim they did not do it, as "Sami", and if caught tries to make "Sami" look bad, which really is an accurate name of the place mistakenly according to the former "Scandinavia", "Norway, Sweden, Denmark". The "Sami" still seem to try and make "Sami" look bad, with ridicolous outfits, and recently the "Fosen" action, they claim against reindeer abuse. They reindeer seem to have no problems at Fosen. They also seem to try and ridicule the runic concept of God, E (Ayn). One should disassociate, and also know that "Samilands" is a correct name of Scandinavia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE1:7001:F100:6593:8F10:DEFC:ADD4 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think he ever was to the island (a peninsula according to his description) himself either :-). But, I do wonder which other island you suggest would correspond to Scandza.--Wiglaf 12:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I thought the intro made this clear:It contains several accurate descriptions of Scandinavia, but is also jumbled and composed of information from several sources.--Wiglaf 13:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Do that in a subsection called "criticism", please. Moreover, the context is easily accessible for anyone, including teenagers, by clicking on Jordanes and Getica.--Wiglaf 17:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at December 2004 

message: What do critics, what is it that you critisize. im swedish so my english isnt world class. do you mean that the Goths didnt come from Scandzia or do you mean that Scandzia isnt the same as Scandinavia? if its later then i must say that you are wrong because theres no region in europe that is even close to jordanes descripton except Scandinavia?
:None said so, because none forgot to sign the comment by adding ~~~~ to the end of it. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do critics mean? 

message: The micro-section of Myths about Scandza seems to tell us the following: "Scandza refers provenly to all Scandinavia." and "The support against the Goths being from Scandinavia is very weak". This is not facts, it is opinions. The fact is that there is not enough proof neither for nor against the statement that "Scandza equals Scandinavia", and the fact is that there is not enough proof neither for nor against the statement that "The Goths originated from Scandinavia". My personal opinion is that the Goths emerged from my bath room, when I was at the job, but that is an opinion. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV - Neutral Point of View

message: I happened to check the 'disambiguation needed', in the section Inhabitants . I did not find out to fix the disambiguation, but I did find an online translation of Jordanes . In reference to the disambiguation I find it most probable that Jordanes is in fact speaking of one of the Theoderics in the 5.th century . I base this on what Wolfram (Die Goten, 2001) write about Jordanes, specifically the genealogy of the Goths . So this really put some focus on what timeframe the article is supposed to describe .
On the same page where Jordanes mentions Theoderic, he is also listing a lot of names, apparently habitating 'scandza', and very similar, perhaps identical, to the names listed in this article . Among the names occur 'ostrogoth', and in this article the name is followed by a parenthesis wherein it says 'Östergötland' . I seriously doubt Jordanes would agree with that . However, I have not read Jordanes, and I have no expertise on this field . Suffice to say, that this information is not something you could put under the heading 'history' . According to Wolfram's interpretation - both of the history of the Goth's in general, and in regards to the reading of Jordanes in particular - the Ostrogoths came to as an invention with the writings of Cassiodor, circa in the year 519, under the reign of the ostrogoth Theoderic the Great .
I am not quite sure how to proceed . At a superficial glance the article seems a wild goosechase, not something to follow along with, in the pursuance of historical knowledge . But the most concrete finding is the question about what timeframe the article is suggesting . ??? 
NB!Online translation of Jordanes 
Sechinsic (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe 

message: Amongst the sources listed (and extensively used) is a 1925 Swedish history book. For a subject on this period in history, which is dependant on archaeology and linguistics, subjects that has seen an immense development since the 1920s, this is really an extremely outdated source. I am not well-versed in the subject myself, but perhaps this book would be relevant for this article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nerman's nationalistic way of writing history was already reactionary in 1925. Ohlmarks has no academic standing. See also Talk:Oium etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated source 

message: See :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scandza.PNG. --141.70.13.147 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Scandza.PNG]] nominated for deletion 

message: An image used in this article, File:Scandza.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Scandza.PNG Nominated for Deletion

message: We want to know the actual Greek sources, not the umptieth hand later source that says they referred to Scandia.
100.15.127.199 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek sources