This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Etymology / Theoretical Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Etymology Task Force. This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force. Ancient Germanic studies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Germanic studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesAncient Germanic studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Romania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania- related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of " Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and " Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 ( WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

On 1 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Walhaz to *Walhaz. The result of the discussion was moved.

I disagree. If there is not enough material here yet, the article may be merged with Etymology of Vlach, which is essentially about the same word/concept. dab (ᛏ) 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The picture of the coin is mirrored as is the faximile upon which it was created. As much as contributions are very much welcome, the contributors dealing with ancient scripts should pay more attention, I suppose.

From the article:

With the Old Germanic name *Walhaz, plural *Walhôz, adjectival form *walhiska- ...

I'm not aware of the asterisk being (or representing) an Old German letter, and there is no reference to such on the Old High German page. There is also no footnote on this page that the asterisk might refer to. What does this asterisk represent here? -- ΨΦorg ( talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

In historical lingusitics, an asterisk before a word denotes the fact that the word has not been attested, but has been reconstructed by linguists based on its descendants. -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Can someone tell me why "País de Gales" (literally translated: "The Country of Wales") for "Wales" in Portuguese? And so, consequently there is the term "galês" (or, alternatively, "a língua galêsa") for the "Welsh" language? Would there be any connection or related pattern to the name "William" traditionally being translated as "Guilherme" in Portuguese? Bepp ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure but it French, anyway, the letter W in other languages often becomes a G (i.e. William - Guillame). Perhaps it is the same phenomenon? -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Course it is. Even the De Gaulle family seems to have ancestors called Van de Walle, which is Dutch. Ad43 ( talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The article currently claims that "Welschhinkel" and "Welschkann" are the Penn Dutch names for Turkey and Maize respectively and that is should be literally translated as "French" grain. I'm no expert but surely the proper translation would be foreign grain as 1. maize is not french and never has been and 2. the article goes into significant depth to explain the origin of this word as essentially relating to things "foreign" to a particular group of people, the Germanic tribes. Alex McKee ( talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It's true that, as the article indicates, "welsch" in origin means "foreign," but it's possible that in Switzerland in the 16th century (the origin of Pa. Dutch) the meaning had narrowed to mean the Romance-speakers in France. If maize entered Germany via France, that would explain the meaning. The question is, what is standard Pa. Dutch for "French"? -- Jfruh ( talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

As a native German speaker I may perhaps be considered as a kind of "native informant". I this role I'd like to suggest to treat the word "Welscher/Welsche" as a historic word. I have never in my 52 years of earthly life come across anybody using that word, either in written or spoken German.

G. Berkemer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.56.187 ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You're only an informant for the region where you live, at best. There are definitely regions where the word "welsch"/"walsch" is still used, even if all of them may be outside Germany (there's no reason to exclude Austrians, South Tyrolians, Swiss and Pennsylvania Dutch). Always be careful and don't generalise from your own limited experience – I doubt you've been to everywhere in the German Sprachraum. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I am also a native German, and the word welsch is not only historical but also a more sophisticated and a little pejorative word to describe a Frenchman or an Italian.13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Ampsivare ( talk)

Sorry, Florian, but G. Berkemer is right. Historical forms are always available for people who want to make humorous usage, methinks, but that doesn't make them current. And as for dialect forms, you have to identify them as such. Telling the English-speaking user that Welsche is standard German usage is really misleading. Besides, we shouldn't be too snippy with newcomers to Wiki. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If a word is still used in several varieties of German (not only in dialectal German, but also Standard German, for example Swiss Standard German), it can hardly be called "historical". That was my whole point. If G. Berkemer is oblivious of that fact, it doesn't change the fact, however much G. Berkemer may be a native speaker of German. German is a multicentric language, just like English. If the term fall for autumn sounds archaic to a native speaker of English, that doesn't make the term historical. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Old English is the language of the Anglo-Saxons. So the meaning of wilisc in the introductory paragraph should be changed to 'foreign, non-Anglosaxon, Cymric'. The Dutch reference doesn't mean any person from England which contained Cymric people. 203.161.75.138 ( talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

If "welsh" means "foreigner", why didn't the Anglo-Saxons call the Scotts and Picts as such? Nestorius Auranites ( talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Good question. I have no answer. -- Ad43 ( talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Because "Welsh" (and similar words) meant not simply "foreigner", but "Romanised foreigner". See also History of the term Vlach. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Did the Anglo-Saxons and Germans care whether a foreigner was romanised or not? Did it matter? Foreigners are foreigners after all. If you want to call a foreigner but a specific ethnonym you call him by that specific ethnonym not by the name 'foreigner'. It does not make sense. There is no equivalent for 'romanised' in the Germanic languages after all. Nestorius Auranites ( talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a good point. But do you really know if the Isle Saxons used the term Welsh in the days of yore in the same way as they do now? As for the same term variously being used for some specific people by some at some times and for foreigners more generally by others at other times, I will say I am reminded of the Gaelic terms Gall and Lochlannach, and I am sure there are slurs used by American and Australian Saxons that have gone from being specific to general or general to specific. Maybe in some Saxon dialect at the time it was felt Welsh had some specific connotation that was not universal; or maybe they encounted the British first and called them Welsh and then felt there was some need to differentiate the Picts and Scots. Closely related cultural group, or even different people in the same cultural group, maybe at slightly different times, can get very different ideas as to the exact meaning of a word. I'm reminded of all those who insist that Gaelic isn't spoken in Éirinn... 121.127.200.1 ( talk) 14:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, they did differentiate between different cultural backgrounds. From John Davies, A History of Wales, p.69:

"It is often claimed that the word 'Welsh' is a contemptuous word used by Germanic-speaking peoples to describe foreigners. Yet a glance at the dictionary of any of the Teutonic languages will show that that is not its only meaning. 'Welsh' was not used by Germanic speakers to describe peoples living to the east of them; to the English, walh-stod meant an interpreter, but they had a different word for a translator from Danish. It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized; other versions of the word may be found along the borders of the Empire - the Walloons of Belgium, the Welsch of the Italian Tyrol and the Vlachs of Romania - and the welschnuss, the walnut, was the nut of the Roman lands. This recognition of the persistence of the Roman tradition is striking, particularly when it is placed alongside the continuance of the Brittonic language and its successor...."

Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Davies is reconsidering the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. He says: "It is often claimed." He doesn't seem to buy into the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. Nestorius Auranites ( talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please read it again. He is stating that it is often claimed that it is used as a contemptuous word for foreigner, when that is not its only meaning - it is a word used for Romanised foreigners. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

He says:"It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized." He doesn't say "Romanised foreigners" he says "Romanised peoples". Surely, for the Germans "Romanised peoples" were foreigners, but you cannot make up a term on your own just to win the argument. But then why would 'walh' shift from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one ('Romanised peoples'). Can anybody explain that? Is there another word for 'foreigner' in Germanic languages by the way? You need to explain why 'walh' was not applied to other foreigners. If a word is not used in practice with a meaning hypothetically assigned to it, then this word means something else. Nestorius Auranites ( talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't "need to explain" anything - I'm simply quoting a reliable source. But perhaps you could explain your opinion - unsupported by any evidence that I've seen - that the term "'walh' shift[ed] from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one..." Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Where does Davies mention 'romanised foreigner'? In the article 'walha', it is said: "Thus, by Germanic speakers this name was generalized first onto all Celts, and later onto all Romans." But at the beginning it is said:"Walh (singular) or Walha (plural) (ᚹᚨᛚᚺᚨ) is an ancient Germanic word, meaning "foreigner", "stranger" or "roman", German: welsch. The word can be found in Old High German walhisk, meaning "Roman, in Old English wilisc, meaning "foreign, non-Anglo-Saxon, Cymric", and in Old Norse as valskr, meaning "French"." From where did the definition as foreigner come? Nestorius Auranites ( talk) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

saltare > sauter; falsus > faux; salvare > sauver; alter > autre; 118.96.143.95 ( talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) 118.96.143.95 ( talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.143.95 ( talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Late Latin *assaltus > Old French assault > English assault; Late Latin *caldaro > Old Norman-French cauldron > English cauldron (French chaudron) Nortmannus ( talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

This is a very old section, which doesn't need further discussion. garik ( talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I am wondering if Walhalla or Valhalla (Old Norse Valhöll) also derive from Walha?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't derive from Walha. Valhöll is a composite word made from Valir which means 'slain, slaughtered' and höll which is 'palace, hall'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumahess ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

There is a conundrum here: The article is about one word attested in many different forms in many different languages, but all of them ultimately, historically go back to the same proto-form *Walha- (stem) or *Walhaz (nominative singular). However, what should the article be named? I tried to fix the intro and thought of moving the article, but I'm not sure how to proceed in such a case. Should we give the article the title Walhaz even though that is a reconstructed form? Given that the articles for the runes and some other subjects, such as Germanic deities, also use reconstructed forms, for example Wodanaz, this possibility should be canvassed, but use in this area is terribly inconsistent in Wikipedia. In any event, Walh (singular) and Walha (plural) is not proto-Germanic or even simply "Germanic" or "ancient Germanic" (which doesn't exist as a unified language; you simply cannot quote unitary "Germanic" or "ancient Germanic" forms, just like you can quote Latin or reconstructed proto-Romance but not "common Romance" forms), it's simply Old High German, and that needs to be clarified. But I don't know how to structure the intro better. Anyone have any idea how to fix this? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The section of this article which goes through all the languages needs to be re-organized. Central Europe and Western Europe are not suitable categories. It would be much better to group these linguistically. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

What about the Swiss Wallis/ Valais canton/region? Does it have the same root? Or is it just coming from the Vallis Poenina, the name used by Romans for the upper Rhône valley?-- Codrin.B ( talk) 19:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The root of "Valais" is the Latin "vallis", with "Wallis" as its xenonym in german language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.33.122 ( talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it would be very useful to have table like this, possible with more relevant columns: Words derived from Walhaz:

-- Codrin.B ( talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

At one point this article says: “In English usage the words Gaul and Gaulish are used synonymously with Latin Gallia, Gallus and Gallicus. However the similarity of the names is probably accidental: the English words are borrowed from French Gaule and Gaulois, which appear to have been borrowed themselves from walha-. Germanic w is regularly rendered with French gu / g (cf. guerre = war, garder = ward), and the diphthong au is the regular outcome of al before a following consonant (cf. cheval ~ chevaux). Gaule or Gaulle can hardly be derived from Latin Gallia, since g would become j before a (cf. gamba > jambe), the regular outcome of Latin Gallia would have been *Jaille in French.[4][5] This also applies to the French name for Wales, which is le pays de Galles.” At another point it says: “In most Oïl languages[9] and Irish, walhaz was borrowed and altered by changing the initial w to g (cf. English "war" French guerre, English "William" vs. French Guillaume or even English "ward" vs. "guard", borrowed into English from French) resulting in Gaul- : Gaule "Gaul", Gaulois "Gaulish"”. These paragraphs appear to be contradictary. Is Gaul related to Gallia, or not? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The online OED has “ Gaul (the name of the country), < French Gaule, an adoption (phonologically obscure) of Latin Gallia, < Gall-us a Gaul.”. But maybe the cited texts have more detail… Ewx ( talk) 08:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

French Gaule means Gallia in Latin and the English word Gaul is borrowed from French Gaule and means both the country and its inhabitants. The similarity between French Gaule and Latin Gallia is a coincidence. Regularly the Latin group /ga/ changes into /ja/ in French : gamba > jambe "leg", gallus > Old French jal, jau "rooster", galbinus > jaune "yellow", gabella > javelle "handful of wheat", etc. French Gaulois means "Gaulish" or "Gaul inhabitants" and is clearly attested as waulois in the northern French dialects and otherwise vaulois see for instance [1]. There is an homonym from another Germanic word gaule "long stick" see [2] similar phonetic evolution. We cannot think of a literary loanword because the form would be Gall- and not Gaul- like in this scholar loanword gallican "French" Nortmannus ( talk) 10:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC) reply

"Welsch" is not used pejorative and is only reserved for francophone regions. The French term "Romandie" and the german term "Welschschweiz" are identical and define areas instead of political territories, since some cantons are bilingual. Corresponding to that, French and german speakers use different names for municipalities, for example "Sion" vs. "Sitten" or "Neuchâtel" vs. "Neuenburg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.33.122 ( talk) 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The text that read:

Similarly the corresponding Hebrew root "la'az" or "lo'ez", literally meaning "foreign", is used of the 
Judeo-Italian languages 
and of vocabulary of Romance origin in Yiddish. In the 
Talmudic commentaries of 
Rashi and the 
Tosafists, 
the translations of individual words into 
Old French are known as lo'azim.

is both factually inaccurate and irrelevant here. The Hebrew "la'az" -- לעע״ז -- is not a root. It is rather a Hebrew Abbreviation, namely, an acronym for "לשון עבדי עבודה זרה". Its literal meaning is "language of the performers of strange worship" (i.e., the language of idolaters/infidels). It is indeed commonly used to refer to translations of obscure Hebrew words into Old French by Rashi in his commentaries -- though not only in the Talmud but elsewhere as well. As Rashi lived in France, it was natural for him to use French as a reference for rendering complex terms. Being not a proper native root, it is irrelevant to the discussion of the subject of this page. Saparagus ( talk) 18:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Saparagus Arbiter reply

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Walhaz&curid=1274120&diff=657054077&oldid=654884741 Based on what I can find e.g. http://abdn.ac.uk/skaldic/m.php?p=word&i=90526 and http://web.ff.cuni.cz/cgi-bin/uaa_slovnik/gmc_search_v3?cmd=formquery2&query=Valskr&startrow=1 'French' seems a more supportable interpretation of 'valskr' than 'Gaul'. Ewx ( talk) 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walhaz. 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/20120206215140/http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/nederlandsetaalkunde/NTKonderzoek-quak.pdf to http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/nederlandsetaalkunde/NTKonderzoek-quak.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I see that the article has been tagged for some time with:

"This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2011)"

"This article possibly contains original research. (August 2015)"

It seems to me that the content extends beyond the scope of the article title - and is convuluted. It seems as if the article should be rewritten. My suggestion is to remove all uncited content in sections and build the article from there.

To figure that out, I think it's important to determine if the scope of the article should include words derived from Walhaz.

Are there any thoughts about this?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I just noticed that posts on this page have gone unanswered since 2012 - and was scattered before then. Since most of the article is uncited and an original research question. I am going to delete all the sections, except the Historic persons (notable people may be better and more consistent throughout WP) and the see also section, for instance Vlachs is an important see also. I will look for sources for the historic persons and see what can be added to the remaining article content.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 05:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I am done cleaning up and then adding content to the main part of the article. I am a bit lost how to find a source that the notable people were Walhaz people. Can that be figured out based upon where they lived? Other?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

If you are going to ask a question in talk, you might give editors more than a couple of hours to reply! I do not, in principle, object to a major rewrite of this based on sourced information, but I do have some issues with what you have done:

1. Sourcing: A cursory glance at the two versions of this page shows you have removed 7 sources, leaving only 4 behind. It may be that there are reasons for deleting sourced information, but you say you were just removing unsourced information. This is clearly not the case.
2. Toponyms and exonyms: the whole section has vanished. Inasmuch as there is a subject here, the most interesting thing about it is surely the spread of the term in toponyms.
3. Lead: You have largely delete the lead. Better to leave the lead alone, improved the main and then see how a new summary might be written. Leads do not have the same sourcing requirements as the main, and they are needed to provide an executive summary of the subject.

To your question on the notable people, I would start by looking here: [3] Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

First of all, I am so grateful that you posted a comment here:

1. Please see the post that starts out "I just noticed..." I looked at the cited sentences in large blocks of uncited content and brought back what I could.

2. Okay. Good. Do you have citations for that section? If so, we can easily add back this section.

3. I am confused about having "largely deleted the lead". See the diff from the way the article looked before my edits and now]

I knew I was taking a bold move, but the tags had been on the article for so long and it has been ten years since anyone responded to comments on the talk page. Again, because of that, I am so glad that you came along.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

On sources, I don't have much to hand, which is why I have not touched this page. Here is an example of some: [4], and it again may be a good starting point for all of them. Nevertheless Harper's dictionary is good, but may not be sufficient in itself. So another reason I have not touched this article, despite watching it, is that I believe there may be some dispute about these etymologies. Although I doubt he will thank me for it, I will ping in Austronesier, who may have more information than I do on this.

Great, thanks Sirfurboy.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not terribly good in IE linguistics, my expertise lies farther east :) But I will look for sources which cover this word as primary topic ( here is one I've found in a quick search). – Austronesier ( talk) 19:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Another one: a chapter (in German) by Walter Pohl, luckily available online in a book preview [5]. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

There's a paragraph and perhaps a bit more on page 10 of the document. I Google-translated the part about walhaz and the content states the meaning and use of the word walhaz as the German language developed. I am not sure, though, if I can properly capture the meaning of the translated text and how it would change what is already in the article:

"Germanic *walhaz, pl. *walhoz, adj. *walhisk went through the first sound shift from [k] to [h] and should therefore already have been in the time of the Formation of the Germanic have been present.7 Also makes the acquisition as ethnic Classification term only sense as long as Volcae in the southwest of an emerging Germanic language area played a formative role. Only secondarily did the name go to the Romans and theirs subjugated peoples. Similarly conceptual were those of Tacitus and other authors of the early imperial times mentioned Venethi in the east, from which about ahd winida, adj. windisc the german External designation Wenden for the Slavs came into"...

Is there someone that can help with this?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Actually, Pohl's article is perfect not only for the etymology part, but also can serve as pivotal source for the entire article, thus avoiding the problem of WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH, which was a major issue of the earlier version apart from lack of sources. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

On the question of the deleted lead - the old lead was one paragraph that described the page. What we have now is essentially a short main text with no summary, albeit formatted as a lead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I am still confused. Did you look at the diff? I did not remove a summary. I did insert text, though. What do you think should be done?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The insertion of text and sources into the lead is the problem - it turns a summary into main text. But not to worry about that just now. If the page is being rewritten, we can expand out the main text and get that right and then hopefully a new lead will write itself. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Makes sense.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

In the meantime, I brought back the section headings here - which hopefully helps in the meantime.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sirfurboy: Regarding "To your question on the notable people, I would start by looking here: [6]"

- I don't know how, but I am unable to find anything about notable people in this link - Also, it's a blog and does not appear to be a reliable source

I could be missing something. I would really like to cite this section - otherwise, it should probably be removed. – CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

OK apologies, that link will not help with the notable people. I misunderstood you to be asking for sources about the people as a group, the "Walhaz people", which would be the Volcae. That was not what you were asking so that won't help. I have no idea how to locate information about individual people. As to that site being self published, yes, I was not suggesting it be the source. Rather it was a tertiary source inasmuch as they had collated a bibliography of 8 references and curated the information. It is a starting point. But not the starting point you wanted! Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Great point, I have been prone to looking at content from unreliable sources and then research for sources. It's a helpful research approach! Thanks!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I will take a look at this list and see what I can find:

• Cowgill, Warren.  1986.  “Einleitung.”  Cowgill, Warren, and Manfred Mayrhofer, Indogermanische Grammatik, Band I (Heidelberg:  Winter) 9-71.
  • I couldn't find a viewable version of this book, but it is referenced in this source

 Done added a bit of content here.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Eska, Joseph.  1989.  Towards an interpretation of the Hispano-Celtic inscription of Botorrita. Innsbruck:  IBS.
  • Couldn't find anything usable

• Feist, Sigmund.  1939.  Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden: Brill.
  • Found this and this that references Feist and Walhaz
    • Both are dictionaries that include words derived from Walhaz. Perhaps this could be used and expanded for the table mentioned in the #Organizing the information section.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Jasanoff, Jay.  1989.  “Old Irish bé ‘woman’.”  Ériu 40:135-41.

• —.  2002.  “The nom. sg. of Germanic n-stems.”  Wedel, Alfred, and Hans-Jörg Busch (edd.), Verba et litteræ:  explorations in Germanic languages and German literature (Newark, DE:  Linguatext) 31-46.
  • Nothing new to add

• Luick, Karl.  1921.  Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
  • Nothing found

• Melchert, H. Craig.  1994.  Anatolian historical phonology. Amsterdam:  Rodopi.
  • Nothing new to add

• Ringe, Don.  2008. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic.  A linguistic history of English, volume 1. Revised ed.  Oxford:  OUP.
  • Found a [ 2006 edition

Nothing new to add.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Schmitt, Rüdiger.  1981.  Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen. Innsbruck:  IBS.
  • Nothing new to add

• Vries, Jan de.  1960.  Kelten und Germanen. Bern:  Francke.
  • Catuuolcus
    • I am not sure what to do with: "It is bare¬ ly possible that Texuandri (-ox-, -ax- 221 below) is rendered Eburones, as it has been conjectured that Catuuolcus himself is *hahu-walhaz."– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Made update, only one where I found the book. But found some other good sources that referenced these people.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC) More updates.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• I have done all that I can from these sources.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply