Talk:Angeln

Nomenclature

One or two editors seem to have different ideas about how different nations name the area. If there is any disagreement with the current version, please discuss this here (with source references) before changing again. Thanks! Caravaca 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

England != Narrow Land

The text currently states that England means Narrow land. This is wrong. It makes sense linguistically, but isn't actually what that name refers to; as stated elsewhere in the text, England was named for the Angles who established kingdoms there, so the word is actually a contraction of Angleland, land of the Angles. This is evident from England's history; more evidence is the Dutch name for England, Engeland, not England, which it would be if it meant "narrow land". There is nothing narrow about England, anyway. Rp (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Need another map to explain the first map

I looked at the map and don't recognize there Anglia is in Germany. Can someone please make a larger map to locate Anglia within Germany? I also searched for Anglia, Germany, in Google Maps and couldn't find it. The article says Anglia is a small peninsula on the Jutland peninsula. I thought Jutland was in Denmark. What gives? DBlomgren (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Angeln is in the part of Jutland that is German today: [1]. I'm not sure whether Jutland's southern border is widely agreed on. Rp (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not "Angeln"?

What is the precedence for calling this region "Anglia" in Modern English rather than "Angeln"? All English Language maps and tourist guides that I've found with a preliminary web-search refer to the region as "Angeln", so this would seem to be the commonly-used English name. Why exactly have Wikipedia editors decided to call this region "Anglia", other than: "Oh, 'East Anglia' has the same etymological root so let's call this place Anglia too"? I think the title should be "Angeln", with "Anglia" given as an alternative in the introductory text, if there is some usage of the latter. Farry (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Schleswig-Holstein.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy moved per WP:TITLECHANGES. Anyone may start an RM in the opposite direction. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Anglia (peninsula) → Angeln – I'm not sure what the basis is for Latinizing the name of the peninsula to Anglia (a change that was introduced via an undiscussed move in 2018). The region is referred to as Angeln in the Oxford World Encyclopedia, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the Baedeker Guide to Northern Germany. Even Latin sources such as Bede's Ecclesiastical History use Angulus rather than Anglia. Zacwill (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletions on 15 June 2024

On 15 June 2024, user @Zacwill: deleted almost half of the article. Although minimal explanations have been given, those are by far not sufficient. It seems that the user wants to keep the article as small and short as possible. The user says, the infos are too detailed, however he/she doesn't provide a Wikipedia regulation stating how long articles are allowed to be. One could argue that the introduction is too long compared to the body of the article, however, the user deleted both parts of the article, the introduction and the body. It may be that the user finds the article too long, this, however, seems to be a subjective feeling and needs to be discussed, because i have the feeling that the article needs further expansion. Thank you. Ephesos21 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

At first, i'm gonna reinstate the settlement infobox which is regularly used for articles dealing with regions, see for example Kashubia. Therefore i'm asking now: are there any good arguments against the settlement infobox? Ephesos21 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

How about the fact that none of the figures contained in it are sourced? Zacwill (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If we deleted all which is not sourced, there wouldn't be left anything but a few sentences. Sorry to say this, but it seems to be a pretext just to be able to delete all you don't want to see here. Because many unsourced things, you did not delete, while deleting all you didn't like. Is there now anything that the settlement infobox said, that you wish to be sourced in order to let it appear here? Or do you have any other arguments against the insertion of the infobox? Ephesos21 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The existence of unsourced material in the article does not justify the addition of more unsourced material. Zacwill (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's against Wikipedia's rules to simply delete everything without a source. If I were to delete everything that isn't substantiated, nothing would remain of the article. For content that isn't blatantly a lie, it's probably more common to leave the content in the article and look for sources for it, rather than simply deleting everything. I want to reinstate the infobox now. Which parts of the infobox do need a source according to you? Ephesos21 (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zacwill: What about the infobox now? Do you have any other arguments against including it? The only two figures that are only estimates are the area and the population. I estimated those based on data from the Schleswig-Flensburg district. We could put a "c." in front of the numbers, and at some point we could add up the residents of all the municipalities in Angeln individually. So, do you still have anything against the infobox? Ephesos21 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I estimated those based on data from the Schleswig-Flensburg district. This is called original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Zacwill (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it okay with you if we add the infobox again without these two pieces of information (pop. and area)? Ephesos21 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it adds anything to the article. Zacwill (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What it adds: first visual impressions, coat of arms at first glance, clear geographical classification at first glance, list of the largest municipalities on the peninsula, demonym, time zone, reachability, (normally also population and area data). If those infoboxes wouldn't add anything to articles, they wouldn't have been invented. Ephesos21 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zacwill:. Are you still opposing the infobox? The next thing i'd like to add, is the cities section, which you also deleted. I think, it adds value to the article, to have a brief summary of each town in Angeln here, and i don't see the added value of the section having been deleted. Ephesos21 (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I enhanced the article again now. Angeln is the cradle of the Anglo-Saxon world and therefore, it is not justifiable to keep the article as short and unimportant as possible. Additonally, Angeln is coincidentally the seat of the current reigning royal house of the United Kingdom, and therefore represents a cradle in a double sense. The etymology section has also been deleted in large parts, and is now much too short. To understand the etymology of the word "English", one has to deal with the etymology of Angeln. Ephesos21 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zacwill:. I'd like to change this part of the geography section:

The northernmost part of Angeln is the Holnis peninsula, which projects into the Flensburg Firth. The western part of the peninsula is known as Luusangeln ("light Angeln") because of its relatively light and sandy soil. This region represents a transition zone between the Angeln Uplands to the east and the Schleswig Geest to the west. The Schleswig Geest in turn merges into the tidal marshes of North Frisia.

to:

The eastern part of the peninsula is called the Anglian Uplands, while the western part is called Luusangeln (de) (Dan. Lusangel). This designation comes from the Anglian Danish word for "bright", lus (Standard Danish lys), and indicates the predominantly light colour of the widespread sand-rich podzols there. Luusangeln constitutes a transition zone from the Anglian Uplands in the east, to the Schleswig Geest west of Angeln, and its appearance resembles a landscape park. The Schleswig Geest in turn merges into the tidal marshes of North Frisia. The northernmost part of Angeln is formed by the Holnis Peninsula (Dan. Holnæs) (de), that projects into the Flensburg Firth and separates the inner firth (Innenförde) from the outer firth (Außenförde).

Since this section was also part of the things you deleted, i'd like to discuss with you, which parts of the new version you have something against, and why the old version is better in your opinion. The first thing is, that the descripition of Angeln's geography in this case should start with the east/west subdivision, and not with the Holnis peninsula. It's just more logical in my opinion. Ephesos21 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ephesos21:, I saw the discussion on the help desk, have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? @Zacwill: has been objecting to adding unsourced information to the article and this is adding more unsourced information to the article, so they are unlikely to support it. TSventon (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Basically the whole article is unsourced and they also added unsourced claims. So why should they be allowed to do it. In the intro for example they replaced text which was there since decades with a new, also unsourced self-written text. Ephesos21 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: or the traffic section for example. My version is a detailed, good unsourced version, and theirs is a very short, bad unsourced version. So which one is better now? If i ask for the whole traffic section to be deleted now because it is not sourced, would it have to be done? In my opinion, it is better to leave unsourced things in the article and tag them so that sources can be added over time. Simply deleting everything that is not sourced seems to be destructive. Ephesos21 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ephesos21:, the lead is normally a summary of the rest of the article and the citations are normally in the body of the article, see WP:LEAD. Per WP:Burden removing unsourced text and tagging it are both acceptable. I prefer tagging existing content to removing it. Removing new unreferenced text hopefully encourages the other editor to add references in future.

By the way have you ever added a reference in your 36 edits to article space? If not that is something you should change. TSventon (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: The problem is that @Zacwill: treats my additions as if it were all a big vandalism. There are things where it is plausible to remove them because they just seem false, or seem to be written with bad intentions. However, whoever has ever seen my article versions, can see that they have been written with the best intentions and just deleting them is just destruction of work someone else has done. So now that you have said that both is possible, tagging or deleting, am i just unlucky now that Zacwill has chosen to delete it instead of taggig it, and this has to be accepted, or is there any possibility to restore it all, and instead tagging it. What i'd also still like to know is the inclusion of the infobox. Zacwill also doesn't want an infobox to appear here and said that simply adding up the populations of all municipalities in Angeln to get a population number for the whole region is original research. But when i restored the infobox again, without the population figure, they again deleted it. However, there is nothing else in the infobox that would have to be sourced. Infoboxes are used for regions, as can be seen at Kashubia. Ephesos21 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I probably wasn't clear yesterday, if unsourced text has been in the article for a while, I would support tagging it, if it has been added recently I would support removing it and asking the author to find some sources. Otherwise the author will probably go on adding unsourced content. Reverting an edit doesn't mean the edit is vandalism and the edit still exists in the edit history.

As for infoboxes, some people like them and some don't and you should get consensus to add it as your addition was reverted. In this case I am neutral as with no official boundaries there is not much to put in it. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Ah ok but still some problems remain. Some of the unsourced content that i added, he deleted, and some of it, he left standing. This gives the following impression: while some of the things i wrote are good enough in his opinion to remain without being sourced, some other things bothered him, and he deleted them. This makes me feel as if he did not check the article in regards of compliance with the rules, but rather for what he liked and what he didn't like. To be consistent, he would have had to delete all my changes. Also the parts of the lead which he changed, and that were there since decades, are not, contrary to what you say, sourced later in the body of the article. Approximately 50 % of the article as it is now, were added by me. And as you can see, he is not interested in discussing with me about the infobox or anything else. So how am i supposed to ever add the infobox again that way? Can someone who avoids discussing an article continue to determine what that article looks like? And in general, i still feel that it is destructive to delete everything that is not sourced. Ephesos21 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ephesos21:, Zacwill has been reverting your additions back to the 21:18, 4 March 2025 version. That doesn't mean that your additions in January 2024 were any better or worse, it probably means that Zacwill didn't see them at the time.

I said that Zacwill's rewrite of the lead did not add new unsourced information to the article, not that all the information in the lead was sourced.

As to adding an infobox, an answer at the Helpdesk said you could look at WP:Dispute resolution. (I don't recommend requesting other editors' involvement if your side of the dispute is that you don't want to add references.)

Generally, the problem with your edits as a whole is that you are not adding references to reliable sources. The solution is easy, start adding references. Also you could read the short introduction here. TSventon (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)