Talk:Vänern

Old discussions

The following are old discussions no longer watched by anyone.

Add this to the User:Kenneth Alan Vanir theory list. Another page where he added his pet theory as fact. Martijn faassen 23:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article stated as fact that the name is derived from Venus, and that the Vanir were her descendants. Presenting original research as established fact is misleading and unethical. -Sean 01:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And not the job of wikipedia to boot, not matter what User:Kenneth Alan likes to think. Martijn faassen 20:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Atheist == papist? news to me. -Sean 20:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Right now the article has been semi NPOV-ed, saying 'it has been theorized that'. I would like to have some actual cites beyond Kenneth Alan's assertions. These can be added to the article. If none are provided, I will remove this section. Martijn faassen 20:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I encourage you to publish your thoughts and theories and to enlighten the world with them. It is just that wikipedia is not the venue for this. I realize you're very informed about the world and I only conform to the lowest common denominator. I stand in awe of your original and inspiring brilliance. But there is one thing I am correct about: it is not the mission of wikipedia to present original research. Martijn faassen 21:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but that's how it is and that's how I like it. I come to wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) not to read the original views of an individual but to survey the consensus views (possibly several competing ones) on the state of the world (science, history, culture, etc). This way I see the outline of the landscape, and learn some interesting details mostly undisputed, and see some connections, and see what the important theories and debates are. Wikipedia tries to be careful in presenting different points of view; it is helped in this as so many people can contribute. If at the same time I can run into singular original views unexpectedly, this will reduce the value of the wikipedia as an overview of the world and ideas at large. I cannot trust it in this function anymore.

Being an overview and a summary, it cannot present the new ideas of a single individual, no matter how true, because this would be misleading as a summary. An idea shared by many should be presented, an idea shared by a significant minority should be presented, but if all the original ideas of singular individuals are to be presented, the forest would be invisible for the trees. Present these completely original ideas in other channels. If it then becomes well-known and debated, it can enter wikipedia. Martijn faassen 22:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're still so unpleasantly ad-hominem. Shame on you. Martijn faassen 22:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not a war, and there is no reason for name-calling. I did not flail wildly and did not refer to your theory as horrors. Reading wikipedia, I found more and more of your assertions on Vanir/Aesir scattered throughout a large quantity of articles, as factual statements. Eventually I naturally started looking for more information.

I noticed these were all added by you, sometimes as supposedly minor edits with rather misleading comments. I'm evidently the first person on wikipedia to notice and respond to your activities, which is hardly a suprise to me. I've only noticed yesterday, myself.

Your additions frequently refer to various concepts out of the blue, without proper introduction, as if the casual reader is familiar with them already. They're not.

I am doubtful many historians share your views, and you seem to have admitted it is your original theory. I think it is therefore misleading to present your theory about Germanic origins as factual in wikipedia. You have been doing this, and putting the burden to NPOV these on me is unfair. You should've been more responsible yourself.

I doubt however that inclusion in a more NPOV form ("It has been theorized that") is a big improvement, as this still implies this is a major theory in the field, while it is not.

In response you've been responding with aggressive statements, repeatedly calling me a small minded fool, and comparing yourself with the likes of Copernicus and Galileo. This not increasing my confidence in your other assertions. Martijn faassen 23:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lake or an inland sea?

Although it looks like a lake, I think it's defined as a inland sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.198 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Lake" as part of the name

There is a usage one sees with both Vänern and Vättern, where the names appear alone, without "Lake".
Is that a traditional style in English, or is it a recent borrowing from Swedish?
Sweden is odd already, since the Kattegat and the Skagerrak lie off her coast. Once again, with those bodies of water, we do not add a qualifying term to the name, like "Strait" or "Sea".
Varlaam (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanking

Alfie Gandon, regarding this edit you made, removing unsourced material is one thing, but removing the infobox, WP:Lead, and sourced material is another, which is why I reverted you here. That edit was also not a minor edit, which is likely why it showed up in my WP:STiki window. Do not mark edits as minor when they are not; see WP:Minor. Also see WP:Preserve.

Hmains and Andy Dingley, I see you in the edit history. Are you watching this article? Any opinion on Alfie Gandon's edit? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened, I certainly didn't intend it. Thanks for catching it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The depths of the lake are contradictory within the article

In the introduction it says the average depth is 28 meters while in the Geography section it says 27 meters. Which of these is correct? One of them should be changed, right? Morphior (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)