Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Geats


Several older subjects

From the geography described in the poem, it would appear that its events take place along the shores of Lake Vänern, and it was in this lake that the monster Grendel dwelled.

Beowulf is a Geat, but he crosses the sea to fight Grendel. Klaeber places that part of the story in Zealand. Matthew Woodcraft

I suggest changing "kingdom" in the article to something with better foundation in accepted science. Talk about tribes and chieftains instead, there's support for that terminology. There is also no evidence that the Geatas of Beowulf have anything to do with present-day Swedish territory, and the place-names mentioned involving "Göta-" (Göteborg, Göta älv, Östergötland, Västergötland) are iirc all much more recent than unified Sweden. The history of any independent Götaland should imo at this time be kept in the realm of speculation. OlofE 14:03 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I was unaware of any major issues or doubt surrounding the identification of the Beowulf Geats with the areas in Sweden now apparently named after them. The names are cognate; Geatas and Götar are the expected outcomes in Old English and East Norse of PGmc *gauta-. Geats are named by that name in Codex Holm from around 1280, which also mentions "Østrægøtland" and "Østgøtar" as well, which seem recognisable antecedents of the names of the Swedish regions. Of course, this is well after the 500s but probably too early for people to be renaming their territory because of romantic identification with the heroes of Old English literature. As to calling them "kingdoms," the only kingdom I see mentioned in this article is the kingdom of the Swedes. In the USA we're used to being told to turn "tribes" into "nations" in any case. It probably pays to err on assuming sophistication rather than otherwise. -- IHCOYC 03:18 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
At least 4 different "tribes" have some sort of claim to the geatas link - Götar, Gutar (the people of Gotland in the Baltic sea), Jutar (Jutes I believe - present day Danish mainland) plus the hard-to-work-with, the Goths. The claim of Beowulf's ancestry has been made a symbolic one in patriotic disputes between the regions more than once. The latest Swedish translation of Beowulf does indeed not translate Geatas with Götar, but preserves the original word (despite the new foreword making the expressly wishful assumption that the hero's origin could/should be in Västergötland).
Regarding kingdoms and kings, this is a matter of current debate and one that tends to interest a lot of people in Sweden today. The matter of which regions have identified themselves as a unit in some sense, and when they did so, has some bearing on the nature of the birth of the nation of Sweden, and the rivalry between the two main regions. I wouldn't call the discussion infected, but there is some pretty heated arguing going on and new books are constantly being released. Anyway, keep it as is, I'll get back when I can contribute something - good work:-) OlofE 06:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Claiming that the Goths of Gotland played a great part in continental history is, how should I put this.... not designed to increase one's credibility. Maybe it's a conspiracy. OlofE 19:09, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The connection between Gautar and Geatas is only controversial due to regional rivalry. The Jutes, for instance, were known to the Anglo-saxons who called them Eotas. As the Eotas were part of the A-S stock, there is no sense in assuming that the A-S confused Geatas and Eotas. Moroever, the A-S ea corresponded to Old Norse au and modern Swedish ö: leaf-löv, reave-röva, dream-dröm, bear-björn, mead-mjöd, etc. Geatas is the logical A-S form of Old Norse gautar and modern Swedish götar. Wiglaf

I don't agree, no. To begin with, "fascist" is not a word you use in a NPOV article about a 16th century person, no matter what your views are. From there on, the conspiracy described is pure hot air. Womb of peoples? In the same breath as "goals of wikipedia"? Suddenly I remember why I stopped coming to the pedias. Nevermind. Someone will find the article, eventually. Not me though. OlofE 20:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone got a little overzealous by turning the Jutes article into a redirect to this one. While some authorities believe the two people are the same, one can discuss either people without reference to the other: the Geats relate to Swedish history, while the Jutes to Anglo-Saxon history. After this possible identity in the 6th century, neither nation has much to do with each other until the Viking era. Combining the two articles leads to confusion. They are separate topics. -- llywrch 19:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OlofE, you seem to adress the words 'fascist' and 'womb of people' at me. This is silly and you are building a strawman. I have NOT done those contributions to the article. I don't believe there is a conspiracy and I have NOT written that there is anything such. You seem to be personally opposed to the generally accepted identification between 'geats' and 'gauts'. And you have NOT given any linguistic or historical proof for your point of view. The fact that the recent Swedish translation does not translate 'Geat' with 'Gaut' but preserves the original form is NOT any such proof. I am a linguist, but I know a number of Swedish history professors. This period of Swedish "history" is not politically correct in Sweden, and Swedish historians avoid it. I doubt that you have missed that. Keeping the original form of the name is just a convenient way of avoiding possible conflicts. Wiglaf

P.S. OlofE, next time you addess me, please, bring something substantial to support your point of view, and DON'T put words in my mouth. Wiglaf

Nonsense. They *were* quotes, but not by you nor aimed at you. Mr Allan-whatever used the word "fascist" in the article, I told him it had no place there. Later, Mr Allan decided to withdraw from the wikipedia because he could not settle his differences in any of the conflicts he kept getting into. He then proceeded to delete all his comments everywhere, not caring a bit that it left some pages incomprehensible. Consult the history for the pages to see how the comments relate to each other. OlofE 21:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see it was Kenneth Allan! I have had to remove some paragraphs that he has written, in other articles. They are usually a mishmash of strange and confused etymological speculations. Just look at Frith. I was so stunned when I read it that I have not had the energy to remove his contribution there. Wiglaf

I think we should drop the mention of Göteborg or rephrase it, as that name is very recent. There are plenty of placenames with a "correcter" heritage in their names, like Götala. (Götene? I don't recall the history of that). // OlofE 08:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have changed according to your suggestions.--Wiglaf 18:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw - great:) (How's the thesis coming along?) // OlofE 18:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am supposed to be finished this fall.--Wiglaf 19:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Contradictions

First, the article says: The languages of Goths and Geats were strikingly different...

Then it says: There is no knowledge about differences in language between Geats and Goths. There is no remaining literature. Out of the very few runic words found in alleged territories of the Geats and Goths, no conclusions can be made.

Which is it? Joey 20:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out such discrepancies before, but nobody cared to answer. Read my comments interspersed in the text. That the Geats and the Goths were actually the same ethnic group was a pet theory of Wiglaf. After he left Wikipedia, some purging of his fringe theories needs to be done. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever said "Awwww Geat, Geat, Geat, Geat"? 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.222.212 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that Wiglaf has ever written that in his contributions. "Pet theory" is obviously a below the belt attack from mr Ghirlandajo who seems to be a controversial user. Isse

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce Geat? Is it gæɑt? Ireneshusband 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In English, I just think it's thick g as in goose, rhyming with eat. 惑乱 分からん 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciations added for Old English, Old Norse and modern Swedish, based on my professional competence as a linguist in these areas. However, I'd appreciate it if someone would check the Swedish pronunciation, because I learned my Swedish in Finland and am not sure about the rikssvenska pronunciation. Alarichall (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! I have corrected the pronunciation of modern Swedish so that it represents rikssvenska better.--Berig (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, Geats or The Getae /ˈdʒiːtiː/ or /ˈɡiːtiː/ or Gets (Ancient Greek: Γέται, singular Γέτης; Bulgarian: Гети; Romanian: Geţi) are names given to several Thracian tribes inhabiting the regions to either side of the Lower Danube, in what is today northern Bulgaria and southern Romania. Both the singular form Get and Getae may be derived from a Greek exonym: the area was the hinterland of Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast, bringing the Getae into contact with the Ancient Greeks from an early date. [please reffer to the following article for details concerning the origin of this name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.70.66 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the title of the Swedish King

From the last sentence of the History text: "To this day, the Swedish kings still formally call themselves svears och götars konung (king of Swedes and Geats, or Rex Sweorum et Gothorum)."

This is no longer true. When present Swedish king Carl-Gustaf acceded in 1973 he deleted the minor titels ("King of Swedes, Geats and Wends") and his title is "only" King of Sweden (Sveriges Konung). The same did danish Queen Margerethe who acceded 1972, she dropped the titles og Geats, Wends etc.

Vandals?

I changed the reference to Vandals for Wendish, which is the origin of the tripartite folks formula "Svea, Göta and Vende konung". Svea refers to Swear, and Götar to Geats, but the folk Vende was stolen from the Danish king, since the Danish king first claimed to be king of Danes, Geats and Wendish. The tripartite formula was later connected to the three-crowns symbol, which is commonly believed to be the personal heraldic of king Albert of Mecklenburg. This connection of threes is an invention. The later connection between Göta and Goths, and Wendish and Vandals, was invented in the 17th century to inflate the importance of Sweden and Swedishness, a subculture that fell into heavy disgrace from WW II and on. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geats, Svear and Swedes

The article differentiates between Geats and Swedes. It is my understanding that Swedes is the collective term for Geats, Gotlanders and Svear. In light of this, the article should change Swedes to Svear where relevant. Please see the version of the map used in the Svear article.KarlXII 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedes is the most common name used for the "svear" in English. Swedes is also since a long time back the preferred translation of svear at Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Terminology. Don't equate Swedes with "svenskar". Swedes means both "svear" and "svenskar", just as svenskar did in the middle ages (in Västgötalagen a "svensk man" was NOT a Geat). Moreover, when Geats are discussed, "Swedes" is unambiguous and there is no risk for confusion.--Berig 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has (temporarily?) been moved to My talk page. Everyone is welcome there.KarlXII 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

western and eastern Geats

In modern Swedish a distinction is often made between eastern and western Geats (Östgötar och Västgötar) analogous to Eastern Geatland (Östergötland) and Western Geatlant (Västergötland) and similar distinctions between the two languages. I believe there have also be historical differences between the two. Should this be mentioned in the article?KarlXII 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can absolutely be mentioned in the article.--Berig 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to Adam of Bremen the Gothic people was also a Sveonian people and there were no single Sveonian people in Mälaren -area. The Svear and Götar/Goths definition was mentioned by the church when different bishops areas was mentioned, i.e. not a definition of different folks/people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSoederberg (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is mixed up?

Current text says:

"Moreover, he described that on this island there were three tribes called the Gautigoths (cf. Geat/Gaut), the Ostrogoths (cf. the Swedish province of Östergötland) and Vagoths (Gotlanders?)."

Surely this must be the other way around, i.e. Gautigoths = Gotlanders, Vagoths = Västergötar (pronounced Vägötar)? --217.211.25.143 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to know and most likely subject to debate. Luckily someone updated the text to reflect this, but the text should be fuzzied more, to reflect the lack of knowledge, it currently seem to imply that east gauts moved into the Wisła area..., but since occurence of a certain kind of monster fibulae instead seem to imply a more intense connection between the Wielbark culture and the southern and western coast of current day Sweden and current day Norway, the matter is far from decideable with the current knowledge. IMO the WPtext should reflect the science debate, its camps and their respective arguments – WP would be more fascinating that way. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf's Geats = Götar ?

The article states as given that the Geats mentioned in Beowulf are the same as the Swedish Götar/Gutar. From what I've understood, this is not so clear or certain. Many mention that a more likely identification is that the Geats of Beowulf are in fact the Jutar (from Jutland). Although I'm not suggesting that the article should replace one assumed 'fact' with another, I do think the article should mention the uncertainty which exists on the issue and why. Certainly, the Swedish wikipedia article on Beowulf mentions this. For those of you who can read Swedish:

Medan identifikationen mellan geater och götar är ganska okontroversiell i den engelskspråkiga världen, är den intressant nog mer kontroversiell i svenska sammanhang. Det anglosaxiska ea motsvarade au i fornnordiska, och ö i modern svenska, jämför leaf-löv, reave-röva och så vidare. Det fornengelska ordet geatas betyder helt enkelt götar. Emellertid skildras geaterna i dikten som ett folk i nära förknippning med havet, medan götarna historiskt varit inlandsbundna. Detta har föranlett en del frågeställningar.
Andra som är tänkbara som geater är gutarna. För en engelsman på medeltiden kan gutarna, pågrund av namnlikheten, mycket väl ha missuppfattats som götar. Gotland passar dessutom bättre in i den geografi som dikten målar upp än de båda götalandskapen. Vidare nämns ibland jutar, fast de nog har lite väl långt till svealandskapen. Historiskt finns det inget samband mellan j-ljudet i jutar och g:et i geater. Någon gotisk folkspillra vid Östersjöns sydkust är väl mindre trovärdig, ehuru bättre placerad för att strida med folk från Mälartrakten. Hur som helst kan det fortfarande inte sägas med säkerhet var Beowulf egentligen hör hemma.
I think someone should translate this to English. I'm a swede, but I think we shouldn't write untranslated Swedish on an English Encycl. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regards Osli73 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty in the issue? Well, I would not consider Swedish Wikipedia to be an authority in the matter since Beowulf is virtually uknown in Sweden, for various reasons. In the English-speaking world where the identity of Beowulf's Geats is more interesting, they are generally considered to have lived in southern Sweden, but you don't need to trust me in the issue. Just try googling Geats, Götar, Jutes, Sweden, Gotland and Jutland for a while and you can make up your own mind in the issue.--Berig 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Gautar and Geatas

This section is currently ended with "especially in Sweden, where the debate about Sweden's history prior to the 11th century is affected". While it is true that there is a debate about the history of country prior to the 11th century, I don't see where the identity of the Gautar in Beowulf has any direct bearing on this. Cheers Osli73 16:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, Swedish history prior to the 13th century is so poorly documented that the period before the 11th century is a place where historians tread carefully. The period before the 11th century is also an eldorado for cranks (Götaland theory). Personally, I trust non-Swedish scholarship more than native scholarship when Sweden's earliest history is concerned. The reason is that non-Swedish scholarship is less liable to be affected by any hangover angst from Swedish romantic nationalism and gothicismus and consequently more neutral and emotionally detached when dealing with pre-historic Swedish ethnicities.--Berig 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weder

In Old English, Geats are often called Wedera. I notice that Weders redirects here. But there's no mention of the word in the article. Do we know where it comes from or what it means exactly? Widsith 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source mentions wedera as part of a kenning in which the Geats are called the "people of the weathers". Maybe, it only refers to the Geats when they are referred to as a sailing people.--Berig 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Someone reqd merge Gaut+Geat. Any reason, please?! Or, since the request is given without reason, I may be tempted to remove the request templates. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goths / Gutar?

The article seems to draw a straight line between Goths and Gutar when there is no general agreement they were the same tribe. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is at least agreed that they carried the same ethnonym. Similar pairings of tribes appeared on both shores of the North Sea, such as the Jutes (Jutland and England) and Saxons (N. Germany and England), but I am not aware of any controversies considering their common origins.--Berig 11:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, their languages were different, anyway. Gutnish was North Germanic, while Gothic was East Germanic. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, during the Age of Migrations, they would begin to speak different branches. However, until c. 100 AD they both spoke Common Germanic.--Berig 16:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Göteborg

The article abounds with anachronism, but this one in the introduction may be the most egregious one. Göteborg was founded and named 1621 by Gustavus Adolphus, when Swedish gothicism was fashionable and when Sweden was an international power. The name was of course connected to the river Göta Älv, but was primarily meant to refer to the Goths that brought about the Fall of the Roman Empire. I do not think Beowulf played much of a role in the Swedish illusions of historical grandeur of the time: Gothenburg. Rudbeck c.s. wrote much more about the Thracian Getae of classical times than about Anglosaxons. Also, "Geatsburg" does not occur in print - I checked books.google and scholar.google for that. So I will start cleaning out the Göteborg stuff. /Pieter Kuiper 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you misunderstood the "Geatsburg". It wasn't intended as a name but a translation of Göteborg. Secondly, the name Göteborg wasn't made up by Gustavus II but by Karl IX, son of Gustav Vasa. Karl IX felt the need to build a strong fortification for the Götaland part of Sweden, therefore the city was named "Götarnas" or "Götalands" borg. This town, which was placed at the island "Hisingen", was destroyed 1611 by the danes, and later Gustavus II decided to build a new town with the same name at the mouth of Göta Älv. /Leos Friend 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also think that the mentioning of Gothenburg is relevant in the article.--Berig 07:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geatsburg is just the silliest thing. It does not occur in print. WP:HOAX /Pieter Kuiper 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Göteborg is today the most internationally well-known name derived from "göte". It's of course a relevant and interesting fact for this article. 83.248.192.58 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Götaland theory

Let me start at the top, even though it is out of place. This page is full of right wing imperialism. The trick is to equalize words like svear with people around mälaren. In reality, sources like Adam are such that it is possible to view Geats as an extra noble tribe of Swedes. As the article is read one gets the feeling that this tribe Geats is inferior. The simple fact is that there were medieval Geatish kings, and that for over 200 years there were no successful pretender from around mälaren. As it is, the article is presented with translations that are not supported by anything but for provincialism. Neither Saxo nor äldre västgötalagen actually proves that a Swedish centre were to be found around mälaren. I expect that contributors like berig will provide ample sources as to how we should determine what we actually mean when we speak of ethnicity. If this person berig cannot do that, I will add an Ockham's razor interpretation. For foreigners reading this stuff I can explain the question in hand with some thoughts about the king of England. We know now that there have been many kings of England, who could be described not exactually as English. This is the problem with this article; it tries to say that a king of Sweden had to be approved by a deciding force from around mälaren, but present day historians do not agree. This is an extremely difficult question for provincialists, but not for others. Foreigners will understand it easily when they think of the heptarchy. No one has said that London always has to be on top. In fact, present day medieval Swedish historians look towards foreign examples for to understand the creation of the ethnicity of Sweden.- 01:23, 28 October 2007 85.224.199.102

I recommend the article Götaland theory. Someone has added a subsection called the "socialist approach" which you might be interested in.--Berig 07:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Goths and Geats

I think the article should point out that the Geats are more than likely to be a Gothic tribe, just not the Goths of Europe. Gapts are also Gothic and the Ostrogoths and Visigoths were not actually called Goths by themselves. The Ostrogoths were called 'Greuthung'. The Visigoths and Ostrogoths are merely the Gothic tribes who migrated to Europe. King Óðinn The Aesir 15:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geat, the son of Tatwa

Geat also occurs in the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, as the son of Tatwa or Taetwa. In the List of kings of the Angles, he is the father of Godwulf. Geat is said the have been worshipped as a god. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ancestral people named Geat/Gautr are known to exist in legendary medieval accounts. He is known as Gautr in Old Norse sources, i.e. Odin.--Berig (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General identification?

I had removed the peacock terms claiming "general identification" of ethnonyms. Of course, Berig reverted this, stating in the edit summery the identification of the two forms as the same name is not debated by anyone. But even Berig does not know everything. Jane Acomb Leake proposed that the ethnonym i Beowulf might ultimately originate from the ancient Getae. And nowadays, the general attitude seems to be not to make simple one-to-one identifications. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a Leake argued in 1967 that the author of Beowulf was inspired by the Getae and that Swedes and legendary people like the Scyldings were brought in to give the account a semblance of reality. As far as I know, her analysis has been criticized as problematic[1] and her suggestion has failed to receive any following whatsoever, apart from a favourable mention in 1972[2]. I understand that you are excited about having discovered this piece of information, but unfortunately, it is much less notable than the Jutish hypothesis, and it is very far from the mainstream view we represent in WP articles.--Berig (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much need to worry about the historical Geatas (that is, the historical people known in Old Norse as the Gautar that lived in what is now southern Sweden) having been confused Getae -- but I think it is worth mentioning Leake, since although her thesis met with criticism, it has not entirely gone away. A quick search through the convenience of Google Books will show several books on Beowulf from the past decade that make reference to Leake, if only in passing (usually because the main thrust of the referencing work is on something other than Geatas and their possible historicity in Beowulf). And, ironically enough, the present article's admonition that "Geats should not be confused with the Thracian Getae" relates precisely that point of Leake's which has best stood the slings and arrows of peer criticism -- medieval authors indeed seem to have been guilty, from time to time, of just this confusion. There are of course genuinely things to criticize in Leake's book, but perhaps some of the lack of attention given to it is because investigating historical (or possibly historical) aspects in Beowulf has been relatively unfashionable since Tolkien's day, and the assumption that the Geatas of Beowulf must be historical Gautar (if we assume that the Jutish hypothesis has largely died a death these days) has more or less rested where it was in Chambers. Moreover, some of the criticism levelled at Leake seems to have missed the point, e.g. Malone's and Wrenn's concerns about the linguistic problems of identifying the Geatas with the Getae seem strange given that we need not be thinking of a linguistic evolution from the latter to the former, but a "scribal" misidentification in which one name was (unetymologically) equated with another -- for various reasons, though not least their general similarity. We can point to many similar kinds of "name swaps/substitutions" in other contexts, both ancient and modern, so we might be unwise to simply wave away the possibility out of hand -- besides which, the Liber Monstrorum itself refers to "Higlacus" as a king of the "Getae", so we cannot possibly accept any kind of identification between this Higlacus, Gregory's Chlochilaichus, and Beowulf's Hygelac without also accepting that Geatas and Getae could be equated! Of course, even so, none of this proves anything about the Geatas of Beowulf, but it does suggest we should perhaps not blindly accept the Beowulf poem's testimony regarding Geatas as reliably historical in any useful sense. Perhaps the article might note that the "Geats should not be confused with the Thracian Getae, but it seems that medieval authors were capable of doing so, and therefore Beowulf's information regarding Geatas should not be uncritically accepted as historical", or something to that effect? Any more detailed mention of Leake and the Getae and the Geatas of Beowulf might more sensibly be left for the article on Beowulf. But I think it is not quite the case that Leake's main points have received no following whatsoever, as even the recent re-edition of Klaeber's Beowulf (eds Fulk, Bjork, & Niles) mentions it in at least a cautiously neutral if not clearly favourable manner: "According to this view, which was first argued by Leake 1967 and has more recently been taken up by others, the Geatas [of Beowulf] are a non-historical people based on the Getae -- a legendary people whose own identity is impossible to pin down, since it was inextricably confused with that of the Goths (seeing that Jordanes and other historians refer to the Goths by the name Getae)." It is the turn of phrase "more recently been taken up by others" in reference to articles published in 1993 and 2003 from the introduction to a book published in 2008 that makes me think it may be too soon to assign Leake to the dustbin of Beowulf scholarship. Perhaps it is not wholly "mainstream", but it clearly remains an issue in current Beowulf scholarship. Perhaps it is only waiting for a renewed interest in the poem's sources and origins to be taken out, dusted off, and given a more modern re-examination .... Carlsefni (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't she also think that the Danes were the Dacians, and thus equally fictive? As far as I understand, it is basically the same theory as that of Lukman which is that traditions from the Balkans were "Germanized", i.e. Attila became Eadgils and Octar became Ohthere. The Dacians were translated as Danes and the Getae were identified with the Goths and translated as Gautar, i.e. the Geats. For me, it borders too much on WP:fringe and WP:undue.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Dania/Dacia thing is also brought up by Leake -- although, again, we can't get around the fact that there are examples of the term "Dacia" being used for what probably should be "Dania", etc. Thus, the question is not really whether there were historical Geatas/Gautar or Dene/Danir -- since, clearly, there were -- but whether medieval authors were capable of confusing or blending references to Geatas and Getae or Danes and Dacians in their work -- which, equally clearly, they were. This is really the core of the issue from Leake that remains valuable and worth considering. And it's interesting you bring up Lukman, since he discussed that idea independently, and as far as I can tell Leake was not aware of Lukman's work (though this is not surprising). Now, it is also true that Lukman's work itself is ... not without problems :) though equally it is not yet dead either. (Perhaps it's "getting better" and "feeling happy" ;)). But perfectly mainstream and serious Scandinavian scholars like Bjarni Guðnason are happily to write things like: "It may well be that Hr—ólfr kraki and King Aðils of Uppsala were originally kings of the Heruli and of the Huns in the fourth and fifth centuries ... as N. Lukman maintained" (in "The Icelandic Sources of Saxo Grammaticus", in Danish Medieval History & Saxo Grammaticus: A Symposium Held in Celebration of the 500th Aniversary of the University of Copenhagen, ed. by Niels Skyum-Nielsen, Niels Lund, and Karsten Friis-Jensen, 2 vols (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press: 1981), vol. 2: Saxo Grammaticus: A Medieval Author between Norse and Latin Culture, ed. by Karsten Friis-Jensen, p. 84). This is a far more casual and positive nod to Lukman than I would be willing to commit to, and in the great scheme of things, I am probably less ready to chuck Lukman's work uncritically in the bin than most. Nevertheless, I think Lukman may be treated like Leake: there are core elements to these studies that are worth considering (albeit amidst a welter of less well-founded ideas), and it is perhaps as much lack of interest in the deep sources and origins of these legends over much of the last century that leaves our default understanding more or less where it was a hundred years ago. In fact, I would wonder if Bjarni would be so ready to let that nod to Lukman stand if his article was really looking at the same topics Lukman had been looking at. Still, that said, as with Leake, I think Lukman's ideas (which are many, and of variable value :)) are not best discussed or raised in an article about historial Geatas/Gautar -- a group that undoutbedly existed, even if the details offered in a work like Beowulf that may appear to relate to them may actually be unhistorical ... or mix of historical detail and material from elsewhere ... or .... Well, I am not sure how we could really every know with certainty, there being no contemporary or near contemporary historical works connected with anything in Beowulf with the sole exception of Gregory's Chlochilaichus, who is already inextricably tangled in a confusion of Danes, Geatas, and Getae (if, mercifully, not Dacians!). In any case, both Leake's and Lukman's work have their problems, but some of the core ideas in either are sufficiently "non-insane" that neither is actually "dead" in the ongoing scholarship. However, taking up the issue of what's going on with these Geatas in Beowulf and why is, perhaps, better an issue for the Beowulf article itself (or a Scylding article, or somewhere, but perhaps not here amongst the historical Geatas/Gautar). For such reasons, I think it perhaps only worth noting here that Geatas were sometimes confused with or referred to as Getae (which is simply a fact, whether or not anyone should have done it :)), and that for such reasons, as well as the lack of corroborating sources, it is perhaps not advisable to accept details uncritically about the group identified in Beowulf as Geatas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsefni (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes forgot to sign! Sorry! Carlsefni (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I overwhelmingly agree with what you write above. You have written that you are reluctant to edit articles, but you are welcome to either change the wording yourself or suggest a wording that I'll add to the article.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random obscenity in the article

I was just skimming the article and noticed the following random inappropriateness under "Early History", under "History":

The earliest mention of the suck my dick may appear in Ptolemy (2nd century A.D.) [...] [emphasis added]

I don't have an account for editing, but obviously I suggest this be removed. Cheers. 99.245.216.89 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who conquered who

It says: "when the Geats were finally subdued by the Swedes" well it happend in the 17th century when the Swedish history was rewritten in Uppsala, Uppland. I haven´t heard of any conqurer who puts the aristocracy of the conqured land on their own throne for centuries. I belive Geats subdued or incorpareted the Sweones and kept a Geat on the throne. The Sweones then changed their administrative system to the same as the Geats(hundare to härad). Between the 12th and 14th century the importance of the eastern part of the kingdom increases, the Geat Birger Jarl is forced to found Stockholm. During the centuries the this shift continues and the center of the kingdom moves to Stockholm and the Geat aristocracy slowly loses alot of its influence. (Good luck)

Pronunciation

At the beginning of the entry the pronunciation is given for Old English, Old Norse etc. but not for current English: I believe it is pronounced roughly "geets" (like "greets") but someone competent could kindly add the exact phonetic form?93.36.213.29 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Explain why it makes no sense please. And why should your sentence be in the middle of a paragraph about something else? --Danog-76 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not about "something else". It's an explanation of the word "Gautigoths": it would originally have been intended to be read as what we today would write as "Gauti (Goths)", but what was originally two words were compounded into one.
Andejons (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, a mistake by me, sorry! - We should also have Svensk etymologisk ordbok[3][4] in there aswell, and also something about the heiti "Gaut" of Oðinn, don't you think? //--Danog-76 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems lika a good idea. AFAIK, Svensk etymologisk ordbok and SAOB are still considered the best general sources for the etymology of Swedish words.
Andejons (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where, please, do we find a common English word spelled "Geat" or "Geats" anywhere else (reliable) besides Wikipedia? As late as the mid 1980s not one respectable encyclopedia or dictionary recognized any such term. What happened and when? The "Etymology" section of this article does not address the name of the article at all. Isn't that usual and rather odd?. When did it begin to be used, by whom, etc etc etc? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your Original Research the term "Geats" is new? Why does that matter? All my life I've heard them called Geats, so the onus is on you to provide evidence that this is a post-1980s new term, not to challenge the article. Also, don't take your pet crusade all over Wikipedia. This is a place to share a wealth of the world's knowledge, not for one person to run around tagging articles "according to whom?" even though the very linked WP articles says the same info. JesseRafe (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is easier just to falsify his proposition that it was unheard of before 1980, simply by finding English uses before 1980. I found this spelling being used in current English as early as Kemble's literary translation of Beowulf (1837). The theory it was coined in the 1980s is thus invalid. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it neccessary to use personally offensive (and grossly exaggerated) wording like "pet crusade all over Wikipedia" and "one person to run around tagging articles"? Can we please concentrate on the main issue without getting belligerent? I have crossed out the 1980s part. Please answer the main question! Give a source for the origin of the word "Geat", please! Why is it spelled that way and where dit it come from in that spelling? Most Swedes I've talked to for tha last 50 years find it very strange. Can you please help? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to get unnecessarily unhinged over a term you don't understand? Your persistence (especially in the face of obvious counter-evidence and logical deductions on whom the burden of proof lies) is proof that this is a pet issue of yours, and saying that is in no way "belligerent". If you found being called that personally offensive, then you, sir, have lived a charmed life. For others' context, a variation of this same argument can be found at Talk:Lands_of_Sweden#.22Geats.22.3F. I don't have sources for the spelling of the word "the" immediately at hand, but if I wanted to change the spelling of the word "the" in its article, the onus would be on me to provide sources to disprove it, not to challenge everyone else to prove it is spelled "the". JesseRafe (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the main question! Give a source for the origin of the word "Geat", please! Why is it spelled that way and where dit it come from in that spelling? That's etymology. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: The generally accepted identification of Old English Gēatas as the same ethnonym as Swedish götar and Old Norse gautar is based on the observation that the ö monophthong of modern Swedish and the au diphthong of Old Norse correspond to the ēa diphthong of Old English. Geats is the modern English form derived from Geatas and is attested since at least 1837 as we have seen.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Til Eulenspiegel, though, unfortunately, it shouldn't've been necessary to say as it's in the article. JesseRafe (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do "we" have to do your research for you to prove your point? Why don't you do the research and prove that it's not "Geat". What is your claim, 1) That "Geat" means something else? 2) That "Geat" means nothing? 3) That "Geat" should be "Geatas"? All you've been doing is stamping your feet and making noise, not pursuing anything academic; your claim is just that everyone else is wrong, and daring them to prove themselves right without adding anything of substance yourself. JesseRafe (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article, so there's really no neeed to quote from it, but since you did:
  • "The generally accepted identification of Old English Gēatas as the same ethnonym as Swedish götar and Old Norse gautar is based on the observation that the ö monophthong of modern Swedish and the au diphthong of Old Norse correspond to the ēa diphthong of Old English." - generally accepted by whom? observation by whom? - correspond according to what sources?
  • "Geats is the modern English form derived from Geatas and is attested since at least 1837 as we have seen." - seen where? What is the source for that claim?
You are backing specific article text claims, so you need to source those claims. I have not added article text that disputes your claims. It is not up to me to find sources to substantiate article text that does not exist. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term used for the specific shift of proto-Germanic *au to Old English ea (which did not occur in German, Norse nor Gothic) is 'Diphthong height harmonization', if that helps point you in the right direction. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm asking however for a source to be added to the article as to the use of the specific word Geat in modern English and on WP in 2014, not in Old English. I'm also not questioning phonetic realities. Just asking for the origin of the modern English word and reliable sources in that regard. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Serge may have a point here. The entire first couple paragraphs of the "Jutish hypothesis" section lacks sources, despite saying things like "generally accepted" and "most scholars". I would feel much more comfortable with, one, sourcing, and two, sentence construction that attributes those conclusions to their sources. That is, if it's according to Birger, we say "According to Birger, most scholars ...". If the point is that most scholars follow Birger, then we need a source for that which we should attribute. And if that's not something we can find, then we should drop the "most scholars" and "generally accepted" entirely, and just talk about the Jutish hypothesis as a hypothesis. Otherwise we're approaching WP:NOR/WP:SYN territory. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it needs rewriting, and possibly to be merged with the section after. Curt Weibull's hypothesis that the Geatas where in fact Danes should also be mentioned.
A general problem is that there is of terminology: in Swedish, one can discuss the "Götar" and the "Geatas" (the former identified with the people in Nordic sources, the latter mainly the people in Beowulf), and when you don't have them separate from the start, you have to make a better effort of clarity.
Quoting Birger Nerman is probably not the best of ideas. It might be necessary if one wants to try to refute Fahlbäck in detail, but AFAIK, the whole question is pretty much dead (and Nerman's own theories about the time are seen as so wild that they can be used as pejorative comparisons). Modern Swedish historians do not bother much with pondering how names in sources written hundreds of years after the events relate to each other. If the Geatas are identified with the Götar, it is always with the knowledge that Beowulf is clearly a fantastic story, about as reliable as those about King Arthur.
Andejons (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I see that you do not mention "Geats" (spelled like that) as modern English word. I've also written to your talk page and asked you about a source yo added to Götaland, but where (in the source) I do not find that word. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the source you've now added to this article, and to avoid misunderstanding, I think that sentence should be reworded like this (my bold is the addidion): The modern English form Geat (Old English Geatas, from the Proto-Germanic *Gautaz, plural *Gautōz), though not mentioned as Geat in any known etymological sources, is related[3], although not identical, to the etymology of the name tribal Goth. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the part "not mentioned as Geat in any known etymological sources" doesn't add anything of interest to the article, and is even false. Look at Wiktionary's entry for Geat for example, which certainly does mention it. Actually, why haven't you asked at Wiktionary about this? The editors there have much more experience with tracking down etymologies and historical word usage. CodeCat (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiktionary entry is merely based on this article. That entry was created in April 2007, and is almost a direct copy of the first sentence of this article from the same period. You yourself wrote the etymology portion of that entry in 2011, copying directly from this article. Given the extensive backlog in Wiktionary's RFV process, I doubt we're going to see any significant action from there anyway. Besides, from my understanding, we have at least two participants in this discussion with significant coursework in linguistics. Do we really need much more? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been overlooked that I wrote as a prerequisite "With the source you've now added to this article..." and proposed that bolded addition because the source is now confusing the issue and makes it look like there is a source that would show us the origin of Geats in standard English.
There is none at Wiktionary either? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that you can't say that there aren't any known etymological sources that say where "Geat" came from. Wiktionary is such an etymological source. It may not be a source that's reliable enough for Wikipedia, but that's not a consideration that is relevant for writing about those sources within Wikipedia articles. You can't write "there are no sources" in an article when Wiktionary is a possible source in the wide sense, so you need to qualify that. At the same time it wouldn't do to write "not mentioned as Geat in any etymological sources that Wikipedia considers reliable". CodeCat (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's hard as hell to source a negative statement anyway. The best solution would be to find something that affirmatively indicates the etymology is not related. Next best would be some clear indication in the literature that it's a recent invention, though that would be more for our benefit and would be best used for a guide as to how to write things we do source. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now attempted to fine-tune the source issue by adding what many others seem to feel is a fact, to that sentence, and asking for a source for that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly which part of the etymology is being questioned here, but Merriam-Webster does have an entry for "Geat", and note that it comes from Old English "Gēat" [5]. Does this help?
Andejons (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It probably won't. The brand of revisionism practised in 2014 doesn't acknowledge contradictory sources, and when blocks start being passed out to those who challenge the revisionists (who actually dont need stinkin' sources), it's time for me to withdraw from this debate, sit back and watch the comedy unfold with some popcorn! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may not need sources, but Wikipedia does. I'm only here to get to the bottom of the dispute and clarify what sourcing is needed and where. There's no purpose in making things personal. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hilarious part is seeing where you've spent so much time and spilled so much ink filing Serge's talkpage with things like "If the term "geatland" doesn't appear in the literature, it might be appropriate to remove it (essentially per WP:NFT/WP:NEO)." When it should take a WP:COMPETENT editor all of about five seconds to answer whether the term Geatland has appeared in literature or not. This is neo-revisionism and original research being coddled (with punitive blocks even) , since we are still waiting on any published scholarly objection (ie not from a wikipedian) to the standard English terms "Geat" or "Geatland". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it takes all of five seconds for someone of your level of competence to find sources, then please do so and end this dispute. Focus on the content, not the contributor. That's what I'm doing and have been doing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe somebody has already mentioned the Oxford English Dictionary, I'm positive they can fill you in on the complete history of the word and are a reliable source (for those of you who know what that is)... The problem is, nothing anyone has mentioned so far seems to have been satisfactory, meanwhile what is his source? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked OED. The words Geat and Geats are not in there except as odd variants of "gate", "gait" and "jet". "Gēatas" doesn't seem to be mentioned either, though "Geátas" is mentioned in the etymology of "Jute". There's the link to Mirriam-Webster online above, which is a start though. I'm interested to see whether there's an opposition to it. At any rate, my understanding is that the opposition from Serge comes from a suspicion that the term "geats" is a recent coinage. I'm not sure if that's even relevant though; my gut is that if that's the term used in academia, it's the term we should be using. If there's some dispute as to whether it's an appropriate term in the academic literature, then we can (and likely will want to) comment on that dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple of instances below. I'm also seeing that the primary challenger to Geatland is fiction writer Tolkien, who preferred to translate Geatland into modern English as "Gothland". Everyone else apparently translates it as Geatland. Are we dealing with a Tolkien viewpoint perhaps? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also seen them called "Geats or Gotar" in academic discussions, acknowledging Gotar, the modern Swedish term (though it is in fact no closer to what they would have called themselves (Gautas) than the English term is, but that's neither here nor there) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful to distinguish "Götar" from "Gotar" in Swedish. The former is "Geat"/"Götalander", from Old Norse "Gautar", while the latter is "Goth"/"Gotlander", from Old Norse "Gotar". CodeCat (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Very cool, thanks for doing the legwork on this. Seems to me that if someone prominent as Tolkien (as much as it pains me to acknowledge it) disputed the term, there might be enough out there to at least comment on the dispute. But if academics freely use Geatland without any indicia of reservation on their part, such as a footnote explaining why they use the term as they do, I think that such dispute should be treated as a fringe theory. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only allusion to that "dispute" is apparently the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia which notes on p. 61: "The published excerpt of this [Tolkien's] verse translation [of Beowulf] is most notable for... his use of 'Gothland' to translate Old English 'Geatland', thus indicating that Tolkien at least entertained the idea of equivalence between the Geats and Goths." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly without specializing in Beowulf or other ancient texts, I did begin reading regular books and articles about Swedish history in modern English at age 11, which was more than 55 years ago, and since then I have read just about everything that exists, by Swedes writing in variously confusing levels of Swenglish and (the very minimal amount that exists) by British and American writers, including academics. Honestly, I have never once seen the term Geatland for the southern third of Sweden, nor East Geatland or West Geatland for two of the provinces in that third. I have seen Gothenland and Gothland (for Götaland as well as Gotland) but never once Geatland. I'm not trying to stir up animosity or cause a problem here, and I do not understand why I'm called a revisionist. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the historical people called "Geats". The very first sentence in the article says so. It's not at all about modern Götaland, so I don't understand why your comment is relevant. CodeCat (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this dispute has touched this and some related articles, we're having a centralized discussion here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondences

Could anyone tell me the source of the thesis with the correspondences in Old Norse (gautar) - Swedish (götar) - Old English (brauð - bröd - brēad ...). Who wrote about it? Kind regards--88.72.0.127 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He also entangles his folk-tales and legends in a web of other events, mainly set in the Baltic Kingdoms of Denmark, Geatland and Sweden; and at least one of these events (the raid against the Franks by Beowulf's lord Hygelac, king of the Geats) can be shown actually to have occurred." - The Oxford Illustrated History of English Literature, 2001 p. 8-9. Note, nothing here like "But true historians know Geatland wasn't a real country and was only a mythological apparition of Gotaland, part of Sweden."
  • "Beowulf himself is not an Anglo-Saxon hero, his people are the Geats of Geatland, now southern Sweden." - The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature, 5 volumes, 2006, p. 175. No discussion here either of how scholars really know that Geatland is a mythological apparition or misnomer of any kind. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology (again)

@Alphathon: wanted a clarification of the etymology. I'll try my best, but I'm not sure if I'm up for a proper rewrite of the text: The basic meaning of both "geat" or "goth" is "to pour". The generally accepted interpretation of this is that it means "those who pour their seed", i.e. "the men". Another interpretation, now seen as unlikely, is that it has something to do with rivers pouring forth into a sea.

Andejons (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for that. The issue I had with the wording was that there seemed to be no link between "pour" and "men", which was still the case in your modified version. Perhaps this is not the case for a Swede, but at least as a native English speaker it cannot be inferred from "to pour" that that is what is being referred to. I've had another look at it to see if I can make it clearer. By the way, in this case is it literal seeds they would have been pouring or is it referring to semen (therefore implying something like "they who propagate the tribe")? Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to rewrite the sentences, but found no way to make it clear and not awkward. "Seed" certainly means "semen" (the word "Ox" seems to have a similar etymology BTW, with a different root).
Andejons (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, what source are you using for the semen part? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Svenska Akademiens Ordbok. Andejons (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a parenthetical anomaly

The Geats (/ˈɡiːts/, /ˈɡeɪəts/, or /ˈjæts/) (Old English: gēatas [ˈjæɑ̯tɑs]; Old Norse: gautar [ˈɡɑu̯tɑr]; Swedish: götar [ˈjøːtar]), and sometimes Goths) were a North Germanic tribe ...

There are two ')'s and three '('s. What exactly belongs on the other side of and in the phrase "and sometimes Goths"? Looks like someone made a clumsy deletion. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geats. 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) 04:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text

I don't approve of removal of text, and it looks like an attempt to tidy up the history section here and make the history of Sweden at the time look simpler and tidier than it was. Moreover, I disapprove of the removal of Götaland theory. It is a highly influential movement and it renders a controversial topic even more toxic. I guess most people in Sweden who are interested in medieval history have met a lot of people who actually believe that the Götaland theory is not fringe.--Berig (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an interesting influence of the Götaland theory together with the old Gothicismus movement, is a quite common perception that Swedes and Geats entered a union and came up with the idea of a new country named "Sweden" (in the 13th century?), which implies that the old form Svearike is a completely different name from the later form Sverige. For a linguist this may seem rather absurd, considering how many different forms of the name Svearike/Sverige that existed, and the fact that the name is attested from at least around the year 1000, and may predate it by almost three centuries (Beowulf). Naturally the article has to accept that for reasons of NPOV, but we don't have to remove information from the article or make things look much simpler than they are.--Berig (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some may feel that the discontinuity view is paramount here, i.e. that the late medieval Swedish kingdom, must be separated and isolated conceptually from the early medieval Swedish kingdom. I understand that because they were two very different entities. In the early middle ages, it was a loosely organized pagan Germanic kingdom, while in the late middle ages, it was a centralized Christian kingdom. Enormous changes took place and it makes sense to separate the concepts. In Sweden this is often done by calling the early kingdom Svitjod and the late kingdom Sverige. However, this is English WP and Svitjod is usually translated as Sweden.--Berig (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, if this article is ever going to become a good and stable article, it will not be by removing things. It will be by presenting the topic in all its messiness and toxicity.--Berig (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Götaland theory ("Västgötaskolan"), as presented in this article following Mats G Larsson, is a fringe movement with some fame but little scientific credibility, similar to the identification of Geatas with the Gutes (which might in fact be more prominent today, due to a recent book by sv:Bo Gräslund). I believe it is in perfect agreement with WP:Fringe to start the article with the different mainstream ideas, instead of giving local patriots with untenable ideas about mints by the Hornborga lake a prominence they don't deserve. Compare with the treatment of Intelligent Design in Evolution.
And as for removal of texts, perhaps you could explain why you did not think Peter Sawyer a relevant reference?
Andejons (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Sawyer is indeed a relevant reference, and I appear to have missed your addition of him in the text when I reverted your edit.--Berig (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geats