Talk:Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks

What is a "fornaldarsaga"? RickK 21:42, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

It is the kind of saga that deals with the oldest matter, before the colonization of Iceland. The name means roughly "story about the old era". It is a good question and I am going to make an article about it, if such an article does not already exist.--Wiglaf 21:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images

I pulled these two images from the article because the formatting was broken. If someone can figure out a way to integrate them back in or when more material is added, that would be great.Diff - WeniWidiWiki 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gizur challenges the Huns

File:Hjalmar and Hjörvard.jpg

Hjalmar proposes to Ingeborg

(...á vígvöll á Dúnheiði í Dylgjudölum).

Dúnheiði = Dunărea Bigshotnews 00:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Dylgjudölum = Dolj (county in SW Romania) Bigshotnews 00:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Jǫrmunrekr vs. Heiðrekr

Please, these two names could never, ever been confused. Jǫrmun- as a first part of a name could mean many things, but never the same as Heið-. The ending -rekr is coincidentally the same. 85.220.22.139 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Entire content dependent on a single source who fails any notability as scholar

Aside from the bulk of this article being WP:OR, the only scholarly research cited is sourced from an unevaluated paper by a Dr Alaric Hall who doesn't meet basic notability guidelines in the world of academia.

Is there any reason, outside of variants on WP:ITSINTERESTING, that this article should even exist as an encyclopaedic item? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hall's article is published in what appears to be a well-established journal (Scandinavian Studies). The author is a Ph.D. and a university lecturer in a closely-related field. I couldn't assure you that the article here correctly reflects Hall's paper without reading it, but other than this I see no problem. There is no requirement for cited academics to be famous, as long as they are qualified and their work is considered reputable. --Hegvald (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. The fact that he's been published by a society whose credentials aren't established other than the fact that they're "not for profit" does not make him an authority. Being peer-reviewed/peer recognised and approved within an American interest group doesn't make him a recognised authority any more than those writing for Evolution News and Views which is also a not-for-profit organisation. The fact stands that it's his area of interest, which doesn't automatically preclude fringe theories. In fact, we have an entire article (formerly a GA!) based on recent fringe theories in the form of Rus' Khaganate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a large body of scholarly articles related to the saga [1]. There are qualified artworks directly inspired by it. It fulfills the notability criteria for books by a wide margin. That the article is poorly sourced does not mean that it should not exist.

Andejons (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to read comments and join in on the discussion on the AfD nomination page, Andejons. The question has become that of meeting notability, but being in need of being redacted to a stub due to the content of the article being unsourced. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Improving Citations

The attempt by Iryna Harpy to delete this article has failed, absolutely.

That said, she has a valid point that commentary in a Reference provided mainly to provide a text and translation is not in itself evidence that the commentary is to be considered altogether trustworthy, although some readers of the article, including myself, had accepted it as being absolutely trustworthy. I have therefore added Christopher Tolkien's text to the reflist to cover this matter and also put in a second reference to Alaric Hall's article to cover Alaric Hall's revision of the manuscript stemma.

Personally I think Alaric Hall's article to be a very good article and a welcome addition to this piece. If Iryna Harpy still believes otherwise she is welcome to discuss the matter further on this page and attempt to have references to this and other published articles by Alaric Hall removed from Wikipedia. For these, see [[2]]. Personally I find the argument that because some peer-reviewed articles in academic journals are crank not to be a valid argument that therefore no articles from academic journals should be referenced in Wikipedia, which is what I take from Iryna Harpy's argument. She claims Alaric Hall "doesn't meet basic notability guidelines in the world of academia" but does not indicate what to her these "basic notability guidelines" are. Is there a list approved by Wikipedia of those who do meet them? There are numerous references on the web to the society and journal. See [[3]]

I have not put in any citations for Heiðrekr's supposed connection to Ermanarek. As already indicated by an anonymous questioner on this page any relation seems dubious to the questioner. I agree. The only sources I could find on the web for this supposed connection was unsourced information on a web forum. I suspect that this comes from the same source but cannot evaluate it without knowing what the source is. Unless someone can provide the source or if no-one can I suggest this passage be deleted.

Jallan (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Jallan, I've already invoked WP:NPA on your talk page. Follow WP:CIVIL or I may not be as civil towards your personalising this in future. This article was being questioned on the issue of content, so keep your WP:BATTLEGROUND commentary to yourself. Do you comprehend? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy. No I do not comprehend. What have I said that so angers you? Where have I been uncivil? I very much disagree with much of what you say, but that goes for everyone who put down your attempt at deletion, at least in that matter. I don't hold your opinions against you personally, however much I may disagree with them. Please do the same for my opinions. I would like to keep any disagreements to the matter of what would improve the article. Please do not insinuate things by posting WP: articles. List only parts where you believe I have failed and then explain how I have failed that particular part. Chalk it up to my ignorance if you wish, that I don't understand the pertinence of much of these articles. Because I honestly don't. And don't vaguely threaten. Jallan (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jallan: Perhaps you'll comprehend this as an example of your personal attacks (already posted to your own talk page). Do not personalise the wish to address article content issues to equate deletion reviews for the sake of establishing whether a poorly sourced article has merit with a personal agenda on behalf of an experienced editor with some form of bad faith agenda. This article has long been languishing in a veil of mystery as to whether it is of substance or not. Personally, I am pleased to see that, if nothing else, the DR has prompted some form of input into improving it. I sincerely hope that you will continue to work on it, and that this will encourage others to do the same. There are no 'vague threats' in my attitude to your put-downs as they are well substantiated in your comments/missives aimed at me. The fact that you're unable to see your own personal attacks is exactly that: "Your attempt to have this article deleted is plainly illegal because the article is notable..."; "One rule for you but one for others is not good practice.". Most notably, your "I don't how what the author of this complaint was looking up when he claimed he could find no texts on the web talking of this saga." comment at the DR is extremely edifying. Firstly, I did not claim that I couldn't find any texts; secondly, you didn't even bother to look at my user page in order to establish that I'm a 'she', not a 'he'. Please try to understand that I'm extremely busy with a huge number of articles, plus make some form of an attempt to work out whether I'm a moron with a POV agenda or an AGF editor. Wishing you all the best for bringing this article up to par. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:I do apologize for originally assuming you were male. No, you did not claim you could not find the texts, but then I assumed from two of the responses that you had not. If you had not done so, then you seem to me to have been willfully ignorant. If you had, then you should have found https://www.google.com/search?q=Hervarar+saga+ok+heidrek&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl at [[4]] or http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=hervarar+saga+ok+heidreks&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= at [[5]]. The rule is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions,D.1: The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. That appears to me to cover all your criticisms but one. I still hold that "One rule for you but one for others is not good practice." What is there to disagree with about this rule? I do not understand what you mean by personalise. You seem to me to be using it in an idiosyncratic way which I do not comprehend. I certainly do not think that any opposition to an argument of mine from an oppenent can only mean bad faith from my opponent, if such a suggestion is involved in this. Again from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , see the section beginning "Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" ...". This seems to me to come very close to your main argument that "The entire article is based on WP:OR. See also the statement: "Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." I disagree in good faith with all your arguments against Alaric Hall. I did nothing at the time because no-one else had done anything about it and did not wish to open a subsidiary argument under that head. I now feel badly about that. Jallan (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429160434/http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Hervor.html to http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Hervor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

• 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) 05:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Language

The article should state in the introduction what language the saga is written in.

Lhimec (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)