Talk:Vidrus

Author's Defense

Hi guys! I've been away for a while and am just now getting back. This is the first time I've seen any of your intriguing coments. One and all I thank you for looking at the article, whether your review was positive or negative. I wrote the article, of course. It was an early effort. Time to fix it or let it go.

In my mind the article falls under ancient geography and also Ptolemaic Geography. You don't see any links to it because people didn't know it was there. For those of you who perceived a need for it, thank you. I intended for it to fit under the suite of articles under List of Germanic Peoples. Time to get back to it.

I'm going to answer each one of you comment by comment. Then I will Wikify the the thing as best as the current state of the list allows.Dave 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc Tropics

Sorry doc, you are out of your element and have no knowledge of ancient things. This is not speculative original research. Ptolemy places the river in what is now the lowlands. I admit I should have said that. The reference there is Ptolemy.Dave 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

fut.perf.

Thanks pal. As I am going over this I will try to trace down all those references. By the way this river is in most of the handbooks. At the time I wasn't Wiky-savvy enough to put them in. So, I have a little reference job ahead of me. If anyone else wants to see it in, feel free to look it up in whatever dictionaries you have available.Dave 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Kungming and others

I agree, the task is Wikification and clean-up. Thanks for your support, you other one-line supporters.Dave 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Martin dk

Well Martin, you are the worst critic but your attack is mainly ad hominem, which is not allowed on Wiki. Nobody is interested in the state of your stomach regardless of how it got there. Your main criticism, if I may clean you up and paraphrase you, is that this is too trivial an item for Wikipedia. Oh yeah? Some of the modern articles I have seen on every pop song, rock band, bar of soap, or other modern product being plugged under the guise of being of interest to Wikipedia, or offhand comment by some Hollywood idol whose friends are looking for free publicity, are certainly more trivial, in my opinion, than this article. The article is not for those with no interest in, no taste for, and no talent at, antiquities. The student of the lowlands or those with an interest in it might see the name and wonder just what it is. Ptolemy is interesting to many, in case you didn't know. As for your claim to have read Ptolemy in any way at all, I remain skeptical. How is it you did not see the Vidrus in there?

As for the value of Ptolemy, maybe you noticed that China appears in there, and India, and many peoples of the far east, as well as peoples of the far west. Many nonsensical ideas about what the ancients knew or could do would not be publicised if the public had some access to Ptolemy, which some articles on him might provide.

But, there is an even more fundamental issue here. Wikipedia was aiming at a universal Encyclopedia. Now you are saying, "we the public are not interested in ancient geography." Naturally you are free to say that. But I for one am interested in ancient geography and "I know I'm not the only one."Dave 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Put it possibly elsewhere?

Another approach would be to cannibalize this for other articles. The thing is, if the modern name was known, it would go under that, but it isn't. It could go under possibilities that have been suggested.

Recommendation

Let me do some more work on it now that I've worked on some Wikipedia articles for a while and if you still don't like it, if you care about having antiquities in the Encyclopedia, put it under other things, and if you don't, just delete it. I will go over to Wikiclassics with it when I get a chance.Dave 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By chance I came to this site, showing a reference on my name. I am not in any way involved in Wikipedia, and do not know the customs. So I hope my comment will reach you without problems. I draw your attention: 1. that a more relevant reference might be my more recent article "Enige Friese toponiemen" (Some Frisian toponyms), published in SEMafoor 4.1(+2) and on my website www.brucop.com under the button "1st millennium". 2. that in the Netherlands are two rivers Vecht:

  a. the "Utrechtse Vecht", the bigger one, in the province of Utrecht, flowing from the city of Utrecht to the IJsselmeer,
  b. the "Overijsselse Vecht", the smaller one, in the province of Overijssel, flowing from Germany to the IJsselmeer.

The smaller one (b) is supposed to be the Vidrus. I like such subjects in an encyclopedia, also in Wikipedia. Greetings. Dr. W. Bruijnesteijn van Coppenraet, Arnhem, Netherlands, w@brucop.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.83.41 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IJssel

The age and origin of the Gelderse IJssel

New AMS radiocarbon age determinations indicate that overbank sedimentation along the lower reach of the Gelderse IJssel started ~950 AD. This environmental change most likely resulted from an avulsion of the Rhine into the IJssel valley. Prior to this avulsion, only local streams carrying minor amounts of sediment existed in the IJssel valley during most of the Holocene. Reinterpretation of previous conventional radiocarbon data from the upper IJssel floodplain leads to the conclusion that upper IJssel channel formation may have started ~600 AD. Our results contradict earlier suppositions, based on interpretation of archaeological data and historical accounts, that the Gelderse IJssel is much older and originated as a canal, dug under supervision of the Roman general Drusus.

So the IJssel is not the mouth of the Rhine

The Flevus is the mouth of the IJ (bay) into the North Sea near Velsen

The Vecht (Utrecht) would have been the connection between Rhine and Flevus

Erik Springelkamp (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)