Talk:Nibelung

Hel?

I'm just trying to dab Hel, but where it says Hel in this article, it is refering to a place and not a goddess. Hel is the goddess of the underworlds, Helheim and Niflheim, in Norse mythology, so could the person who wrote the intro be refering to the underworlds ruled by Hel? BlankVerse 15:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Language correction - English does inflect nouns in the genitive, which was the point of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallmanl (talk • contribs) 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nibelung. 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/20101226035458/http://nibelungs.net/ to http://www.nibelungs.net/

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) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think this page needs to be completely rewritten. I might give it a go once I finish dealing with Gudrun.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no consensus or pressing reason to move the page. According to the policies of the English Wikipedia it is acceptable to write about the Nibelungen legend in an article titled Nibelung. The topic here is everything related to Nibelung, including all aspects of the Nibelungen legend such as the historical origins of the saga, theories of its development, etc. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Nibelung → Nibelungen legend – The current name is more suited for a dictionary entry. With an article on the Nibelungen legend, it would be possible to discuss issues such as the historical origins of the saga, theories of its development, etc, all in one convenient place. Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I should note: the current interwiki link to German wikipedia is to de:Nibelungensage, the equivalent of my proposed name here.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nomination appears to be pure personal preference, contrary to policy, and if a !vote would be discarded on those grounds. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should elaborate: my "personal preference" is that this word be defined under the proper heading. At the moment "Nibelung" is little more than a dictionary entry with some information on where it appears. The German wiki strikes me as a much better model, wherein the word can be defined in the larger context of the Nibelungen legend. I do not believe that a vote in favor should be discarded, as I don't believe this is a purely personal preference based move. If, however, there is no support for a move (as it appears at the moment), then there is no support for a move. The page, as it stands, cannot stay this way though, that much is clear.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The page, as it stands, cannot stay this way though, that much is clear. Agree. It's a mess, as you suggested in #Rewrite above. But disagree with your initial nominator's comment The current name is more suited for a dictionary entry as it makes exactly the same mistake as has led to this mess. The current name perfectly identifies a topic on which we should have an article, but that topic is the things called Nibelung, not the term Nibelung. And that's the basic problem here. (German Wikipedia may handle things differently, I don't know.) Andrewa (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• I am closing this as not moved. I welcome a rewrite. If after the rewrite it appears that Nibelungen legend would be a better title this can be revisited. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further discussion

Let me start again.

Our page Nibelungenlied starts out "The Nibelungenlied (Middle High German: Der Nibelunge liet or Der Nibelunge nôt), translated as The Song of the Nibelungs, is"... [1]

Now that's not sourced inline, and fixing that other article lead would be good (that's part of this mess), and Wikipedia is not itself a reliable secondary source. But let us take it at face value, and assume that it's not a load of rubbish, and that means that there are reliable English sources that do translate it like this. SO what's a Nibelung in these sources? What does Nibelung mean in English?

Because that's what this article lead should say (and source). And it doesn't. And that's the key to this mess. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Our articles are not generally about terms (and that again is the basic mistake being made here). But our article leads do need to clearly identify the topic.

And again assuming that the other article lead is accurate, Nibelung appears to be an encyclopedic topic. And assuming that this other article is not currently also a load of rubbish, Nibelungs appear in many other notable writings apart from Nibelungenlied. So, what are they? That's what we need this article to tell both us and our readers. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• At face value there are two possible topics that can be connected to this title. A Nibelung is either:

1. (in Germanic mythology) a member of a Scandinavian race of dwarfs, owners of a hoard of gold and magic treasures, who were ruled by Nibelung, king of Nibelheim (land of mist).
2. (in the Nibelungenlied) a supporter of Siegfried, or one of the Burgundians who stole the hoard from him.

The Nibelungenlied is an easy topic to understand. Nibelungs connected to that are well studied and something can be written there. The other usage is mythological, thus not attributed to any main literary work, but instead spread throughout many works and oral tradition. This is less easily defined and attempts to do so are why the current article is so fragmented.

Nibelung is a personal name. To translate it to English would be like trying to translate Jones to Middle High German. That is there is no point, all that can be derived is already stated, Nibelheim is the land of mist. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As Frayae states, Nibelung is a proper name. In addition, in the Nibelungenlied, the word Nibelung is used in contradictory ways. In the first half of the epic it refers to: 1) a king Nibelung 2) that king's son Nibelung 3) a country inhabited by "Nibelungen" (der Nibelunge lant) and ruled by Nibelung (2) and his brother Schiblung. In the second half of the epic, it refers primarily to the Burgundians (i.e. Gunther, Hagen, and co.). In some other German sources, it is the name of a dwarf. In all of these cases, its connected to the "hoard of the Nibelung", the treasure for which Siegfried is killed and which contributes to the death of the Burgundians. In the Norse sources, the cognate Niflung primarily means the Burgundians/Gjukings (Gibichungs). A bit of this is already covered in the theories of etymology and origin I've already added here.

The translation "The Song of the Nibelungs" doesn't appear in the list of translations on the Nibelungenlied article, strangely (an oversight?), but can be found here, here, and here. If it needs an inline citation it can easily be provided, if you think it should. The alternative translation "The Lay of the Nibelungs" is well attested there as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I should add: the meaning of the word Nibelung as a race of dwarfs living in Nibelheim is an invention of Richard Wagner based on various older scholarly theories about the meaning of the word. It isn't actually attested in this meaning in any medieval work.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We seem to have several related but distinct meanings of Nibelung:

• A personal name, particularly applied to dwarfs in German legend
• Several characters in Nibelungenlied and/or their supporters
• A race of dwarfs in the works of Richard Wagner (can we be more specific?)

Are there others? Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's it. My idea at the moment is to have the balk of the article just discussing the Gibichungs/Gjukings, which is sort of the "primary" meaning of the term. Then a bit on the other characters with the name in German legend. I'm afraid I don't know too much about reliable sources on Wagner, but I might be able to find something.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably something about the "hoard of the Nibelungs" in its Norse and German variants ought to be said too...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

*Nivialah

Gillespie is wrong if he really wrote it is Celtic, because it is Germanic. He is not a specialist of the Celtic languages. There is no *alah in the Celtic languages. In all the sources it is said it is Germanic. Check it here for instance https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/alhs. *Nivi-alah is a very well studied compound in Northern French toponymy, only in the very north of France where there were Germanic settlements, and nowhere else, that gave birth for instance to the place-names such as Neaufles, Neauphle, Niafles, etc. In addition the Nibelungen have nothing to do with the Celts. Nortmannus (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You need RS to contest another RS, which Wiktionary is not. The question is not whether the Nibelungen have anything to do with the Celts, but whether the name Nivelles does. According to Gillespie there is a Celtic theory as well as a Germanic one.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nortmannus, I believe that you are right and that this is a Germanic (Frankish) toponym. However, we don't write about the Truth here. We only add information per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes and it is exactly the same. Alah is not a Celtic root at all. It is althochdeutsch, altsächsisch and the Gothic form is ahls. Gillespie is completely wrong. There is no Celtic theory about this compound, it is just the wrong statement of a single man. Question : is he notorious in linguistics ? What did he publish ?. Yes Berig, we don’t write about the truth, but giving a single source is about the same as giving your own opinion and widespreading a personnal theory.Nortmannus (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to have gotten the bit about needing wp:RS... You can tell us your personal opinion all day long but you can't edit the article based on it. According to Gillespie: H. Grégoire, 'La patrie des Nibelungen', Byzantion ix (1934), 34 ff., suggests a Celtic origin for the name, *Nivialah, 'new temple'. If you're unhappy with that, you'll have to take it up with him. Gillespie also includes the proposed Germanic etymology *Niuwi-alha "new sanctuary" cited to "Kaufmann, 268 f. It's clear that Gillespie did not think of these two etymologies as being the same, which appears to be what you are arguing. Unless you can show that Gregoire did not propose a Celtic etymology *Nivialah, you can't remove it just because you disapprove.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Grégoire’s book as a source for Celtic linguistics, what a joke ! Selecting such a source as a valid one to propose a Celtic etymology and giving your personal opinion is nearly the same. This single choice is a personal opinion, because it is not counter-balanced by any specialized source about this precise subject of the Celtic languages, such as Rhuys, Pokorny, Lambert, etc. Nortmannus (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Um, Grégoire wrote an article. Since you don’t seem to have been able to read the citation I’m not sure why you’re so dismissive.—Ermenrich (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I know he does not belong to the specialists of Celtic. I never read his name in any bibliography of any book having to do with the Celtic languages and it is enough for me. In which way can he be compared to Julius Pokorny, Peter Schrijver, John Rhys, Pierre-Yves Lambert, Georges Dottin, etc. ? Nortmannus (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The only way, you can go ahead here is to show that the Celtic derivation is a minority one, per WP:DUE.--Berig (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Grégoire is on JSTOR - he refers to scholars making a Celtic derivation: Joseph Mansion Oud-Gentsche Naamkunde (1924), derives it from Celtic, as does Kurth Frontière linguistique I 468. However, Gillespie appears to have read the page incorrectly (perhaps his French was bad), because Grégoire says that *Nivialah is "vieux germanique" and does not provide a proposed form for the Celtic toponym. So I will amend the page accordingly.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant!--Berig (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Dronke reference notes (or whatever they are called) do not work.

Anyone? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:D4E3:C1DF:500C:A440 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)