Talk:Heruli

message: One person has written an excellent article on the Heruls (14.11.04) (at least much better than what was there), which Wiglaf seems to have deleted or replaced by the old artilce, which is really quite bad. Wiglaf seems to be very insistent on his views. Why is that? The modern literature really shows that a Scandinavian origin of the Heruls cannot be postulated on the basis of the historical sources. I would like to see the new article of 14.11 on the Wikipedia, which is accurate and balanced. Thanks  Claudia:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.53.82 (talk) 05:59, November 15, 2004‎ (UTC)
:Dear Claudia, I am very sorry that you consider the article to convey my views. If you had read a little further down, you would have seen that I have only added info about Procopius. Moreover, thanks for confirming the veracity of the version I removed. We have had a lot of vandalism by anonymous users who remove the myths/histories provided by Procopius and Jordanes (considering your IP number, you are one of them). This is very much against the purpose of Wikipedia. You are free to edit the page as you wish as long as you don't arbitrarily remove information to fit your views (i.e. vandalizing the page). I will unwatch this article for a while and return in a few weeks. If the info about Procopius and Jordanes is gone, I will add it where I see fit, and then we can discuss my views and yours.--Wiglaf 15:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I have no knowledge about this subject at all.  All I can say relates only to customs on Wikipedia.  Typically, when an article is "really quite bad", the first step in dealing with it is for those who see specific errors to correct them, hopefully in a way that is small and simple enough that others can easily view the difference and decide about it.  If the errors are not solvable in this way, then, before replacing the whole or large parts of the article, the person who noticed the errors would explain them on the Talk page, and probably also include the new version, so it could be examined and critiqued before it replaced the original.  Claudia,(you might also sign in if you don't mind, as it would make it easier to contact you), would you mind doing this with the new version of the article you refered to?  (I applogize if this has already been done below, and I didn't understand it because, as I said, I am ignorent of this specific subject)  Thanks! JesseW 04:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only can a pan-Scandinavian origin be hypothesized, but so can other backgrounds to these tribes constantly called "German" (when the word "German" is so recent and has such a nationalistic tone to it.  If we said that these tribes where Deutschlanders, would that go over?  "German" used to be called "Teutonic," which was probably better, although neither connotes much.  The Heruli were one of a vast number of tribes descending from the Hallstadt culture, through several phases, each studied archaeologically.  We would know nothing about them if the Romans hadn't described them as one of the "barbarian hoards."  But did the Romans say they were German?  Nope.  Someone wants to insert Germaness here - when the article should be neutral.  The Heruli seem to have traits of Scandinavia, they also have elements in common with several other areas in Europe - and not particularly "German."  Certainly, at a slightly later time, they appear to be proto-Slavic.  Anyway, the article is a mess.  I will correct some of the worst errors.--LeValley 04:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Views

message: This article (currently at 31KB) is a bit overlong and quite frankly I fail to see the value of the list of Runic inscriptions attributed to the Heruli.  That material should either be deleted or set out into a seperate article if it truly is worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. --165.247.182.182 01:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Runic Inscriptions

message: I won't discuss the rest of the article, but this section is in my view substandard. First, it is far too speculative. The meaning of the noun erilaz is uncertain. There is no consensus on it's meaning or ethymology, though there is some small agreement that it designs one in knowledge of runes. I myself would be very interested to know some more of "the strongest academic evidence to date" of it meaning marauder and even more so in how it connects with a hypothetical wolf-warrior brotherhood. --Asdfgl 17:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ekerilaz

message: Basing any hypothesis on the element harjaz in personal names is ridiculous. It was a common element in Germanic personal names, and I strongly doubt that people such as Ohthere had any connection with either the Harii nor the Heruli. Here is a link  to an article on Scandinavian personal names, for anyone who is interested in the use of the name harjaz.--Wiglaf 15:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Harjaz

message: Is not Moravia eastern Bohemia while Belgrade is much father south (not near) in modern Serbia?
Was there an ancient Moravia that is different from the modern Moravia?
If so the link is wrong as well.
darylkohlhoff 71.87.118.170 11:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resettle depopulated "lands and cities" in Moravia, near Singidunum (Belgrade) 

message: The 6th century (and later) sources have been well studied and they speak to something.  When people from one culture write about another, they may have all manner of biases (and incomplete material).  It is also the case that people inside a culture can have biases and incomplete material.  This does not mean that we are to ignore it all.  If the Herulis are mentioned in Roman literature (and they are), and this literature ( as well as other literature about the Heruli ) have been studied by scholars and published in a scholarly manner since then (as this subject occupies almost an entire volume of a 1720 work by Laurence Echard, who translated and annotated from the original Latin texts).  Echard knows how to contextualize his ancient sources, he's a gem.  He's available electronically from various college libraries.  This article should certainly start with him - every other historian does.--LeValley 06:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The roman history from the removal of the imperial seat by Constantine the Great, to the taking of Rome by Odoacerk, of the Heruli. - that's the name of the volume I just mentioned, by Echard.  Odoacerk must have quite a leader - but Germanic?  That's anachronistic.  He's Heruli, and his name can be parsed linguistically, as Echard attempts to do (and there are other sources, of course, on this topic).LeValley 06:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Here are some specific questions.  Is Procopius one of the Roman writers referred to in the paragraph that mentions "Roman writers"?  (This is the paragraph immediately after mentioning Procopius.  WHo are the other Roman writers?  It seems unencyclopedic to just have unknown Romans pop up in the 21st century and be quoted in a Wiki.  That's my first question, on the way to improving this article.LeValley 06:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a lot known about the Heruli - but it needs to be sourced 

message: This edit complains about the 
:"Origins" section reads as a dubious personal essay. Tagged for NPOV. Also tagged for further references needed—very poorly referenced.
fair enough! But shouldn't then the tags be one :template:Essay-like  first in the Origins section, while the  can remain as is? Just a suggestion... Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Refined tagging

message: We currently have Herul or Herule as singular, and Heruli, Heruls, and Herules as plural forms. Anyone have a proposal for a standard?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  what standardized spellings should the article use? 

message: Was East Germanic spoken as far west as present day Denmark? --Oddeivind (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think anyone knows for sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Germanic? 

message: A recent edit is not making sense to me. The syntax and vocabulary elude me. 
Examine this phrase, "...many of the royal family with fellows (maybe 1/3 (Goffart))...". Does this refer to the royal family, plus its attendants, hangers-on, and others? What does the 1/3 refer to? A third of the royal family, or a third of the Herules, or a third of something else? I don't have access to "Goffart".
I really have no idea what this phrase is referring to: "...which explains the envoy in 548 above and below...". If Thorgisl is a native speaker of a non-English Germanic language, this could be the basis of my confusion, as I only have familiarity with the Germanic language of English. Has the envoy been mentioned earlier in this article? "Above and below" what? If I don't understand these phrases, then it's likely that other readers won't either, unless they're so familiar with the Herules that they need not read the article to learn anything new about this tribe.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable question . I presume you are right that the word "fellows" must have a meaning like one of the ones you mention, but...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful? https://books.google.be/books?redir_esc=y&id=Qr43XNyZh6AC --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

text: On google books I do not find the 1/3 or the fellows, but I find mention of 200 youths?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have no idea what Thorgisl attempts to convey with: "...which explains the envoy in 548 above and below...". Thanks for finding Goffart. I have to go to work today. If anyone would like to read Goffart and clarify Thorgisl's edit, I thank you. Too many WP articles contain garbled edits which make little sense to English-speakers.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by Thorgisl: what does it mean? 

message: Why did you remove two sources on the Heruli from Peter Heather and the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity? Krakkos (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources call them Germanic, not East Germanic. East Germanic links to a linguistic group. The Heruli were not a language, but a people. Per the sources and common sense, they should therefore be referred to as a Germanic people. As this appears to be unclear, the sources are needed. Krakkos (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no in context you clearly added the same sources which you added to dozens of articles at the same and then changed the terminology in this article to suit those specific sources better to this article? And I note that on this article you are saying Germanic peoples and Germanic speaking peoples are different things. That is confusing in light of things you have been saying at the same time on other articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of source from [[Peter Heather]] and others 

message: I have requested discussion here from  but in the meantime here are links for reference to discussion about this article which happened in other places: [ADDED: Edsum by Thomas should be considered also: : Reverted to revision 940960421 by 77.85.55.14: Rv undiscussed major rewrite of the article, best described as a POV hatchet job based on, and giving undue weight to, a non-mainstream, boirdering on fringe, source (Goffart) that totally deviates from the mainstream view; do NOT restore it until there is a clear support from other editors for it!!!]
Discussions about this article at other pages	
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomas.W#Heruli
{|border=1	
:::Hello Thomas, I am surprised at your aggressive edsum and post. You deleted a third of an expanded article and 6 different sources. Funnily enough, I dare say I am probably the main writer of the version I edited today, and which you have reverted to, so it is a surprise. I don't think there was anything controversial. In any case, I request that now you have done a major revert and deleted a lot of decent-looking sources, that you explain the problem on the article talk page. See WP:BRD. If the problem is only Goffart, please say so, and we will go to WP:RSN, but the answer there is easy to predict: Goffart is certainly not a fringe writer. He does have some ideas that are not consensus ideas, and we should indeed be careful to present those in a careful way. On the other hand, is there any area in this article which is really a subject that is controversial according to you? What sources can you bring to the discussion? Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Andrew Lancaster: If you had merely expanded the article I wouldn't have reverted you, but you didn't, your totally undiscussed major rewrite of the article was instead a POV attempt to rewrite not only the history of the Heruli but the history of all Germanic peoples, based on a source that best can be described as fringe, since it totally deviates from the mainstream view. And we do not do things like that, all major rewrites *must* be discussed, and supported by other editors, before being made, and we can *not* give undue weight to sources that deviate from the mainstream (see WP:UNDUE). So do not make edits like that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain on the article talk page which exact sentences in the mass of deleted materials were undue, and why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Thomas made the right call. The recent rewrite of Heruli was not an improvement at all. The rewrite contained a bloated lead full of original research and unsourced dubious claims.[1] Walter Goffart's theories are quite extreme and not representative of mainstream views on the subject, so we should not be giving him undue weight. It was about time that someone finally reverted these unhelpful changes. Krakkos (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There were, I think, 6 different sources deleted, from various quite different "schools" and approximately 1 third of the article deleted. Despite several messages posted, even on other articles, nothing controversial has been explained except the name of one well-known author? Please explain exactly which sentences need consideration concerning due weight, on the article talk page. If that one author is the only problem, then we can go to WP:RSN or similar. If it is one sentence, then let's look at it. etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I had the same idea. See below. I hesitate to start posting guesses, but I imagine the lead tweaks might be the main concern. I have started with the body and deleted sources below. I would like to repair the body of the article ASAP because this is just normal editing on a near-stub article. If the problem is the lead and/or Krakkos's very recently mass-added "classification" sections (which I merged to the lead in this case) then perhaps the changes look bigger than they really were, and apparently the name "Goffart" is causing the aggression again. But we can't censor him from Wikipedia can we? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree. The recent rewrite of the lead was not an improvement at all. Krakkos (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Just so we do not loose it: Main attempt to defend the Heruli revert by  has been led by  at User_talk:Thomas.W#Heruli. It is certainly about Goffart, and involves the interpretation of Goffart and other sources which has been proposed on Wikipedia by Krakkos. The discussion leads me to feel concerned about edits being made on the articles of living scholars like Walter Pohl and Walter Goffart.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big revert of edits; concern about Goffart being fringe? 

message: Most of these now-deleted sources  have nothing to do with Walter Goffart. There were 6:
Completely removed sources were:
*
:::Christensen wrote the most detailed 21st century walk through of Jordanes. He is good for details, because best practice is to use modern secondary sources to help us read such sources. The deleted material: This is the first mention of the Danes in surviving writing. He furthermore reports that the Heruli "claim pre-eminence among all the nations of Scandza for their tallness".<>Jordanes, Getica, 3.19-24; Christensen, pp.268-269.<>
*
:::Neumann is one of the major contributors and editors to the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde series of works, which give authoritative summaries of many details not covered in more popular English works. Neumann especially writes the philological sections. These are cited by all experts. This is a good conservative source, and it was being used for a sentence which now appears still without source, in an older form. What was being sourced: Their name, often written in Greek and Latin with no "h", is sometimes thought to be Germanic and related to the English word earl (see erilaz) implying that it was an honorific military title.
*
:::This is one of the only works with a high level of focus upon Herules. Now sections where this source was used have no source, such as the discussion about Ermaneric, are back to having no source. In terms of "schools" (which Krakkos focuses on a lot), Steinacher is a notable member of the "Vienna school", who did his doctorate with Wolfram.
*Tacitus, Germania, 43.
:::Tacitus, like Pliny who has long been cited in the article in the exact same way, is classical source who mentioned the Harri/Hirri. If we mention that group, then Tacitus should be mentioned.
*Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache p.325 and p.329. 
*Schonfeld (1911) Wörterbuch der altgermanischen personen-und völkernamen pp.138-139 
:::Cited just to confirm that Grimm was one of the originators of the idea of the Hirri/Harri being Heruli, or connected to them somehow. The idea has not been much discussed in recent generations. If we mention the Hirri/Harri, then we should explain that it is a 19th century idea, because will not often find it in modern books. OTOH when they do find it we want to be able to explain it.
=>Proposed action: recover the reverted material fully for the above sources.
:* No. See my comment in the sub-section below. - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 09:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  to be clear, (1) you give no answer below and (2) the above bullets concern 6 good uncontroversial sources which you deleted, and which you are refusing to justify deleting. On WP, deleting sources is an unusual and generally controversial action where caution is recommended. It is normal for someone deleting sources to give some justification?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

text: * Oppose per comments below. Krakkos (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are no comments below relevant to this section. Please give a clear reason for deletion of sources, here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing the revert Part 1. deleted sources 

message: I would like to reinstate this information which was the basic type of additional material needed in the article and part of my long term work on this article to get the basic points in, which appear in all focused publications about this topic. (Now clearly interrupted!) It is now missing for no good reason:
*Western Herules topic. 
*Jordanes and Scandinavia topic. 
*Archaeology of the Gothic groups topic.
*Linguistic evidence (names)
*Tacitus and the Harri
*This fact:  Jordanes mentions the Herules as one of the first peoples to become subject to the empire of the Gothic king Ermanaric
*Classical concept of "Gothic peoples" and whether the Herules were one of them
I don't see anything controversial about these?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning those two new references I can not access Drout, and Reynolds should be very useful for the Scirii and Torcilingi articles. Of course the connection of the Herules to Odoacer is notable and will presumably also be improved, so the source is also useful here. Though not exactly new, it is still cited I believe. I hope Srnec or others with access can help us access Drout.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW I can see the theory is still discussed in RGA, but I just can't see those pages. There appears to be a Harri article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted material Part 2. Uncontroversial basic material

message: *I see that Tacitus has already been discussed above, section Talk:Heruli#"Harii" equal "Heruli"? (but a very long time ago!) Tacitus does describe the Harii who have their own page. The source needs interpretation though, if it is to be asserted that this tells us anything about the Heruli. Tacitus is a primary source. This would be a case of a secondary source being required. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning those two new references I can not access Drout, and Reynolds should be very useful for the Scirii and Torcilingi articles. Of course the connection of the Herules to Odoacer is notable and will presumably also be improved, so the source is also useful here. Though not exactly new, it is still cited I believe. I hope Srnec or others with access can help us access Drout.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW I can see the theory is still discussed in RGA, but I just can't see those pages. There appears to be a Harri article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tacitus

message: Similarly to Heruli, the article Scirii has recently been rewritten by Andrew Lancaster. The rewrite starts of by classifying the Scirii with the neologism "Roman era people", and then continues claiming that Romans classified them as "Scythian" or "Gothic", that they spoke an "East Germanic language", and that they raided a city near "Odessa". None of this stuff is mentioned in the body or attributed to any source. There are WP:NOR concerns there which deserves the attention of the community. Krakkos (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been working for years on slowly building up many of the Germanic articles which are (or recently were in some cases) stubs. These surreal disruptions are also disrupting the addition of more sources and missing bits. Your concerns about sourcing are very clearly zero, as shown by your massive deletion of new sources on this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of Scirii 

message: The classification sections is basically also a statement concerning language.
The section has now been over-footnoted, in that familiar defensive manner, using short Oxford dictionary and Britannica articles. Obviously these sources include single word categorizations but give no explanations about doubts, even if those doubts are big ones. This puts them in conflict with WP core content policies whenever we know there is some doubt or debate possible. (On WP we have to report the debates.) Furthermore especially on a short article about an uncertain subject, it is best practice to give our readers some insight into doubts, uncertainties, and how conclusions were arrived at.) Here then, is what the RGA says about the languages of the Herules. The RGA is a far more authoritative series of works which goes into enormous detail and his highly cited:
:
Basically it is saying that the evidence for the Herules' language is the names, and some names look Gothic but not all. It also says that Gothic forms of names do not rule out other origins because there was a Gothisicizing thing happening, and also Graeco-Roman writers might have been used to Gothic forms. This is basically the same thing Goffart says:
:
Let's think about it. At the very least I think that we can add some words to indicate that the evidence for their language is based on personal name evidence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section called "Classification" 

message: We have a strange remark which needs fixing.  I found the following edits:
* added: "The news was spread by an envoy returning from Scandinavia in 548AD and both historians finished their works in Constantinople 551-553AD – making it extremely unlikely that the two meetings should be separated by 300 years." (and more)
*
It cites Goffart but something has gotten garbled. I intend to fix it by first trying to work out what it was referring to. I will check against Goffart but also against Steinacher.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  548 above and below 

message: For future reference I simply note this information:
* 
*
The older reference by Heather has one very short paragraph and no sources at all. The newer reference, which apparently should be better, has 2 paragraphs, and cites the Steinacher and Sarantis articles, which are sources that I added long before these two dictionary sources were added. We know these were done without any special research or consideration as part of a massive campaign of near-identical quick edits into many articles by . I am not saying we need to remove these sources of course, but it is remarkable that the sources the better short article cites were then argued by Krakkos be superior to more focused and specialised sources which it cites, and which are clearly pre-eminent articles on this topic: . To give another perspective: Peter Heather (the big name on the older dictionary article) wrote the positive afterword for the two specialist articles. It is clear that single paragraph tertiary source articles can be useful but should not normally be used to over-rule more specialized and detailed authorities. Generally speaking, being a tertiary source counts against "reliability" on WP. WP core content policy also conflicts directly with the aim of "dictionary" style tertiary sources that do not report controversies, meaning that such sources are particularly weak whenever they concern a topic with a no single simple consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  short dictionary articles 

message: Not a big concern, but trying to do what's best. I have no strong opinion about this theory, but I tend to be careful about removing things that have been in an article for a long time, especially if there has even been a debate. If we are going to get rid of something then, given the aim of making a stable article, it is best practice to get the best rationale on record. So I think I discussed above that I was investigating, and had already tracked that it was certainly a serious 19th century speculation (by none other than Jakob Grimm it seems). For the record then, I note that Krakkos has removed mention now , though I was now in the middle of trying to get a look at the RGA article, which Google books seems to show does still mention the theory. If anyone has access to any source that helps, we can come back to it, but for now it is gone. Anyone have Reallexikon access?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harri/Hirri theory 

message: ... so you merged two separate sources, making verifiability worse, and then when I posted a concern about it, you tagged the merged footnotes to say page number needed?  That is pretty unconstructive? Why do you make every little thing so difficult?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't merged the sources. On which page does Neumann and Taylor says that the identification of the Heruli as Germanic-speaking is based upon their personal names? Krakkos (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You merged two sources Krakkos: Neumann and Taylor. These are both commonly cited by historians. The one you are asking about was sourced by me from Taylor. The exact quote was even also recently typed out and posted here by me, on this talk page, before I used it. See above. It can be found at column 1, page 469. Can you please re-separate the two articles? BTW: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Neumann_(Philologe) . What more can I do for you? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor and Günter are frequently cited as co-writers of the same article, but it makes little difference to me. Krakkos (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is a minor point, as I said, and it can be cited both ways, but given your remark about needing page numbers, I think splitting it is reasonable. Thank you for that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: bullet 1. The RGA article(s)

message: From Heather's well-cited scholarly article about disappearing and reappearing tribes, p.98, it seems we are being more naive about Jordanes:
:
Bold added by me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A case where Heather is sceptical of Jordanes 

message: Perhaps useful  --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open access book (Vienna) with several Heruli-relevant articles 

message: I don't think the sources provided about the runic connection are strong enough.
Klaus Düwel writes:
Hilda Ellis Davidson writes: 
Neither source is actually trying to put forward this theory, but rather mention it in passing. They simply acknowledge its existence. Davidson was writing in 1964 so this is not exactly evidence of support for the theory in current academic thought.
If better sources are not found I think this paragraph should be deleted.
--Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible connection to Runic