text:
USS Brinkley Bass

USS Brinkley Bass (DD-887) was a Gearing-class destroyer in service with the United States Navy from 1945 to 1973. She was then transferred to Brazil where she served as Mariz e Barros (D-26) until 1997. The destroyer was finally sunk as a target in 2000.

Construction
Brinkley Bass was named for Lieutenant Commander Harry Brinkley Bass (1916–1944), who was killed in action when his plane crashed in combat during the invasion of southern France on 20 August 1944. The destroyer was laid down by the Consolidated Steel Corporation at Orange, Texas on 20 December 1944, launched on 26 May 1945 by Mrs. Percy Bass, mother of Lt. Cmdr. Bass and commissioned on 1 October 1945.

United States Navy service
USS Brinkley Bass (DD-887) was laid down on 20 December 1944 at Orange, Texas, by the Consolidated Steel Corporation and launched on 26 May 1945 sponsored by Mrs. Verna Maulding Bass. The destroyer was commissioned on 1 October 1945.

The destroyer spent the remainder of 1945 outfitting and conducting shakedown training in the Gulf of Mexico. She then put into Charleston, South Carolina, for post-shakedown availability. On 2 February 1946, the warship stood out of Charleston on her way to the U.S. West Coast. After transiting the Panama Canal, Brinkley Bass arrived in San Diego on 20 February. She remained at San Diego less than a week. On the 26th, the destroyer was underway bound for the western Pacific Ocean. Early that spring the destroyer arrived in Shanghai, China, and began duty transporting mail between the various naval commands in China. She made the rounds between Shanghai, Tsingtao, and Hong Kong, and conducted maneuvers with Task Forces (TF) 58 and 77. In December, the destroyer began the voyage home, stopping at Guam and at Pearl Harbor before arriving back in San Diego in February 1947.

For the next year, Brinkley Bass participated in type training and independent ship's exercises along the coast of southern California. During the summer of 1947, she entered Hunters Point Naval Shipyard for regular overhaul. The repair period lasted until November, at which time the destroyer resumed local operations. In February 1948, she headed back to the Far East for a deployment of about eight months. During that cruise, she visited Tsingtao, China; as well as the Japanese port cities of Fukuoka, Osaka, Sasebo, Yokohama, and Yokosuka. The warship returned to San Diego in October and resumed local operations out of her home port. In February 1949, she departed the waters of southern California to participate in Operation "Micowex" conducted in Alaskan waters. Brinkley Bass reentered San Diego in March, and April saw her begin another regular overhaul, that time at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard.

In July, the warship resumed operations along the coast of southern California. In October, Brinkley Bass embarked upon her third tour of duty in the Orient. During that deployment, she alternated port visits in Japan, China, Okinawa, and the Philippines with training evolutions and patrols in Tsushima Strait. Returning via Guam and Pearl Harbor, the destroyer arrived back home in June 1950.

Korean War
On 25 June 1950, the Korean War broke out. Brinkley Bass, however, did not get into the conflict immediately. Scheduled for regular overhaul, she entered the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard on 16 August and remained there until 8 October. After about a month of normal operations, the destroyer departed San Diego on 6 November, bound for her first tour of duty in the Korean combat zone. She made the normal stops, Pearl Harbor, Midway Island, and Sasebo, Japan before joining Task Force 77 off the Korean coast on 25 November. Brinkley Bass served the carriers of TF 77 as plane guard and anti-submarine escort.

Such remained her mission until late in April 1951 when she and her division mates were detached to escort a convoy of transports to Japanese ports. On 16 May, she reported for duty with TF 95, the "Blockading and Escort Force", for duty off Wonsan harbour. For the next 30 days, the warship shelled enemy installations continually and vectored in air strikes on other targets. On 20 May, a North Korean shore battery succeeded in wounding 10 Brinkley Bass crewmembers, one of them fatally, with shell fragments from a near-miss to starboard. On 27 June, she resumed duty as plane guard and escort to the carriers of TF 77. She and her division were relieved by Destroyer Division (DesDiv) 91 on 18 July, and they headed home via Yokosuka and Pearl Harbor. Brinkley Bass reentered San Diego on 6 August. After a post-deployment leave and upkeep period, the destroyer resumed normal operations out of San Diego.

That employment lasted until the first month of 1952. On 26 January 1952, she stood out of San Diego in company with USS Arnold J. Isbell (DD-869) and USS Stickell (DD-888) bound for the Korean War once more. After stops at Pearl Harbor, Midway, and Yokosuka, she reported for duty in the screen of TF 77 on 25 February 1952. That assignment lasted until 19 March when she rejoined TF 95 at Wonsan harbour. Over the next two weeks, the destroyer delivered gunfire on enemy installations. She also received return fire from shore batteries; and, on 25 March, she took a hit on the centerline amidships that injured three crewmen. Relieved of duty at Wonsan on 1 April, Brinkley Bass headed for Yokosuka and repairs.

Back on station with TF 77 by mid-April, the warship screened the carriers and participated in shore bombardments for the next six weeks. The last week of that tour saw her assisting the Republic of Korea frigate ROKS Apnok 62 which had nearly been severed in half in a collision. On 27 May, she was detached from TF 77 for an eight-day respite at Sasebo. The warship was back off Wonsan on 6 June and spent two weeks bombarding the North Koreans. On 22 June, her division, DesDiv 52, was relieved at Wonsan and shaped a course for Okinawa whence she conducted two weeks of antisubmarine warfare training. Following that, Brinkley Bass served a two-week tour with the Taiwan Strait patrol. On 28 July, the destroyer rejoined the screen of TF 77. On 31 July, she performed her last mission of the deployment—a gunfire mission on the eastern coast of Korea.

Brinkley Bass returned to San Diego on 26 August 1952 and began post-deployment leave and upkeep. On 15 September, the warship departed San Diego on her way to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The overhaul lasted until late January 1953. On the 26th, she got underway to return to San Diego whence she operated through the second week in April. On 18 April, the destroyer stood out of San Diego on her way back to the Far East. Once again, she alternated between assignments with TF 77, TF 95, and the Taiwan Strait patrol. The mission lasted until 2 November 1953 at which time she departed Yokosuka to return to San Diego. Following a December of leave and upkeep, Brinkley Bass entered the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard for another overhaul. After those repairs, the warship resumed training operations out of San Diego in preparation for another deployment to the Far East.

The armistice ending hostilities in Korea had taken effect on 27 July 1953 during the warship's most recent deployment to the western Pacific. Consequently, her tours of duty in the Far East over the ensuing decade assumed a more peaceful and routine character. Between July 1953 and June 1963, Brinkley Bass deployed to the Orient seven times. In each instance, she coupled visits to various Asiatic ports with exercises with units of the United States Seventh Fleet and intermittent duty on the Taiwan Strait patrol. Only during 1961 did she see no time overseas because of an extensive Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) overhaul.

The last of those peacetime cruises ended at Long Beach in June 1963. That was followed by 27 months of duty along the California coast that also included a four-month regular overhaul at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard between April and August 1964. Just as she was preparing to leave the yard, an event, the Tonkin Gulf incident, occurred off the coast of Vietnam. It helped to bring the United States into the Vietnamese civil war as a full belligerent. Though Brinkley Bass spent another year in peaceful operations along the west coast, that incident meant that her remaining Far East deployments would be of a combat nature.

Vietnam War
On 28 September 1965, the destroyer departed Long Beach in a task group built around the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga (CV-14). The task group spent about two weeks engaged in exercises in the Hawaii operating area before continuing its voyage west. The warships arrived in Subic Bay in the Philippines on 30 October. Three days later, she was on her way to Vietnamese waters where she screened USS Independence (CVA-62) and served as her plane guard during air strikes on North Vietnam. That brief line tour ended 10 days later back at Naval Station Subic Bay. On 21 November, the destroyer put to sea once again. After type training at the Tabones shore bombardment range, she headed for Da Nang, South Vietnam, where she trained for duty as a search and rescue (SAR) ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. She then began a 30-day tour of duty on her SAR station.

Still engaged in SAR duties at the beginning of 1966, Brinkley Bass was not relieved of that mission until 5 February 1966. That relief occurred as a result of damage to her bow which she suffered in a collision with USS Waddell (DDG-24) on the night of 4 and 5 February. After a stop at Da Nang where the damage was inspected, the destroyer moved on to Subic Bay where she received a false bow. On 7 March, the warship departed Subic Bay on her way to the United States and permanent repairs. Following stops at Guam, Midway, and Pearl Harbor, she arrived in Long Beach on 8 April. About a month later, the destroyer began repairs at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. She left the drydock on 21 June and, soon thereafter, began normal west coast operations. That employment carried her through most of the remainder of 1966.

On 27 December 1966, Brinkley Bass stood out of Long Beach to return to the Far East. She made the usual stopover at Pearl Harbor and arrived in Yokosuka, Japan, on 15 January 1967. Four days later, the destroyer began the transit to Subic Bay where she arrived on the 24th. Following gunfire support training at the Tabones range early in February, she shaped a course for the south SAR station in company with USS Richmond K. Turner (DLG-20). The two warships arrived on station on 6 February. Over the next month, Brinkley Bass participated in one gunfire support mission and four SAR incidents. Relieved by USS Mansfield (DD-728) on 5 March, the destroyer headed for the northern fire support area of I Corps zone where she conducted one fire support mission on 8 March. She then steamed in company with USS Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31) on Yankee Station before putting into Kaohsiung, Taiwan, on 19 March.

The warship remained at Kaohsiung until 27 March at which time she headed back to Vietnam. On the 29th, she relieved Waddell as gunfire support ship in the I Corps zone. She joined USS Bigelow (DD-942) in supporting the closing phase of Operation "Beacon Hill," a combination vertical and horizontal amphibious assault on Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces threatening the United States Marine Corps Firebase Gio Linh. That operation ended on 1 April; and, the next day, Brinkley Bass relieved USS McCaffery (DD-686) along the shores of the II Corps zone. She spent the next six days supporting the 9th Republic of Korea (ROK) Regiment's Operation "Pang Ma Tao." On 7 April, the destroyer joined the screen of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) on Yankee Station. That assignment lasted until 13 April when she transferred to a task group built around USS Ticonderoga. Ten days later, the warship returned to gunfire support missions in the northern portion of the II Corps zone.

Relieved of that duty on 27 April, she joined Ticonderoga and Waddell on the 25th for the passage to Subic Bay. Stops at Subic Bay, Hong Kong, and Yokosuka occupied her during the first half of May. On 19 May, Brinkley Bass departed Yokosuka on her way back to the United States. The warship arrived back in Long Beach on the 29th. After the usual post-deployment standdown period, she began normal operations out of Long Beach. That employment lasted until 1 September when the destroyer began preparations for her overhaul. She entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard on 17 October and remained there through the end of the year.

Brinkley Bass completed her overhaul on 13 January 1968 and resumed local operations out of Long Beach. Those operations continued until 18 July when she departed Long Beach for the Far East in company with USS Decatur (DDG-31), USS Samuel N. Moore (DD-747), and USS Harry E. Hubbard (DD-748). The warships arrived in Pearl Harbor on 24 July and then put to sea again on the 25th to escort USS Hancock (CV-19) during the carrier's operational readiness inspection. Upon completion of that mission, the destroyer continued her voyage to the Orient in company with Hancock and arrived in Yokosuka on 8 August. The task group remained in Yokosuka until 11 August and then got underway for Subic Bay where it arrived on 15 August. Three days later, she was on her way to the Gulf of Tonkin. For almost five months, the destroyer divided her time between carrier escort duties and gunfire support missions. She completed her last line period on 8 January 1969 and headed for the Philippines. Brinkley Bass visited Subic Bay from 9 to 13 January and Yokosuka from 17 to 20 January. On the latter day, she got underway for home.

The warship arrived in Long Beach on 31 January 1969. There she began a leave and upkeep period that lasted until mid-April. On 14 April, she returned to sea to begin normal operations along the California coast. Training operations—including a midshipman training cruise to Pearl Harbor in July—occupied her time through the summer and fall of 1969. At the end of the year, Brinkley Bass began preparations for another tour of duty in the Far East. The destroyer departed Long Beach on 12 January 1970. After stops at Pearl Harbor, Midway, and Guam, she arrived in Subic Bay on 2 February. Once again, the warship spent five months alternating between Vietnamese waters and various ports in the Far East. When off Vietnam, she screened aircraft carriers and provided gunfire support for the troops ashore. In addition, she served one tour of duty on the Taiwan Strait patrol and conducted surveillance on Soviet trawlers snooping the American warships. Brinkley Bass departed Subic Bay and shaped a course via Guam, Midway, and Pearl Harbor for California. She arrived in Long Beach on 2 July.

After post-deployment leave and upkeep, the destroyer resumed training missions out of Long Beach. On 10 September, she entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for a three-month overhaul. The warship left the shipyard on 10 December and resumed normal operations along the California coast. That employment continued through the end of the year and well into 1971. On 14 May 1971, Brinkley Bass embarked upon her last deployment to the Orient. Steaming in company with USS Oriskany (CVA-34), she made a stop at Pearl Harbor before arriving in Subic Bay on 29 May. For almost four months, the warship served the familiar line periods off the coast of Vietnam screening carriers and providing gunfire support for the ground troops. She completed her last mission on 5 September and headed for Subic Bay. From there on 19 September, the warship embarked upon a circuitous voyage home. She made stops at the Australian ports of Darwin, Townsville, Sydney, and Napier before shaping a course for Long Beach on 11 October. She stopped at Pago Pago, Samoa, for fuel and at Pearl Harbor before returning to her home port on 24 October.

Brinkley Bass spent the rest of her active career in operations conducted between the west coast and Hawaii. For the most part, her duties consisted of training; and, after 1 July 1972, she became a Naval Reserve training ship. Thus, she trained reservists during their annual two weeks of active duty. At that same time, her home port was changed to Tacoma, Washington. She conducted her training missions from that port until decommissioned at San Diego on 3 December 1973. Her name was struck from the Navy list that same day and, she was simultaneously transferred to Brazil.

Brinkley Bass earned seven battle stars during the Korean conflict and nine battle stars for service in Vietnamese waters.

Brazilian Navy service
Brinkley Bass was transferred to Brazil and renamed Mariz e Barros (D-26). The Brazilian Navy decommissioned Mariz e Barros on 1 September 1997. She then served as a pierside training ship until expended as a target in December 2000.

title: USS Brinkley Bass


text:
Lake Mai-Ndombe

Lake Mai-Ndombe (Lac Mai-Ndombe) is a large freshwater lake in Mai-Ndombe province in western Democratic Republic of the Congo. The lake is within the Tumba-Ngiri-Maindombe area, the largest Wetland of International Importance recognized by the Ramsar Convention in the world.

Location
The lake drains to the south through the Fimi River into the Kwah and Congo Rivers. Known until 1972 as Lake Leopold II (Lac Léopold II) after Leopold II, King of the Belgians. Mai-Ndombe means "black water" in Kikongo. The lake is of irregular shape and ranges in depth from only 5 meters (mean) to 10 meters (maximum). Covering approximately 890 square miles (2,300 square km), it is known to double or triple in size during the rainy season. Its waters are oxygenated throughout their depth and the pH ranges from 4.2 to 5.5. Low, forested shores surround it with dense, humid equatorial rainforest prevailing to the north and a mosaic of forest and savanna to the south.

Biodiversity
Surveys have revealed a high biodiversity in and around the lake, with animals such as two species of otters, marsh mongoose, giant otter shrew, numerous waterbirds, crocodiles and turtles.

Mai-Ndombe contains acidic, humic-rich blackwater and in general the fish of this lake have been poorly documented, even compared to other regions in the Congo River basin. Although ecologically similar to Lake Tumba and occasionally directly connected by channels or swamps, there are some significant differences in the fish fauna that inhabits the two lakes, but also many shared species. Initial surveys were performed by George Albert Boulenger more than a century ago and there have been relatively few later studies of the fish fauna in the lake. For example, the first study of its northern part was only conducted in 2002. More than 30 fish species are known, but the actual figure is presumed to be considerably higher. There are five known endemics: the catfish Amphilius opisthophthalmus and the cichlid Hemichromis cerasogaster were scientifically described by Boulenger. The remaining are relatively recent discoveries that only were described in the last few decades: In 1984, a new species of cichlid, Nanochromis transvestitus, named for the fact that it exhibits reverse sexual dichromatism, was scientifically described from the lake. In 2006, another new species of cichlid, Nanochromis wickleri, was described, and in 2008, a new catfish species, Chrysichthys praecox, was documented.

Economic activity
Some of the main concession areas of the logging company Sodefor are to the north and south of Lake Mai-Ndombe. On 28 November 2009, two logging barges sank causing the loss of 73 lives. The boat was not authorised to carry passengers, but was believed to have some 270 people on board at the time.

Lake Mai-Ndombe and the river system is often used for transportation across the country because the land based road system is inadequate. Many passenger ferries carry hundreds of people each day. Many of these boats are old and not maintained. On Saturday, May 25, 2019, a passenger ferry with over 350 passengers sank in high winds. Over 45 passengers were confirmed dead in the first day and over hundred deemed still missing. In response the government said it would ban wooden passenger boats over 5 years old from traversing the lake.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lake Mai-Ndombe


text:
Talk:Höðr

Requested move
Höðr → Hodur Use English name. CDThieme 02:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Add #Support or #Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

(8/20)

Support

 * 1) Support per the Naming conventions (use English) policy: Hodur seems to be the most common of the English spellings. Jonathunder 07:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - This is an English-language encyclopedia, any number of English language versions of the name should be used before the current article title. DreamGuy 04:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) support Tree&Leaf 04:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Hodur is established English name. Septentrionalis 05:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Let's not bewilder our readers by imposing foreign characters on article titles when English names exist. CDThieme 15:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. No Account 16:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Quintusdecimus 03:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Mark 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Hodur is not "the English name". There are many different ways to anglicize the name (Hodr, Hothr, Hödr, Höthr, Hod, Hoth, Hödur, Höthur, Hothur, Hodur, Hodhur, Hödhur, Hodhr, Hödhr, Hödh etc.) this is just one of many. Let's stick to the current spelling standard for Old Norse mythological names. And if you don't agree with the standard then please let's discuss the standard rather than individual cases. - Haukurth 09:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) OPPOSE, because there is no conventional spelling in English, as Haukurth says. A case when the standard applies.--Wiglaf 09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Anglicizations are a nuisance. They are common in popular works and retellings, but not in scholarly treatises. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a new Bullfinch's Mythology. --Salleman 13:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Fornadan (t) 21:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) emphatically oppose (see discussion below) P.MacUidhir 08:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose see above. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as per P.MacUidhir --Bjarki 09:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, strongly. All the many reasons have been given...--Sterio 10:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, as per Haukurth. Wikipedia should adhere to scholarly standards. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 11:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose --Cessator 13:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) oppose, this is taking on BC(E) proportions, with anti-diacritics-squads moving articles to score points without any involvement, or knowledge of the matter. This is unwikilike behaviour. As per Haukur, we need a solid policy for Old Norse names. dab (ᛏ) 14:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Oppose. Firstly, this is a decision to made by the page's regular editors, not some outsiders looking to tidy up loose ends. At the very least we should wait their is a policy before we start ignoring the voices of those who are knowledgable. Secondly, the page is more professional as it is, we need only ensure that all synonymous terms redirect here, or to a disambig linking here. Sam Spade 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - I agree with Haukurth, translating a proper noun like this will just add confusion.  Also, the most correct form of course is Höðr, a redirect from other known Anglicized names is sufficient. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Strongly Oppose It was bad enough to lose the special Old Norse characters, but "Höðr"->"Hodur" is just yet another Anglisization, and bad one at that. It goes against the grain of anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject - and I mean however slight. Do you want Wikipedia to be scholarly or do you want it to be yet another version of Brewster's? Cheers Io 18:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. I would perhaps have no problem with a change of the name, but "Hodur" certainly is not the most common English language spelling. "Hod" seems to be much more common (try Googling the two: 85,900<3,040,000), and is used more often in trustworthy sources. The Old Norse spelling is also used quite frequently in English anyway. elvenscout742 09:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. I agree with Haukurth. The Old Norse spelling should be used when possible. Introgressive 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. There is for example an article at Łódź, and I cannot see that Hodur is really the most common spelling. Edinborgarstefan 20:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Article titles on en: should be in English unless (as is the case here) there is no correct or generally agreed-upon translation or transliteration for the name in question. -Sean Curtin 03:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose, unlike Thor, Höðr has no well-established English name, so we use his Norse name. If we move it anywhere, we should move it to Hǫðr, using the letter of the Old Norse alphabet that Modern Icelandic ö corresponds to. --Angr/undefined 06:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Totally Oppose. recommend to keep it the current way. Gryffindor  01:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Totally Oppose "Höðr" is the original name, while "Hodur" is an abusively modernized form which, while it conforms English standards and modern Icelandic spelling conventions, is unneeded as it refers to a deity that is no longer worshipped and can be referred to in a spelling conform to that of those who referred to it as current. --Svartalf 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral on this particular page, but I would have hoped both sides would have refrained from moving pages until a policy developed. (Extended commentary below). --Tabor 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 00:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

 * Just a quick note. We all agree on following the "use English" convention. But we believe that this case falls under: If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages like Spanish or French should need no transliteration When there is a commonly used English name - like "Thor" - we use that. But one there are several options available we follow a convention we've previously agreed upon. As an aside Höðr is already an anglicization since the standardized Old Norse spelling has an o with a hook rather than an 'ö'. The larger point is that there are several different systems for anglicizing Old Norse names (see Old Norse orthography) and we'd prefer to be consistent throughout. Tracking down what happens to be the most common form in each case would be a daunting task and lead to us using forms from several different systems. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * English is not a language whose forms are consistent throughout. It does adopt many forms from many systems. That's the way this language is. If you try to impose a system of spelling, especially one based on another language, you will title articles with forms that most of our readers do not recognize. Höðr is something most readers will not find familiar at all and will not know how to read. Jonathunder 09:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to quote what I think was an interesting point made by Markussep: "I don't think the pronunciation should be an argument in this discussion. There are many names without diacritics of funny foreign thingies that don't give the average English speaker a clue about how they should be pronounced, like Zschopau, Clwyd or Worcester." Wikipedia will have articles on entities with names foreign to most English speakers. It will not be clear from the spelling of those names how they are pronounced. This is a problem that cannot be legislated away and the purpose of the "use English" convention is not to do that. When a common English name exists (Moscow, Cologne, Thor, Odin) we use that. In other cases we use the native name (Kraków, Seyðisfjörður, Hávamál, Veðrfölnir). That's what Naming conventions (use English) means to me and that's how it's applied in practice. In the long run I'd like to provide pronunciation information for all of these, preferably both with IPA and sound files. I've also been working on providing the many different anglicizations of individual names (see Lóðurr for example), which will help people to find the articles no matter what form they have. And of course redirects are cheap and should be used generously. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I was reading the Britannica's article on Germanic religion and mythology. It is devastatingly much better than our article on Norse mythology, but when it comes to names, it's totally Wild West over there, even though they give the original names in parenthesis: All in all, we see that there are really but two solutions available: standardized Old Norse names, or madness. --Salleman 01:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they drop accents (Rigr instead of Rígr), and sometimes they don't (Mímir)
 * Sometimes they split the æ-ligature (Aesir), and sometimes they keep it (landvættir), as they do with Hœnir's œ-ligature
 * Freyr can have his nominative case marker, but Heimdallr (Heimdall) cannot
 * The ð first becomes a d (Hlódyn instead of Hlóðyn), and then it is kept (seiðr)
 * Gerðr is first styled as Gerd, in the next sentence as Gerdr
 * Rindr is bestowed with an –a ending (Rinda), but Frigg can do without
 * Lastly, Baldr is Balder, whereas Höðr is (*dum-duh-dum*) Höd.

 * A very interesting study, thank you! The confusing thing here is that if there is an 'ð' anywhere in the text readers will assume that it's used everywhere it should be. Thus they will assume, incorrectly, that 'Hlódyn' does not have an 'ð'. Britannica also has some patent mistakes, at least the online version does. I've seen such nonsensical forms as *Jörðr and *Audhumia. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, English spellings follow many patterns, sometimes by complete historical accident, and can seem quite crazy. Given the alternatives, however, of imposing rules of a non-English language on article titles on the English wikipedia or using the most common English title for any given article, the latter gives a more readable and familiar result for the majority of our readers. Jonathunder 03:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm still waiting for you to show that Hodur is the most common anglicization of Höðr. Could you quote some recent books and articles? And complete chaos is not very readable for those of us who know Old Norse. There's also a difference between accidentally occurring chaos and intentional creation of it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Following the same logic, Hermann Göring would be found at Hermann Goering, since that is the most common misspelling of his name in English. And btw, some Google testing reveals that Hod and not Hodur is the most common misspelling of Höðr. --Salleman 03:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It isn't a mispelling in English. Do you realize telling someone his native language does it wrong can come across as quite offensive? Jonathunder 03:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not the English language itself that spells things. English speaking people do. I suppose misspelling is not the best word. Even Germans will spell Göring as Goering in an ASCII context. I will also spell my name "Haukur Thorgeirsson" in an ASCII context. But where 'þ' is available (as it is on Wikipedia) I much prefer to have my name written as I've written it since I was 4 years old. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I was being rash. The main point is (1) there is no standard anglicization, and you, Jonathunder, contradict yourself when you hint that the Britannica is using the English name, when in fact their name is different from what you have proposed; (2) most anglicizations are, in fact, not proper anglicizations (such as valkyrie for valkyrja), but simply the actual names without diacritics, letters not found in English and nominative case. Why don't you go over to Māori, el Niño and Niccolò Machiavelli and tell them to get rid of their diacritics as well? --Salleman 13:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If we wanted to be pedantic about this issue, we could do a survey of texts in English translation that contain the name, but all that would do is establish that there is no standard spelling for the name - much like every other proper name found in Old Norse saga translations, barring rare exceptions like Thor and Odin. This would be pointless. As Haukurth mentioned, the issue that needs to be addressed is the standard set of orthographic rules to use here at Wikipedia rather than individual cases. I am completely opposed to any changes of the sort proposed here until the standards debate is concluded. It can be found here: Naming conventions (Old Norse/Old Icelandic/Old English) I recommend that anyone interested in this topic go there to hash it out rather than wasting time with just one proper noun from a group of tens of thousands of possible proper nouns from Old Norse that could be used for article titles. P.MacUidhir 08:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A few comments here:

1. Quoting Sam Spade above: "Firstly, this is a decision to made by the page's regular editors, not some outsiders looking to tidy up loose ends." Well, the article was created and had 40 edits over a period of 4 years as "Hod (mythology)". Wiglaf came along and moved it to Höðr as his very first edit to the article. So the "regular editors" argument does not hold too much water.
 * Wiglaf and I are regular editors of Norse mythology in general. I, for example, scanned in that picture of Höðr and the wood maidens. - Haukur

2. The regular editors of the original articles may not even be clear, because of cut-and-paste moves that split the history. Example: Thrud -> Þrúðr. Similar to this article, the name change was the first edit Haukurth made to the article.
 * I'm sorry about that, I did that cut and paste move at a time before I understood the moving process. I would have done it properly if I'd known. - Haukur

3. On waiting for a policy -- This was exactly my point on Haukurth's talk page here when Haukurth and Wiglaf put up a new proposed policy page on May 21 and started moving articles on May 22. However, even clearly voiced disagreement was no object, because the pair just continued to move pages. They certainly weren't hung up on waiting for a policy to develop.
 * Prior to our tentative standard there was no standard of any kind and page moves were common. The month grace period was only supposed to mean that we wouldn't justify any moves with that standard until after that time. - Haukur

4. I am disturbed by comments that display a complete disregard for the community. For example: Wiglaf's comment to Haukurth [ ] "it seems like you and I are the only ones at Wikipedia who care at the moment, so if you want to have standardized Old Norse forms, I guess standardized Old Norse forms should be regarded as a consensus decision." (I suppose this may be true when you ignore objections).
 * There were no objections at that time and Wiglaf and I were just about the only ones working actively on the pages in question. Since then Salleman has become quite active and he largely agrees with us on the issue. - Haukur

5. Or Haukurth's recent edit summary  "ordering Icelanders by first name. I got away with this in Hrafnkels saga (FA) so I'm hoping to get away with it here" ... as if circumventing the community is something to do when you can "get away with it".
 * I'm obviously not trying to "circumvent the community". What I'm saying is that the Hrafnkels saga article went through the FA process without anyone objecting to the way I arranged the references section. FAC is just about the highest degree of oversight any article gets around here so that's what I meant with "getting away with it". Ordering Icelanders by first name is common practice in English works dealing with Icelandic topics. It seems natural to me that we should follow that here. In articles on other subjects when an Icelander happens to be referenced I think we should order the name by his or her patronym. Of course you can disagree and I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you and the larger community. - Haukur

--Tabor 21:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Tabor, I hope you have checked the edit history for how many people who were engaged in the discussion. If I would have had the standard I had preferred, it would not have been the present standard, but due to the lack of comments, the discussion appeared to be dead. It was a statement of disappointment on the lack of interest in the issue, but if I remember correctly, you commented on that statement directly and you did not assume good faith.--Wiglaf 21:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor is the standard exactly as I originally proposed. Compromise is good :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A response to Tabor-

 * 1. These points need clarification. There were no regular editors for Hod (mythology), that is true. Wiglaf's change from Hod (mythology) to Höðr, however, was his second edit of that article, not his first.

 * 2. The point concerning Thrud is a valid one. In reading the old naming conventions archive Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Old Norse/Old Icelandic/Old English)/Archive 1, my first assumption was that they would wait a month before making the changes that were decided at that time, but such was not the case. At worst, their phrasing of their intentions was flawed, not their actions, considering that there was a grand total of nine interested editors for that discussion from its beginning until 22 May 2005, all of whom had the opportunity to make comments during that long span of time. Since the discussion has been reopened, this is a dead issue.

 * 3. A better standard should have been decided before large-scale changes were made. In that I agree with you. Haukur Þorgeirsson's comments, however, are relevant: there really were *not* that many people who cared about what was being discussed at that time, as the history page for the archive plainly demonstrates. Their actions seem a bit arbitrary on the surface, and perhaps a bit hasty, but with no other input from other interested parties, who can fault their decision on the basis of objections? I see objections that are given, but also are adequately addressed. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Old Norse/Old Icelandic/Old English)/Archive 1 The policies of assume good faith and be bold! seem very applicable throughout this discussion of actions and intentions, and particularly so in this case.

 * 4. Haukur Þorgeirsson's latest comment on this says it best. I will sum it up- what community? There were nine people who commented on the subject up to that point (22 May 2005). Old Norse orthography is not exactly on par with Metallica in being a popular topic of discourse, here or elsewhere, so this is not surprising. In fact, I am very pleased to see that anyone at all cared enough to discuss this subject here at Wikipedia. If people are inclined to want to learn Icelandic, it is doubtful they want to get so in-depth in the subject as to concern themselves with the evolution of its orthographic standards. How many people here have even read the First Grammatical Treatise, or any of the others since it was written? Not many, I wager. Making a vague reference to the broad English-language Wikipedia community is pointless when discussing these subjects- 95% could care less, but the other 5% *do* care quite a lot.

 * And as for his change to the references section of History of Iceland, his assertions given here are quite correct, though they do not represent a 'standard', only a convention used by many scholars (most of them Icelandic, admittedly) in writing on Icelandic subjects in the English language. Gunnar Karlsson's "The History of Iceland" is a fine example of that convention in print by a well-regarded scholar. He does not seem to be circumventing a community. He was ignoring a Wikipedia suggestion for English-language article citations in favour of a common format used in texts published in the field of Icelandic historiography (texts in English as well as in Icelandic and other languages). Quite plainly, those references look fine to me, and I see no issue there until Wikipedia *does* have a final 'set in stone' guideline for citing published works. Until then... why quibble? There are valid reasons for his choice. I disagree with him on the choice, since in principle I prefer a uniform standard rather than lots of different standards, but there *is* no uniform standard here for citing published works. If you know of one that applies which also has more authority than what is common in Icelandic historiography, please do mention it here.

 * My own opinion is that the standard should be to use modern Icelandic spelling rules since Old West Norse/Old Icelandic did not have standardised spelling rules that were uniformly adhered to until recent centuries, so there *is* no uniform set of spelling rules for Old West Norse/Old Icelandic that has any authority superseding that of using modern Icelandic, which logically more people will be familiar with anyway, and also retains a degree of accuracy in the spellings used- English spelling of proper Old West Norse nouns is far from uniform, so modern Icelandic is the best source on which to draw for making a standard here. I also say that liberal use of redirect pages should be employed. This will form the nucleus of my own comments in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Old Norse/Old Icelandic/Old English) page. P.MacUidhir 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments, Pádraic. Just a couple of points.

 * 1. We haven't been moving pages massively to confirm with our tentative standard. Personally I mostly move pages when I want to make some other improvements on them anyway. There are still plenty of articles in the Norse mythology category which do not adhere to our spelling guideline. I was expecting to have consistency (and a collection of near-FA articles) no sooner than 2010 (see my home page for those I've rewritten already). I'm still expecting that if we don't get mired in requested page moves along the way.

 * Fair enough. I will look more carefully in the edit lists for your account and Wiglaf's. A cursory survey showed a lot of activity with spelling and other minor changes, but I did not parse the lists in detail.

 * - P.MacUidhir 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Feel free to study my edit history if you want to. There are certainly many minor changes related to spelling. Once I've rewritten an article about, say, Sjöfn I'll typically go through every page that mentions Sjöfn and standardize the name usage. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 2. Since the 19th century scholars have consistently used a particular standard for Old West Norse names. Ask 10 scholars what the standardized 13th century Icelandic spelling for X is and they'll all give you the same answer. That's why we want to use this standard, it's just about the only consistent one available. Arguably Modern Icelandic is another one but we'll never get consensus for using that in a million years :)

 * - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Acknowledged on both points. That system is familiar to me. My comments here are leading us even further afield from a discussion of Höðr, though, so I excerpted this tangent to the actual Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Old Norse/Old Icelandic/Old English) page.

 * - P.MacUidhir 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

it is high time that the "naming conventions" are fleshed out with langauge-specific detail, Egyptian, Old Norse, Chinese, etc. (but why is it "Norse mythology" rather than "Old Norse"? Surely this is a question of language, not of the topic of mythology in particular?); the whole point of Wikipedia is that articles are written by experts where available, and by google users where we don't have any experts. I have written many articles in 'google mode', where I would immediately yield to more knowledgeable editors who know their stuff. Others, where I have in-depth knowledge, I have written with more confidence. It is not the point the "community" that the google users, or people with passing familiarity of the topic, unnerve the experts by pestering them about half-understood notions. That said, there can be intelligent disagreement over naming policy. I would just like to keep it intelligent, and intelligence in this case means receptiveness to expertise. I cringe every time I see "use English" used as an argument about the orthography of non-English names. Yes, early translations and popular translations used Hod or Hodur, in an English context. Academic discussions use Höðr, again in an English context. The intelligent guidelines I am hoping for will take such usage into account, and prescribe best practice. You will still need familiariy with the literature to make that decision. "funny squiggles are un-English" is just a redneck kneejerk reaction. Wikipedia does have a problem with an anti-academic bias, as is well known. Let's not make that worse than need be. cheers, dab 11:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth. The Old Norse spelling should be used when possible. Introgressive 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are the articles for the Greek gods in the Greek alphabet? Why should this be in an alphabet most modern English speakers don't know? No Account 16:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is not written in Futhark, is it? No, it is written in the same alphabet as is used in English, with a single diacritic and a relatively rare letter. I suppose you are going to demand that we change Max Müller and Führer, now? The very fact that these symbols appear in the "Insert:" list a the bottom of the Edit page should be enough proof that they can be used in English in situations where, say, katakana or Devanāgarī (even note he macrons on the name of the latter page) might be inappropriate, since they are different writing systems rather than an expanded form of the one used in English. elvenscout742 20:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with you but trying to see No Account's point of view I suppose Ðð is arguably somewhat harder to identify than Üü. But we shouldn't need to transliterate names written in the Latin alphabet. In fact WP:UE explicitly tells us not to. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As a student of Latin, I can assure you Ð and ð appear nowhere in the Latin alphabet. Quintusdecimus 03:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What is your preferred name for the alphabet normally used to write such languages as English, French, Spanish, German and Old Norse? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Unicode consortium includes eth, ash, and thorn in their Latin alphabet planes, yes. It does seem that Quintusdecimus was assuming a literal usage of 'Latin alphabet', which is an incorrect assumption. No harm done.
 * - P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c) 16:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Some more clarifications
I might add that for months now my user page has had the following displayed prominently: "If you're interested in Old Norse mythology then please help us arrive at an orthographic standard for it at Naming conventions (Old Norse/Old Icelandic/Old English)". And already in February I made the following addition to the Norse mythology talk page: calling for discussion on the naming convention. I've made every effort to involve interested people. The suggestion that Wiglaf and I were trying to sneak something past community oversight does not hold water. It really did appear to us at the time that we were basically the only people who cared about this after Jallan left and Io took a long break. It's nice to have this sudden interest, of course. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It did look a bit grim for a while there with few people taking any interest. As far as I am concerned, the more interest in anything concerned with Old Icelandic sagas and related literature, the better, but you already know that. :)

 * - P.MacUidhir 00:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I second that, Pádraic :) And I look forward to seeing your contributions in the future. Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And I don't mean to imply that only Wiglaf, Salleman, Jallan, Io and myself have ever made useful edits to Norse mythology topics. Obviously a lot of the groundwork was laid even before any of us signed up for an account! But we have made a very significant contribution and we are still doing so. Take "Category:Images_from_Norse_mythology" as an example. 101 images, all of them properly sourced, many of them painstakingly scanned. Over 90% of those were added by Wiglaf, Salleman and myself. So give us some credit, even if you disagree with us on the arcana of Old Norse spelling :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't hurt to take a look at How to create policy. Some of the suggestions there:
 * Add the proposed tag to the top of the article. This will add a notice and add your proposal to Category:Wikipedia proposals   [I see this has been done today]
 * Get feedback!
 * Post a link to your proposal on Village pump (policy) and Requests for comment.
 * and
 * The central place to discuss policies is Village pump (policy).
 * --Tabor 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Good ideas, all of them. We never really meant this as policy, though. It was intended as a guideline for how to apply WP:UE to Old Norse names. But I learn something new every day here, thanks for teaching me about this. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Odin and Rind
Was it Odin and Rind, or Odin and Frigg? I've changed it to Frigg, because Frigg was Odin's wife, but I'm not 100% certain that I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenwing (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 March 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe it should be Odin and Rind. And I thought there was some discrepancy as to whether or not Hod was actually killed, or whether Vali is always hunting for him.  I will have to pick up a copy of the Prose Edda and verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.231.28.177 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2004 (UTC)

Article expansion
It's such a shame to spend a lot of time arguing about spelling rather than improving articles so I've started expanding this one along the lines of some of my previous work, like Ullr and Lóðurr. Unfortunately I don't have my research library here in London so I have to rely more on web sources than I would like. I don't, for example, have Dronke's translation, Simek's dictionary, Lindow's handbook or Finnur's Lexicon. Once I get access to those again I'll work some more on the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If it helps, we have all of those works and more here in the archives. I know it is not the same as being able to page through them, but if you need a specific part from any of those texts (or others we might have), I will send it to you.

 * Hmm. Just to be certain, for Finnur's Lexicon you *do* mean "Lexicon poeticum antiquae linguae septentrionalis; ordbog over det norsk-islandske skjaldesprog", yes? That is the only one I know of which includes his work.

 * Also, if you are close enough to them, the British Library is one of the best in the world. This is probably a bit *too* obvious a suggestion, but I figured to mention it anyway since I know I miss the obvious far more than I forget the obscure on a daily basis. :)

 * - P . Mac Uidhir  (t)   (c)  17:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you! :) Yes, I do mean that Lexicon. I'll reply further in private e-mail. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick note on the issue of Google tests. It's probably not very useful to make a raw search for a three letter ASCII string like 'Hod'. It will yield all sorts of things unrelated to Höðr. I usually try to search for the word accompanied by a word which is related to the topic at hand. Here's a sample, using google.co.uk:

1.400 English pages for hod midgard 1.160 English pages for hodur midgard (812 English pages for höðr midgard)

I'm sure that if you select another word than 'midgard' you'll get wildly different results. Let's try two words.

1.390 English pages for hodur odin thor 784 English pages for hod odin thor (329 English pages for höðr odin thor)

Neither search yields anything conclusive on which anglicization is more common of those two. Yet, I too would have guessed that Hod is more common than Hodur. Maybe MI-derived forms are becoming more popular on the web. Let's try one more.

1.460 ensku síðum fyrir hodur baldur 911 ensku síðum fyrir hodur balder 1.220 ensku síðum fyrir hodur baldr

875 ensku síðum fyrir hod baldur 10.100 ensku síðum fyrir hod balder 2.790 ensku síðum fyrir hod baldr

Finally something crunchy. It looks like the combination "Hod" and "Balder" is most common on the web. It definitely isn't in recent translations, though. Oh, well. Enough of this for now.

Britannica Student Encyclopedia online starts their article like this:

 * Hod (also spelled Höd, Hoder, or Hodur), in Norse mythology, a blind god, associated with night and darkness.

This is appalling. They give four anglicized forms without giving the reader any idea of how they are derived and don't bother to give the Old Norse spelling at all. And then they start the article with the assertion that Höðr is "associated with night and darkness" which is, as far as I can tell, pure conjecture without a shred of primary sources to support it. Two sentences later Loki is called "an evil fire god", another dubious conjecture. On Baldr's death they present yet another conjecture as fact:

 * According to Norse mythology, after this deed the world was never again as good, loving...

And then we are spared the rest because you actually have to pay to access this outdated, inaccurate, inconsistent, small sorry excuse for an encyclopedia. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Angr is right on the spelling. But Wiglaf and I agreed a while back to use ö as a replacement for ǫ since the latter will fail to display on many systems and the former is widely used as a substitute and causes no ambiguity. I'm of course open to discussing the matter. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The support votes
I'd appreciate some more feedback from those voting for moving this page to Hodur. Two of them (Septentrionalis and Jonathunder) seem to feel that Hodur is the most common anglicization and should thus be used. Another two (DreamGuy and CDThieme) seem more concerned about replacing the 'ö' and the 'ð' than on specifically which ascii version to use. The other four support voters have not annotated their votes or participated in the discussion so I've got no insight into what specifically their concerns are here. Since we are currently trying to formulate new guidelines for the representation of Old Norse names on Wikipedia more feedback would be appreciated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Please? Anyone? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Haukurth, it is very possible that their main motivation is that they simply don't like the characters.--Wiglaf 12:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think your right Wiglaf. Most English speakers would write 'Höðr' as Hodr, that's what I'd do if I was writting this character's name. Mark 05:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Mark. I'll put you in the same category as DreamGuy and CDThieme then. I suspect the aversion to 'ð' and 'ö' may, in fact, have motivated most of the support voters. This is useful data for the naming convention. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology naming convention vote notice
A new proposal on the representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this mention is welcome, but I notice this page is among referrals from just "hod", so I don't see why it would need to be moved. would that alllow for better accessibility?

 * An incisive analysis. As long as redirects are in place it really doesn't matter so much where the page is located and we shouldn't get worked up over it. We've spent too much time on debating stuff like that in the past and I may well be most guilty. - Haukur 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That said this vote is old and should be archived. And it was a bit puppet-infested too :) - Haukur 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hodh isn't this guy
I know there've been rows before on this guy's name (and, frankly, regardless of the discussion above this page is in completely the wrong place) but Hodh should not redirect here at all. It's not even a form of this name and Google Books and Scholar make it clear that the West African region is by far the. — Llywelyn II   09:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Höðr. 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 tag to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/snorre/skaldskaparmal.php
 * Added tag to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/edda/vegtamskvida.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/lejre.html
 * Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20070508133345/http://www.heimskringla.no/original/edda/index.php to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/edda/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Höðr


text:
Lake Bangweulu

Bangweulu — 'where the water sky meets the sky' — is one of the world's great wetland systems, comprising Lake Bangweulu, the Bangweulu Swamps and the Bangweulu Flats or floodplain. Situated in the upper Congo River basin in Zambia, the Bangweulu system covers an almost completely flat area roughly the size of Connecticut or East Anglia, at an elevation of 1,140 m straddling Zambia's Luapula Province and Northern Province. It is crucial to the economy and biodiversity of northern Zambia, and to the birdlife of a much larger region, and faces environmental stress and conservation issues.

With a long axis of 75 km and a width of up to 40 km, Lake Bangweulu's permanent open water surface is about 3,000 km2, which expands when its swamps and floodplains are in flood at the end of the rainy season in May. The combined area of the lake and wetlands reaches 15,000 km2. The lake has an average depth of only 4 m, and a maximum depth of 10 m.

The Bangweulu system is fed by about seventeen rivers of which the Chambeshi (the source of the Congo River) is the largest, and is drained by the Luapula River.

Sections of Lake Bangweulu

 * Numbers in round brackets like so — (12) — refer to locations on the satellite image.

A notable feature of the Bangweulu system is a series of parallel sandy ridges running south-west to north-east. These are particularly striking in satellite photographs and are easily seen along the north-western shore, the Lifunge Peninsula (2), Mbalala Island (3), Chilubi Island (6), and the Kapata Peninsula (10). They divide the lake into three sections parallel to its main axis. One divides off a section called Lake Chifunabuli (1), 50 km long but only 5 km wide. Its entrance through a gap in the sand spits (at the end of Lifunge Peninsula) is only 250 m wide. Another sandy ridge, Mbabala Island, divides off a section called Lake Walilupe (4), 30 km long by 13 km wide. The main, middle section of the lake between Ifunge and Mbabala is known only as Bangweulu.

There are numerous bays, inlets, smaller lakes and lagoons around Lake Bangweulu, connected by open water, narrow channels or swamps. The largest is Lake Kampolombo (9), 30 km by 5 km, south of Lake Walilupe and connected to it by a 7 km channel. The 32 km long Kapata Peninsula lies between Lake Kampolombo and the swamps; at its tip on the eastern side is the 15 km long Lake Kangwena (11).

Only the western side of the lake and some of the islands have a well defined shore, with sandy beaches in places especially around Samfya, though even there, some of the bays and inlets are swampy.

It was found that infection with Schistosoma haematobium on the western shores of Lake Bangweulu, Zambia, is higher than previously reported.

The Bangweulu Swamps
The Bangweulu Swamps, larger than the lake, extend from the north-west clockwise around to the south. The main part covers an area of roughly 120 km by 75 km and they are normally not less than 9,000 km2.

The swamps act as a check on annual flooding downstream in the Luapula by releasing water slowly through many lagoons and channels. They help prevent the Luapula valley being flooded excessively in the rainy season.

Rivers and channels through the swamps
The Bangweulu swamps are fed mainly from the north-east by the Chambeshi River, and drain to the south into the Luapula River. The lake is connected to these rivers, and they to each other, by a complex mass of channels through the swamps that may become choked by vegetation and change their course; there is no easy navigation between them. Floating beds of papyrus may close up the channels to a width allowing only dugout canoes to pass. Motorised vessels are hampered by their width as well as by vegetation clogging propellers. Since colonial times attempts have been made to improve navigation and alter drainage patterns by cutting channels through the swamp. In 1942, attempts were made, with limited success, to cut an outlet from Lake Walilupe to the Luapula's exit from the swamps, to allow motor boats to transport cassava and other produce from the northern area of the lake to Kapalala Ferry on the Luapula and from there to the Copperbelt.

Lagoons
There are numerous lagoons in the swamps, the more prominent ones are: Lake Chali (12) in the south-west, Lake Chaya (13) in the east at the mouth of the Lulingilla River in the east, Lake Wumba (14) in the north-east at the confluence of the Chambeshi and Luansenshi (20) Rivers, and the Pook Lagoon (15) in the East near Nsalushi Island (25).

Other features of the swamps
On the northern side there are several wide swampy estuaries where rivers enter the lake or swamps, going from north-west to north-east they are: Lupososhi Estuary (16), Luena Estuary (17), Lukuto Estuary (18), Chambeshi Estuary (19) (and Luansenshi Estuary which feeds into it).

On the eastern and south-eastern sides the swamps are fed by the Munikashi, Luitikila, Lumbatwa, Lukulu and Lulimala rivers. The estuaries of the last three are the main dry season grazing grounds of the Black Lechwe.

In the main part of the swamps, just south of Chilubi Island, is a large area which is very shallow in the flood season and may become fairly dry at the end of the dry season, called the Lunga Bank (27).

Floodplains
Large grassy floodplains with an area of about 3,000 km2 lie mainly south of the swamps, but also in the north-north-east, acting as an extension of the region in the wet season. The southern floodplains are famous for large herds of the near-endemic black lechwe. Further information on wildlife of the wetlands is found on the Bangweulu Wetlands page.

Water parameters
Water temperatures at the surface of the Bangweulu system ranged from 25.8 to 28.3 °C in November 1993 and from 23.7 to 27.1 °C in February 1994. The conductivity of the Bangweulu system is unusually low and varies between 20 and 40 μS/cm. Transparency of the water ranges from 0.35 to 0.60 m in most water bodies of the system, but in the Tuchingo lagoon the transparency is much larger (>1.70 m) allowing the bottom to be seen.

European exploration
The lake was known to Europeans from reports by chiefs such as Kazembe and from Swahili traders, and it was sometimes referred to as 'Lake Bemba' from the name of the dominant tribe. In 1868 explorer and missionary David Livingstone was the first European to see the lake at the north end of the Lake Chifunabuli section. He was taken by canoe as far as Mbabala Island. His last expedition a few years later foundered in the swamps and their maze of shifting channels as he struggled to discover the rivers draining in and out of the lake. He died in 1873 in Chief Chitambo's village on the edge of the southern flood plain, about 100 km from the lake itself. The spot is marked by the Livingstone Memorial (see map). The lake was partially surveyed in 1883 by the French traveller, Victor Giraud, and first circumnavigated by Poulett Weatherley in 1896.

It was a desire for the riches of Bangweulu's fisheries and game-rich floodplain which motivated King Leopold II of Belgium to insist, in border negotiations between his Congo Free State and the British in Northern Rhodesia, on a land corridor reaching Bangweulu from Katanga. This resulted in the shape of the Congo Pedicle (34) which, as it turned out, does not penetrate the area enough to be of the desired value.

The first Christian missions in Bangweulu were founded in the early 1900s under the authority of Bishop Joseph Dupont of the Catholic White Fathers who was based north of Kasama.

Human settlement
The area of the lake is inhabited by the Bisa in Chilubi and Mpika, the Bemba in Luwingu, the Unga in Lunga District, the Kabende in Samfya, the Ngumbo in Lubwe, the BenaMukulu in Chungu and affiliated tribes who all speak Chibemba. The Bemba heartland of Paramount Chief Chitimukulu lies to the north-east, around Kasama.

Fishery
The lake supports a seasonal fishing industry and the population may increase markedly during the season. In 1989 the average annual catch was estimated at 11,900 tonnes, caught by 10,300 people using 5305 dugout canoes, 114 plank and fibreglass boats, and only 54 outboard motors. In 2000 the catch was 13,500 t.

Natural gas pipeline
In early 2004 a private European natural gas company finished preliminary plans to lay a pipeline which would cut directly through the Southeast portion of the Lake. Part of this plan was a proposed dam to allow for partial drainage of the required part of the lake. This plan was met with harsh opposition from the local people as well as environmental activists. After much court-wrangling and lengthy hearings on the project, the plan was disposed of by the European company as they built a detour for their pipeline in the surrounding province.

Towns and districts
The largest town, Samfya lies on the south western shore and is the principal base for road and boat transport and tourism, as well as being the administrative centre for Samfya District covering about three-quarters of the lake and swamps. Chilubi District covers most of the rest, its boma is on Chilubi Island (6), which is bordered by the swamps to the east. Luwingu District just touches the lake at Nsombo, which is the principal town at the northern end of the lake. Mpika and Kasama districts just touch the eastern and southern margins of the floodplain, and Serenje District and the Congo Pedicle just reach the southern margin of the floodplain.

Islands
There are numerous inhabited islands in the Bangweulu system.

On the lake they are: In the swamps: Flood season islands: on the edge of the swamps, connected to the mainland in the dry season:
 * Chilubi Island (6), the largest, partly in the lake and mainly in the swamps
 * Mbabala Island (3), a sand spit dividing off the Lake Walilupe section
 * Chishi Island (5), in the middle of the northern part of the lake
 * Lifunge Mwenzi Island (7), dividing off the northern part of Lake Chifunabuli
 * Small Islands: Chindo and Ibula Islands near the north-west shore, and Chibwe Ngombe Island, a tiny sliver north-west of Chilubi Island, Minswa Island and Ngwishi Island
 * Nsumbu Island (8) east of Chilubi Island
 * In the eastern swamps: Chisale Island, Panyo Island (24), Nsalushi Island (25), Nsumpa Island, Matongo Island and Kabulu Island
 * Near the Chambeshi River where it enters the eastern swamps: Mutwamina Island and Munyanga Island
 * In the southern swamps: Ncheta Island (26) (with the village of Bwalya Mponda), and Mbo, east of the Luapula's exit from the swamps
 * Kasoma village [the seat of the new Lunga District] on the south-east edge of the Lunga Bank
 * Kalimakonde village on the banks of the Churchill Channel
 * In the north-east: Kasansa Island (23), Chichile Island (22), Luangwa Island, Mbishi Island, and Munkanta at the edge of Lake Chaya, where the Lulingila River enters the eastern swamps.
 * In the south: Kasenga (28), close to the outlet of Lake Kangwena, Kataba (29), and Yongolo, and Itulo at the edge of south-east swamps.

Other settlements

 * Lubwe (30) on Lake Chifunabuli has a Catholic mission and hospital
 * Kasaba (31), a Catholic mission in the north-west
 * Santa Maria, a mission on Chilubi Island
 * Mpanta, east of Samfya on the channel draining out of Lake Walilupe
 * Twingi (32), with a mission, at the south end of the Kapata Peninsula
 * Chaba (33), in the north-east
 * Mofu, in the north-east.

title: Lake Bangweulu


text:
Siberian Yupik

Siberian Yupiks, or Yuits (Юиты), are a Yupik people who reside along the coast of the Chukchi Peninsula in the far northeast of the Russian Federation and on St. Lawrence Island in Alaska. They speak Central Siberian Yupik (also known as Yuit), a Yupik language of the Eskimo–Aleut family of languages.

They are also known as Siberian or Eskimo (эскимосы). The name Yuit (юит, plural: юиты) was officially assigned to them in 1931, at the brief time of the campaign of support of Indigenous cultures in the Soviet Union. Their self-designation is Yupighyt (йупигыт) meaning "true people".

Sirenik Eskimos also live in that area, but their extinct language, Sireniki Eskimo, shows many peculiarities among Eskimo languages and is mutually unintelligible with the neighboring Siberian Yupik languages.

Traditional crafts
The Siberian Yupik on St. Lawrence Island live in the villages of Savoonga and Gambell, and are widely known for their skillful carvings of walrus ivory and whale bone, as well as the baleen of bowhead whales. These even include some "moving sculptures" with complicated pulleys animating scenes such as walrus hunting or traditional dances.

Dwelling
The winter building of Chaplino Eskimos (Ungazighmiit) was a round, dome-shaped building. It is called yaranga in the literature, the same word referring also to the similar building of the Chukchi. In the language of Chaplino Eskimos, its name was. There was a smaller cabin inside it at its back part, the, used for sleeping and living. It was separated from the outer, cooler parts of the yaranga with haired reindeer skins and grass, supported by a cage-like framework. But the household works were done in the room of the yaranga in front of this inner building, and also many household utensils were kept there. In winter storms, and at night also the dogs were there. This room for economical purposes was called.

Other types of buildings among Chaplino Eskimos include a modernized type, and  that was used for summer.

Shamanism
Many Indigenous Siberian cultures had persons working as mediator (between human and beings of the belief system, among others) — usually termed as "shamans" in the literature. As Eskimo cultures were far from homogeneous (although had some similarities), thus also shamanism among Eskimo peoples had many variants.

Siberian Yupiks had shamans as well. Compared to the variants found among Eskimo groups of America, shamanism among Siberian Yupiks stressed more the importance of maintaining good relationship with sea animals. Ungazighmiit people (the largest of Siberian Yupik variants) had s, who received presents for the shamanizing, healing. This payment had a special name, — in their language, there were many words for the different kinds of presents and payments and this was one of them. (The many kinds of presents and the words designating them were related to the culture: fests, marriage etc.; or made such fine distinctions like "thing, given to someone who has none", "thing, given, not begged for", "thing, given to someone as to anybody else", "thing, given for exchange" etc. ).

Fighting the spirit of smallpox
The Even people, a tribe that lived on the far eastern side of Russia, believed that the spirit of smallpox could be seen as a Russian woman with red hair. A local shaman would be there to greet migrating reindeer herders (who sometimes brought the disease with them). If the shaman saw the spirit of the disease in the caravan, several shaman worked together to fight it off with a seance. Others in the tribe helped with this ritual.

Tradition says that the smallpox spirit changed from a woman to a red bull when she was attacked. The spirit of smallpox was supposed to be very powerful, and if the shaman's ritual failed, all the local people would die. The spirit would only spare two people to bury all the rest. But if the ritual worked, the spirit would be forced to leave.

Name giving
Similarly to several other Indigenous cultures, the name-giving of a newborn baby among Siberian Yupik meant that a deceased person was affected, a certain rebirth was believed. Even before the birth of the baby, careful investigations took place: dreams, events were analyzed. After the birth, the baby's physical traits were compared to those of the deceased person. The name was important: if the baby died, it was thought that he/she has not given the "right" name. In case of sickness, it was hoped that giving additional names could result in healing.

Amulets
Amulets could be manifested in many forms, and could protect the person wearing them or the entire family, and there were also hunting amulets. Some examples:
 * a head of raven hanging on the entrance of the house, functioning as a familiar amulet;
 * figures carved out of stone in shape of walrus head or dog head, worn as individual amulets;
 * hunting amulets were attached to something or worn. About the effigy of orca on the tools of the marine hunter, see the beliefs concerning this peculiar marine mammal below.

Concepts regarding the animal world
The orca, wolf, raven, spider, whale,  were revered animals. Also folklore (e.g. tale) examples demonstrate this. For example, a spider saves the life of a girl. The motif of spider as a benevolent personage, saving people from peril with its cobweb, lifting them up to the sky in danger, is present also in many tales of Sireniki Eskimos (as mentioned, their exact classification inside Eskimo peoples is not settled yet).

It was thought that the prey of the marine hunt could return to the sea and become a complete animal again. That is why they did not break the bones, only cut them at the joints.

Orca and wolf
In the tales and beliefs of this people, wolf and orca are thought to be identical: orca can become a wolf or vice versa. In winter, they appear in the form of wolf, in summer, in the form of orca. Orca was believed to help people in hunting on the sea — thus the boat represented the image of this animal, and the orca's wooden representation hang also from the hunter's belt. Also small sacrifices could be given to orcas: tobacco was thrown into the sea for them, because they were thought to help the sea hunter in driving walrus. It was believed that the orca was a help of the hunters even if it was in the guise of wolf: this wolf was thought to force the reindeer to allow itself to be killed by the hunters.

Whale
It is thought that during the hunt only those people who have been selected by the spirit of the sea could kill the whale. The hunter has to please the killed whale: it must be treated as a guest. Just like a polite host does not leave a recently arrived dear guest alone, thus similarly, the killed whale should not be left alone by the host (i.e. by the hunter who has killed it). Like a guest, it should not get hurt or feel sad. It must be entertained (e.g. by drum music, good foods). On the next whale migration (whales migrate twice a year, in spring to the north and in the autumn back), the previously killed whale is sent off back to the sea in the course of a farewell ritual. If the killed whale was pleased to (during its being a guest for a half year), then it can be hoped that it will return later, too: thus, also the future whale hunts will succeed.

Celestial concepts
In a tale, the sky seems to be imagined arching as a vault. Celestial bodies form holes in it: beyond this vault, there is an especially light space.

English

 * Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509427-1.
 * de Reuse, Willem J. (1994). Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Studies in indigenous languages of the Americas. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ISBN 0-87480-397-7.
 * de Reuse, Willem J. (1994). Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Studies in indigenous languages of the Americas. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ISBN 0-87480-397-7.
 * de Reuse, Willem J. (1994). Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Studies in indigenous languages of the Americas. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ISBN 0-87480-397-7.
 * de Reuse, Willem J. (1994). Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Studies in indigenous languages of the Americas. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ISBN 0-87480-397-7.

Russian

 * The transliteration of author's name, and the rendering of title in English:
 * The transliteration of author's name, and the rendering of title in English:
 * The transliteration of author's name, and the rendering of title in English:

title: Siberian Yupik