Talk:Sigrid the Haughty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sigrid the Haughty?

So, uh both this woman and Gunhilda are claimed to be mothers of Canute the Great? One of them was the surrogate mother, perhaps? :-) Stan 03:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope, we just don't know for sure which one was his mother. Either that one or the other. Szopen 09:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then they should at least reference each other - I found each by a randomly different path. Stan 06:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article now says that Gunhilda was a pseudonym. How do we get that ? -- Beardo 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's because historians are as confused about her as you :) Szopen 07:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon: 150.254.etc.etc it me. I edited for so long that my login timed out :)Szopen 16:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truths

Sigrid the Haughty was a Viking woman, whom Scandinavian sources mention, when they mention neither Gunhild, nor Swiatoslawa, which is the point 'contemporary chroniclers' confuse, while it is clear two different women were in marriages with Sweyn.

Sweyn Forkbeard was married to a Polish princess, probably at the succession to the throne, and the childeren born out of the wedlock were Harald and Canute, as well as two daughters, at least. We can trace all the confusion on Cnut's birth date to this, largely, although other late middle ages sources suffer the confusion of which the monastic scribes are responsible for, and the primary sources riddled with confusions in piosity, because the intentionally ignored point is the existence of the first wife, and the second was cut and pasted over her. So the step-mother of Harald and Cnut, was the only mother listed in the family.

So strong is this assumption that the Danish princes were born after 994, Sweyn's wedding to Sigrid, that the truth of the plain facts is obscured by the assumation of a fiction as the truth. Ottar the Black's verse in the Knutsdrapa is bent to fit it. Historians assume that his inutterably oblique extremely vague skaldic poem, refers to one point in Cnut's life, while it was originally a broad spectrum flattery, with musical accompananyment . Cnut was born well before 994, as far as I see it, old enough to fight with Thorkel the High in 1004, during a fierce attack on Norwich, aganst the entire East Anglian elite, and the nearby Mercians, partly.

I really hope I get this accross. Please comment on my page if you want to tell me any proofs, either agree, or disagree, I want the both WikieWikieWikie

Well, I think it was alredy covered by the article. What you didn't like about that? The "truth" is not known and, also, none of our buisiness (wikipedia is not about finding "truth" but the status of human knowledge). There are historians who consider Sigrid as Viking woman a mere fantasy created by later saga writers, there are differences between sagas and chronicles and article statd it, I think. Szopen 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I realise the article was saying this, although I thought more needed to be said. I appreciate the additions on my additions also to be necessary. It doesn't chime though that the truth is none of our buisness, it is all history is about, and the idea there is something to hide make all the more our buisness, if it matters at all, which people with open minds need fear, not, but enjoy the prospect of, especially from an imortaliseational perspective. If you are intent on rubbishing the idea the truth is out there, and the sources prove there is not truth, and if you are even reading this.. well... I have no word to make my feelings known. WikiewikieWikie

No, what Szopen means is that as Wikipedia editors, the truth is none of our business. Wikipedia's policy is very clear that we don't deal in truth (for a number of reasons), but only in verifiability. The truth is out there somewhere, yes, but uncovering it is not our job. Being a tertiary source, Wikipedia's job is to collect what others have already said they believe to be the truth. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I say it. I see many articles on Wikipedia which use a common thread which is almost unfactual, with only conjecture and the interpretations which people have made in use. If it is to be added to publicly, surely it is impossible to provide such arguments without erasing other sections, if it is to make sense, as it is written by the hands of different people. My point being the basic historian projects a one sided story. Even complete scholars with only facts in consideration interpret them to tell a story on the one side which they percieve to be truth, even if it is multiple truths, in which case, they must be good at the art of selfless, contradictional analysis, it (scholarship) almost inevitably sides on a particular line though. I suppose even complete scholars should not write on Wikipedia, in such case, although this you say is the idea, and the many sides are all shown, while at the same time the common thread is clear and conscise. If so, though, concepts should be put in opinion form to be stood by the facts which they propose to be trustworthy, yet such a line may be hard to find, if it is too much to pose a multiple sided story, parse. Unless each point of view may appear, while an argument should slowly appear, which resembles the truth, Wikipedia will never encompass the common thread. I say it again. I say it, so which historian exactly is more correct than me, I think you will find it hard to prove, even if you use 'common threads' all the time.

I tried to use all the evidence to say things known on the subject of Sigrid, which in terms of life can only be a story. If not, but only plain facts, Wikipedia might be better suited to an extravagant index of sources which correspond to historical events. Although in such a case quotes from books, should be separate from the main articles of proof, as I said, yet even the basic facts often contradict at the primary source level, so arguments must be put forward, to support the validity of sources. Though, if there is a team of historians ready to provide all the necessary argument, in cohesion with itself from many points of view, Wikipedia might as well shut down public additions, yet, this is public.

I think Wikipedia should really embrace the possibilities of argument. If someone tries to tell a one sided story, chuck it, or don't publish historical fact, try, istead, historical fiction, which is only compiled from effectively private interpretations, singularly. Wikipedia is supposed to be the multiplcity of human knowledge, supposedly, or is 'sum of' only the plusses and the minuses alone, the divisions and the interactions left on the sidelines. If you consider, the former are the boring and the latter are the exiteing, surely Wikipedia want to be on the exiteing stage, rather than on the boring, been there done that, paid the bill, level. Just understand, history is truth, or it never did happen, ergo, tell it like it was, or leave it alone. If you can make this happen without original inputs though, then I wonder if historians have anything left to do with themselves, their work must be done.

If editors can reliantly interpret common consensus to provide the most true version of events, you really should write your own books. It is surely the ambition of EVERY, real, historian. If you wish to really compromise, for a better point of view at large, let there be argument, let there be dictatory opinion which considers contradictory opinion, let there be no false light, in closets, let there be light only in the fields of truth, which people share!

WikieWikieWikie 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand all of what you've written. It's a little rambling. In any case, it sounds like you're saying that we should only publish commonly-accepted facts. Since so many people disagree with each other on so many things, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia if we did this.

Instead, what we do is publish everything that is verifiable (please read that page: it is core policy). This includes contradictions. We follow the wikipedia:neutral point of view policy (also core policy) by never claiming anything that is disputed as truth, only saying what others have said. In this way, the contradictions can appear together without being incoherent. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a rambler, which means I freely explore, yet I try to stick to the path of truth, by the constant reason within myself, and the connections which prove right and wrong simply prove themselves. I suppose it might be demanding for you to read. Let me try and clarify.

I say argument is key to the commonly-accepted facts, obviously, yet as people disagree, only the provision of every side of an argument might be close to the commonly-accepted facts. It really only comes into play on ancient history I'm sure, although maybe today's press is equally as mirky, yet contradictory sources often tell an interesting tale of history within themselves, which is all good, and the fact you want fiction to be shown as such is good. Maybe Wikipedia editors should be less ready to deny points out of hand and prove them wrong themselves, while also ready to tidy up oblique references which lack any argument, by which process public opinion might be able to form the commonly-accepted facts. The proper history book is one long argument, and the points mix together, in contradiction with themselves, as well as within reason, facts commonly accepting themselves, as the truth is its own proof.

If any doubt over a date of birth exists, at all, question marks should be used, while people professing to know the date of birth should be unable to put their point across, even if it is in a book, as the book might be wrong, so it should be unacceptable as a source. If Wikipedia is not on an argumentative level though, but merely a private point of view publisher with no flexibility, it will fail at the point of view clause. It is a supposedly neutral policy, which contradicts its neutrality, as it says only points of view are put across if true, while if truth is in doubt, they are ineligable for status as trueness, unless the person which claims to know the truth of the matter is someone else (???). I suppose I must get down to some buisness, to root out the false truth sayers, yet unless your rules allow only proper scholarship, pure, simple, juggling of maybes, which suggest truth, on the whole, with argument in constant grasp of the posibiles and the ppositives, as they exist in common acceptance, I suspect I will be at odds with the very pages on which I write.

If fact is sure, good, if unsure, let none say is is sure, that goes for authors as well as Wikipedians. If you want to edit, edit for the facts, rather than for the fictions (I want to say for the truth rather than for the lies, although if facts contradict, both are true, yet lies if they claim to be more right simply on their own merits, like some quotes, for example).

WikieWikieWikie 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an admirable way of working for one person, but it's impractical for a collaborative work of many diverse people. Wikipedia's methods do work, I assure you. Truths aren't really wanted, only verifiable reporting of what others have said. (This is because what one person things is "truth" and what another does will always be at odds and nothing would ever get done here. To sidestep that, we only care about verifiability.) As I said, Wikipedia is a tertiary source—this means that we report on the contents of others analyses and work on a subject, but do not present anything new of our own, even to the degree that we do not try to reconcile contradictory sources. Similarly, an article that attempts to argue for any position is to be avoided here. Wikipedia isn't taking part in the search for truth.

Since I haven't heard any reason to keep the changes as is, and because the version before you changes was more coherent, I will change it back. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have only skimmed the above thread of discussion. In general, I agree with User:Saxifrage but I do want to emphasize that Wikipedia policy DOES allow editors to indicate where the preponderance of scholarly opinion lies.

If most scholars believe that Sigrid and Swiatislava were two different women but some scholars believe they were the same woman, then we should mention both points of view and indicate which is the majority opinion.

If the general public believes that they were two different women but scholars believe that they were one woman, then we should mention both points of view.

What Wikipedia policy DOES NOT allow is for a Wikipedia editor (or group of editors) to decide which point of view is the truth and, based on that decision, decide to present ONLY that point of view. Extremely marginal points of view do not need to be included and it is not required that all points of view be given equal weight. It's OK to say things like "the scientific consensus is that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases but a minority of scientists dispute this".

Hope this helps.

--Richard 07:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it as an improvement on some levels now. I appreciate it was a mess, although I thought, if one was to follow the line of thought carefully, it presented the argument, as well as the valitdity of the proposals, quite well. I see all the mainer points are still here though, so I guess I can't really complain. Maybe I will try to tie in a couple of loops though. It will the easier to pick up a thread of this version.

Finally. It really must be hard to edit this stuff, although I still think Wikipedia should apply the scholarly perogative on a more substancial level. I reitterate the inate difficulties in decisions on the conventional vs controversial validities of the subjects. Simply accpeting good arguments rather than bad non-arguments (which accept fictions over factual uncertainty), regardless of the authorship, should be Wiki.

WikieWikieWikie 08:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I'm having a hard time understanding this article. Mostly the enormous number of commas is the problem, though there are some word-choice problems that obscure the intended meaning. There are also many "maybe"s that should not be in the article. Could someone who's familiar with the subject clean up the unnecessary commas and possibly some of the word choices? (Note that most English sentences that don't contain lists need only one or two commas, if any at all. If more are required, likely the sentence needs to be split into multiple sentences.) — Saxifrage ✎ 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I got here from Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. The text was so convoluted as to be incomprehensible in spots. I trimmed it back quite a bit although I wound up coming down on the "it is likely that Sigrid is confused with Swiatislava" side because it was easiest and because of the assertion that "it is likely". I left the "Swede vs. Slav controversy" section in place to provide the balanced NPOV perspective.

I think the current version is an improvement on what was there before. However, I readily admit that it could be improved and that some of the controversies could be described in a better way.

--Richard 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I will further argue that this article suffers from not sticking to one point of view before presenting the opposing point of view. It is not necessary to incorporate both points of view in every sentence or even in every paragraph. Present the majority opinion first (I assume the majority opinion is the interpretation that Sigrid was a Swede and Swiatoslava was a Pole). Then, after that interpretation has been presented, present the alternative interpretation that they might have been the same woman. Doing this will improve readability greatly.

--Richard 07:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's the current opinion amongst MOST historians. I know that vast majority of Polish historians consider Sigrid and Swiatoslawa to be the same person. In Polish encyclopedias, "Sigrid" is presented as other name for "Swiatoslawa". In fact, I find out that any one else thinks otherways only when I started ti dig more deeply in more specialised (Polish) history books, and most of those (but not all! see the page which I once provided, the site about Sigrid) also agrees that Swiatoslawa was Polish, Burislav is mixed up Boleslav and Mieszko, and "Sigrid" as Swedish is fantasy created by Scandinavian saga writers. However, it seems to me that most Scandinavian historians argue the opposite. Szopen 10:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

aaah the site is not there anymore.. I will search for a copy, maybe it's preserved somewhere on the net .. Szopen 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried checking in archive.org? — Saxifrage ✎ 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 :-D :-D

http://web.archive.org/web/20041012034625/http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~bkpan/SIGRID/sigrid.htm Szopen 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just think the contemporary chroniclers are right, as well as Scandinavian sources, and the idea of two wives for Sweyn Forkbeard is also correct, which explains the 'rescue' of the mother by the sons. If Sigrid was Swiatoslawa, as well as Gunhild, maybe another woman exists beyond the memory of the sources. Sigrida, and, Swiatoslawa, do chime as some connection between them exists, while Gunhild and Durawka connect too.

I want an explaination of the Scandinavian sources, as true, and the conetemporary choroicles as true, which leads to a conclusion which suggests a two wives confusion.

WikieWikieWikie 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Scandinavian sources were refferring to Sigirid as to Swiatoslawa, maybe they, like the contemporary chroniclers, were trying to relate two wives as one, and the second wife was given the first wife's name, rather than vicer versa, especially so if the second wife's name was forgotten, and the first's name known alone. It is certainly true Sigrid and Swiatoslawa (albeit a hypothetical name) sound like the same name, especially if Sigrid, was Sigrida. If it is so, though, Gunhild is inexplicable, although it is Scandinavian. If Gunild is Sigrid, Sigrida is Swiatoslawa, and the Polish Swiatoslawa is not Scandinavian, but Gunhild is, Sigrid the Haughty, Swiatoslawa, is a real wife of Forbeard, yet the first rather than the second, and, Gunhild is a real mother of Harald and Canute, yet a step mother than than a mother.

WikieWikieWikie 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)