![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a huge matter, as it is a problematic in a majority of history-related articles on Wikipedia, and other encyclopedia as well: Why can't historiographical contextualisation be the norm, not the exception? Out of habits and conventions of language I realize from my own experience that it is somewhat challenging to hault our truth-tentative, patronizing ways of performing knowledge, whether be in writing, or in speaking. I believe there is a broad consensus that this should be the aim. In this context of a hypothetical Germanic Parent Language I find it slightly disturbing that the awareness of this notion of a lingual and folkloristic, ethnic, even genetic unity of something "German" is a modern construct. The concept 'Germania' as denoting a vast region, primarily Trans-Alpine and beyond the Rhine; although not exclusively denoting the territories of unconquered peoples in the North. Although Tacitus' text Germania (published 98 AD) in and by itself both portrays the various peoples inhabiting what is called Germania, including Scandinavia, Pommerania and Balticum, as diverse, multiethnic, and arguably multilingual, and at the same time that these peoples are sharing a common anchestry, he never speak of them as Germans, or with any other common denominator.. Yet, he does write about the legendary Mannus and his three sons as the Roman folk-etymology of tribus required. It seems quite plausible that the various peoples indeed were sharing what is called a lingua franca, had common customs of religion and crafts, stories, stars and medical practices, ways of ruling, co-federating and economy, yet this work of Tacitus has been perceived, and used instrumentally in order to "prove" the foundation for a certain fatherland and an essentialistic, national-romantic völk-ideology. Let me quote from the Secretary of the Phi Beta Kappa Society John Churchill's critical, but applauding introduction to the book "A Most Dangerous Book" by Christopher B. Krebs, that won Phi Beta Kappa’s Ralph Waldo Emerson Award for 2012:
"Not until the last line of the epilogue does the author of this chronicle of the discovery and uses of Germania acknowledge that “the Roman historian Tacitus did not write a most dangerous book; his readers made it so.” Indeed, the delicate irony of this story resides in the contrast between the fragility of the text itself, almost lost to worms and rot in a remote transalpine monastic library, and the terrible energy to which it contributed as a formative text in the creation of a self-understanding for a “deutsches Volk,” veering disastrously into the criminal horrors of National Socialism. In Tacitus’s text, the Nazis found what Barbara Tuchman called, in another context, “a distant mirror,” validating notions of the racial purity of blond athletes and warriors, simplicity of life, moral rectitude, and original possession of—indeed, identity with—a Fatherland." [1]
Among the Germanic peoples mentioned by Tacitus we find the Fenni and the Aesti, who are part of the Finno-Ugric language-cluster. No where in his work does Tacitus give a common endonym for all the peoples of Germania (or tell me where and what it is?). He does mention the Suebias an apparantly contemporary confederation of peoples in Germania, and there are other communions, or commonwealths of this vast territory referred to as Germania by the Romans, mentioned by various historians of antiquity up to the earliest middle age.. Langobardos (possibly identical with the Semnones, but possibly chosen among the various peoples (nations as denoting groups of peoples with its members born more or less in the same places yet without regard of summer-/winter-residence or migratory patterns of mentioned nation. The Latin term 'nation' links to 'natum' signifying 'place/time of birth'. In chapter 40 does Cornelius Tacitus list the 7 peoples, 8, if the Langobardos is a separate nation, which I find unlikely according to my interpratation of these chapters in Latin: Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti non per obsequium sed proeliis et periclitando tuti sunt. Reudigni deinde et Aviones et Anglii et Varini et Eudoses et Suarines et Nuitones fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur. nec quicquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Nerthum, id est Terram matrem, colunt eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis arbitrantur. est in insula Oceani castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum;..." These peoples (of the island(s) beyond the great ocean (possibly Scandinavia) are according to this text sharing in a cult, "in commune Nerthum, id est Terram matrem" which is Mother Earth.. The introduction of this passage refers to them, as I interpret them as the Sueborum, and that the most distinguished ones among them are the Semnonum. It is probably not univocal that the chapters 39 and 40 are referencing the same peoples, yet if reading it, analyzing it, and pragmatically contextualizing it, making it rather impossible not to interpret the signified of these chapters as the same. Yet it is strangely not convention to regard the exonymic Langobards as a descriptive name of the endonymic Semnones. it is clearly stated in the passage about the Langobardes that they are the few elevated nobles, just as the chapter before explicitly refer to the Semnones as the nobles among the Sueborum, that is the Suebians (Suebi, Suevi, Svafa). The Cimbrian Ocean seem to refer to the North Sea, yet it isn't given whether the Cimbri (associated with the Cimmerians are Scandinavian or from the British Isles. It doesn't need to be either, as these peoples too seems associated with sea-faring. But the Cimbri is mentioned alongside the Charydes and the Semnones by Res Gestae, the Deeds of Augustus; a source contemporaneous with Tacitus Germania. It seems plausible to put forward the hypothesis that these three constitute the three, or a triade of the most ancient, the nobles, among the nations of Germania.. Res Gestae states that these nobles through "their envoys sought my friendship and that of the Roman people." It seems not impossible that the Teutones are to the Cimbri what the Semnones are to the Suebi. In spite of the Teutons being associated most with the historicist Germans, and the Germanic language, it seems likely that the Teutons share a Celtic/Gaelic lingua franca whereas the Suebi shares a Norse (as Germanic is an increasing problematic cathegory, as the Germanic of the peoples of Germania is as much Celtic as it is Norse, Proto-Slavic as much as Proto German, even Finno Ugric as much as as Indo European, and even possibly the hypothetical Basque-Pictish)..
First of all this is a question concerning where the limits go, in regard of contiunation of convention, particularly when historiography, historical and interdisciplinary research show that certain conventions are constructs, if not forged history for ideological reasons. This quesion could be added to the talk-page of an unbelievable amount of wikipedia articles. One aim, that shouldn't be too ambitious is to promote a less truth-tentative language; I would suggest more questioning in its form here on wikipedia than the more authoritative style of encyclopedia authored by authorities in their academic disciplines. -- Xactnorge ( talk) 14:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I am expecting tons of criticism and ridicule for even suggesting this article, let alone actually writing it. While you're flaming me, please just remember that I wrote it in good faith and tried to back up everything with solid sources. And I know that it needs to have more information added. I just wrote the current copy in one sitting, and I need a break. =) Thanks. Varoon Arya 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
so, the "GPL" includes (both "Early" and "Late") Proto-Germanic. The scope of this article is then only different from Proto-Germanic inasmuch as it discusses Pre-Germanic, i.e. the transition from "dialectal late PIE" to "Early PGmc". That such a transition must have taken place is undisputed, and a fact perfectly independent of speculations on the Nordic Bronze Age. Hence, I believe it might be better to just mention the terms "GPL" and "PreGmc" in a paragraph at Proto-Germanic. Also, I find the following paragraph highly dubious:
It is perfectly unclear how this notion
-- what is being re-aligned? All we are saying is that the locus of PreGmc was probably the NBA, but I fail to see any re-alignment of anything in that. PGmc was a language of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, so PreGmc was a language of the NBA -- this just stands to reason. The second part,
makes even less sense to me. What does an "incipient predecessor dialect of Proto-Indo-European" have to do with anything? Such a Pre-Proto-Indo-European dialect would date to the 6th millennium BCE or so, full 3,000 years before "PreGmc". And what is the point of giving a one-line summary of the aim of historical linguistics as "reconstructive efforts regarding the diachronic, synchronic and areal features of the entire language group through the course of its development"? I'm sorry if I am missing something, but I am afraid that if this paragraph is devoid of meaning to me in spite of my familiarity with historical linguistics, it will be perfect white noise to your average reader without specialist background. dab (𒁳) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article provides some welcome detail on the pre-proto-Germanic phase, that critical 1500 years of archaeological non-discontinuity in which Proto-Germanic had a chance to evolve from PIE. This is the cradle of the Germanics and it deserves some detail. However considering whole range of development it represents a specialized topic even though Proto-Germanic is mentioned within it. As such should it not have its own article referenced by the "detail" template? How can our writer do it justice as a small section of Proto-Germanic, unless we propose to lengthen that article to the ridiculous lengths I have seen in some articles? Proto-Germanic is already at 32 or 34 thereabout. 80 or 100 is really too long don't you think? Let's have some Wikiroom here, which we traditionally do in a linked collection of shorter articles. There is after all a Wikibooks if you feel inclined to write a book by this method. Dave 14:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am very reluctant to say anything negative about a properly sourced and referenced page on something Germanic linguistics, but I do have reservations here.
My initial surprise was that, in spite of many years working in this field, I had never come across the term "Germanic Parent Language". To see whether this was perhaps just a personal failing, I looked in in the JSTOR journal archive and found exactly four hits, only two of which were post-1918 (it finds 17,000+ for "germanic" alone), and none of which used the term in the article title. Google also gives a tiny number of hits, almost all of which relate to van Coetsem.
My conclusion is that this is simply not an accepted term in Germanic linguistics. I can't see any reason for a separate article - it would be much better, IMHO, to use the material here to improve Proto-Germanic. -- Pfold 12:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Aryaman asked for my input. I must agree with Dbachmann here, because scholars usually talk of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic, and I don't think we need any article in-between. The content should be merged into the article Proto-Germanic instead. The article Proto-Germanic is BTW in dire need of attention, and I think that Aryaman's attention would improve it vastly.---- Berig ( talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Osthoff’s Law, Cowgill's Law—any possibility of writing the articles and linking from here?
On the subject of merging this article, I can see the point, but I think this article covers material outside the scope of Proto-Germanic. I would favour a separate and, if possible, somewhat expanded article on Pre-Germanic (I can't see the point of calling it Pre-Proto-Germanic), which would incorporate some of the material here, and putting the contents of this article as a whole, perhaps in reduced form, into the Germanic languages article, with whatever acknowledgments of controversiality of the topic may be necessary.
On the term Germanic Parent Language as a term covering the whole period from the break-up of PIE to the first appearance of recorded Germanic, it's hard to see how this can be treated as a single language; it would be on a par, surely, with treating Proto-Germanic and Modern English and all the stages between as a single language. Koro Neil ( talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Merge tag from this article for two reasons. First, the merge discussion, above, appears very contentious, but also appears to have stalled in 2008. Second, there is currently no corresponding template on Proto-Germanic. Any editor wishing to restart merger discussion should consult Help:Merging for more information and help. Cnilep ( talk) 15:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"The emerging consensus among scholars is that the First Germanic Sound Shift—long considered to be the defining mark in the development of Proto-Germanic—happened as late as 500 BCE.[2]"
I checked some of the cited references, e.g. p.40 in Davis 2006 and there is nothing about 500 BCE. I would like to hear more about qualifications (credentials) of the people who wrote this article.
Russky1802 ( talk) 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to give details about defining what exactly could be considered the GPL. But then it doesn't say anything about why it's significant at all. As it stands now, it's just a history of Proto-Germanic and doesn't seem to add anything innovative beyond that. CodeCat ( talk) 20:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Germanic parent language. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a huge matter, as it is a problematic in a majority of history-related articles on Wikipedia, and other encyclopedia as well: Why can't historiographical contextualisation be the norm, not the exception? Out of habits and conventions of language I realize from my own experience that it is somewhat challenging to hault our truth-tentative, patronizing ways of performing knowledge, whether be in writing, or in speaking. I believe there is a broad consensus that this should be the aim. In this context of a hypothetical Germanic Parent Language I find it slightly disturbing that the awareness of this notion of a lingual and folkloristic, ethnic, even genetic unity of something "German" is a modern construct. The concept 'Germania' as denoting a vast region, primarily Trans-Alpine and beyond the Rhine; although not exclusively denoting the territories of unconquered peoples in the North. Although Tacitus' text Germania (published 98 AD) in and by itself both portrays the various peoples inhabiting what is called Germania, including Scandinavia, Pommerania and Balticum, as diverse, multiethnic, and arguably multilingual, and at the same time that these peoples are sharing a common anchestry, he never speak of them as Germans, or with any other common denominator.. Yet, he does write about the legendary Mannus and his three sons as the Roman folk-etymology of tribus required. It seems quite plausible that the various peoples indeed were sharing what is called a lingua franca, had common customs of religion and crafts, stories, stars and medical practices, ways of ruling, co-federating and economy, yet this work of Tacitus has been perceived, and used instrumentally in order to "prove" the foundation for a certain fatherland and an essentialistic, national-romantic völk-ideology. Let me quote from the Secretary of the Phi Beta Kappa Society John Churchill's critical, but applauding introduction to the book "A Most Dangerous Book" by Christopher B. Krebs, that won Phi Beta Kappa’s Ralph Waldo Emerson Award for 2012:
"Not until the last line of the epilogue does the author of this chronicle of the discovery and uses of Germania acknowledge that “the Roman historian Tacitus did not write a most dangerous book; his readers made it so.” Indeed, the delicate irony of this story resides in the contrast between the fragility of the text itself, almost lost to worms and rot in a remote transalpine monastic library, and the terrible energy to which it contributed as a formative text in the creation of a self-understanding for a “deutsches Volk,” veering disastrously into the criminal horrors of National Socialism. In Tacitus’s text, the Nazis found what Barbara Tuchman called, in another context, “a distant mirror,” validating notions of the racial purity of blond athletes and warriors, simplicity of life, moral rectitude, and original possession of—indeed, identity with—a Fatherland." [1]
Among the Germanic peoples mentioned by Tacitus we find the Fenni and the Aesti, who are part of the Finno-Ugric language-cluster. No where in his work does Tacitus give a common endonym for all the peoples of Germania (or tell me where and what it is?). He does mention the Suebias an apparantly contemporary confederation of peoples in Germania, and there are other communions, or commonwealths of this vast territory referred to as Germania by the Romans, mentioned by various historians of antiquity up to the earliest middle age.. Langobardos (possibly identical with the Semnones, but possibly chosen among the various peoples (nations as denoting groups of peoples with its members born more or less in the same places yet without regard of summer-/winter-residence or migratory patterns of mentioned nation. The Latin term 'nation' links to 'natum' signifying 'place/time of birth'. In chapter 40 does Cornelius Tacitus list the 7 peoples, 8, if the Langobardos is a separate nation, which I find unlikely according to my interpratation of these chapters in Latin: Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti non per obsequium sed proeliis et periclitando tuti sunt. Reudigni deinde et Aviones et Anglii et Varini et Eudoses et Suarines et Nuitones fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur. nec quicquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Nerthum, id est Terram matrem, colunt eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis arbitrantur. est in insula Oceani castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum;..." These peoples (of the island(s) beyond the great ocean (possibly Scandinavia) are according to this text sharing in a cult, "in commune Nerthum, id est Terram matrem" which is Mother Earth.. The introduction of this passage refers to them, as I interpret them as the Sueborum, and that the most distinguished ones among them are the Semnonum. It is probably not univocal that the chapters 39 and 40 are referencing the same peoples, yet if reading it, analyzing it, and pragmatically contextualizing it, making it rather impossible not to interpret the signified of these chapters as the same. Yet it is strangely not convention to regard the exonymic Langobards as a descriptive name of the endonymic Semnones. it is clearly stated in the passage about the Langobardes that they are the few elevated nobles, just as the chapter before explicitly refer to the Semnones as the nobles among the Sueborum, that is the Suebians (Suebi, Suevi, Svafa). The Cimbrian Ocean seem to refer to the North Sea, yet it isn't given whether the Cimbri (associated with the Cimmerians are Scandinavian or from the British Isles. It doesn't need to be either, as these peoples too seems associated with sea-faring. But the Cimbri is mentioned alongside the Charydes and the Semnones by Res Gestae, the Deeds of Augustus; a source contemporaneous with Tacitus Germania. It seems plausible to put forward the hypothesis that these three constitute the three, or a triade of the most ancient, the nobles, among the nations of Germania.. Res Gestae states that these nobles through "their envoys sought my friendship and that of the Roman people." It seems not impossible that the Teutones are to the Cimbri what the Semnones are to the Suebi. In spite of the Teutons being associated most with the historicist Germans, and the Germanic language, it seems likely that the Teutons share a Celtic/Gaelic lingua franca whereas the Suebi shares a Norse (as Germanic is an increasing problematic cathegory, as the Germanic of the peoples of Germania is as much Celtic as it is Norse, Proto-Slavic as much as Proto German, even Finno Ugric as much as as Indo European, and even possibly the hypothetical Basque-Pictish)..
First of all this is a question concerning where the limits go, in regard of contiunation of convention, particularly when historiography, historical and interdisciplinary research show that certain conventions are constructs, if not forged history for ideological reasons. This quesion could be added to the talk-page of an unbelievable amount of wikipedia articles. One aim, that shouldn't be too ambitious is to promote a less truth-tentative language; I would suggest more questioning in its form here on wikipedia than the more authoritative style of encyclopedia authored by authorities in their academic disciplines. -- Xactnorge ( talk) 14:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I am expecting tons of criticism and ridicule for even suggesting this article, let alone actually writing it. While you're flaming me, please just remember that I wrote it in good faith and tried to back up everything with solid sources. And I know that it needs to have more information added. I just wrote the current copy in one sitting, and I need a break. =) Thanks. Varoon Arya 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
so, the "GPL" includes (both "Early" and "Late") Proto-Germanic. The scope of this article is then only different from Proto-Germanic inasmuch as it discusses Pre-Germanic, i.e. the transition from "dialectal late PIE" to "Early PGmc". That such a transition must have taken place is undisputed, and a fact perfectly independent of speculations on the Nordic Bronze Age. Hence, I believe it might be better to just mention the terms "GPL" and "PreGmc" in a paragraph at Proto-Germanic. Also, I find the following paragraph highly dubious:
It is perfectly unclear how this notion
-- what is being re-aligned? All we are saying is that the locus of PreGmc was probably the NBA, but I fail to see any re-alignment of anything in that. PGmc was a language of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, so PreGmc was a language of the NBA -- this just stands to reason. The second part,
makes even less sense to me. What does an "incipient predecessor dialect of Proto-Indo-European" have to do with anything? Such a Pre-Proto-Indo-European dialect would date to the 6th millennium BCE or so, full 3,000 years before "PreGmc". And what is the point of giving a one-line summary of the aim of historical linguistics as "reconstructive efforts regarding the diachronic, synchronic and areal features of the entire language group through the course of its development"? I'm sorry if I am missing something, but I am afraid that if this paragraph is devoid of meaning to me in spite of my familiarity with historical linguistics, it will be perfect white noise to your average reader without specialist background. dab (𒁳) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article provides some welcome detail on the pre-proto-Germanic phase, that critical 1500 years of archaeological non-discontinuity in which Proto-Germanic had a chance to evolve from PIE. This is the cradle of the Germanics and it deserves some detail. However considering whole range of development it represents a specialized topic even though Proto-Germanic is mentioned within it. As such should it not have its own article referenced by the "detail" template? How can our writer do it justice as a small section of Proto-Germanic, unless we propose to lengthen that article to the ridiculous lengths I have seen in some articles? Proto-Germanic is already at 32 or 34 thereabout. 80 or 100 is really too long don't you think? Let's have some Wikiroom here, which we traditionally do in a linked collection of shorter articles. There is after all a Wikibooks if you feel inclined to write a book by this method. Dave 14:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am very reluctant to say anything negative about a properly sourced and referenced page on something Germanic linguistics, but I do have reservations here.
My initial surprise was that, in spite of many years working in this field, I had never come across the term "Germanic Parent Language". To see whether this was perhaps just a personal failing, I looked in in the JSTOR journal archive and found exactly four hits, only two of which were post-1918 (it finds 17,000+ for "germanic" alone), and none of which used the term in the article title. Google also gives a tiny number of hits, almost all of which relate to van Coetsem.
My conclusion is that this is simply not an accepted term in Germanic linguistics. I can't see any reason for a separate article - it would be much better, IMHO, to use the material here to improve Proto-Germanic. -- Pfold 12:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Aryaman asked for my input. I must agree with Dbachmann here, because scholars usually talk of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic, and I don't think we need any article in-between. The content should be merged into the article Proto-Germanic instead. The article Proto-Germanic is BTW in dire need of attention, and I think that Aryaman's attention would improve it vastly.---- Berig ( talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Osthoff’s Law, Cowgill's Law—any possibility of writing the articles and linking from here?
On the subject of merging this article, I can see the point, but I think this article covers material outside the scope of Proto-Germanic. I would favour a separate and, if possible, somewhat expanded article on Pre-Germanic (I can't see the point of calling it Pre-Proto-Germanic), which would incorporate some of the material here, and putting the contents of this article as a whole, perhaps in reduced form, into the Germanic languages article, with whatever acknowledgments of controversiality of the topic may be necessary.
On the term Germanic Parent Language as a term covering the whole period from the break-up of PIE to the first appearance of recorded Germanic, it's hard to see how this can be treated as a single language; it would be on a par, surely, with treating Proto-Germanic and Modern English and all the stages between as a single language. Koro Neil ( talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Merge tag from this article for two reasons. First, the merge discussion, above, appears very contentious, but also appears to have stalled in 2008. Second, there is currently no corresponding template on Proto-Germanic. Any editor wishing to restart merger discussion should consult Help:Merging for more information and help. Cnilep ( talk) 15:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"The emerging consensus among scholars is that the First Germanic Sound Shift—long considered to be the defining mark in the development of Proto-Germanic—happened as late as 500 BCE.[2]"
I checked some of the cited references, e.g. p.40 in Davis 2006 and there is nothing about 500 BCE. I would like to hear more about qualifications (credentials) of the people who wrote this article.
Russky1802 ( talk) 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to give details about defining what exactly could be considered the GPL. But then it doesn't say anything about why it's significant at all. As it stands now, it's just a history of Proto-Germanic and doesn't seem to add anything innovative beyond that. CodeCat ( talk) 20:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Germanic parent language. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)