Talk:Eric of Good Harvests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Norse history and culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. WikiProject Sweden (Rated B-Class) The article on Eric of Good Harvests is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-Class) Middle Ages Portal Eric of Good Harvests is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

There is discussions weather the temple of uppsala even existed, or if the two "blot-Sven" and his son where real or fictional characters..

[edit] The messup by double move

I'll take care of it! (?) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did take care of it. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name of Erik Årsäll

Is Erik Årsäll or possibly Eirik Arsale. Eric of Good Harvests is invented here on wikipedia. I suggest move to either Erik Årsäll or possibly Eirik Arsale. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik/Eiríkr, etc. already has a standard form in English which should be used - Eric, as it is in e.g. Eric XII of Sweden and Eric XIV of Sweden. Årsäll is on the other hand *not* a proper name, but an adjective used as an epithet with a meaning in Swedish, and there should consequently be a translation of it so as to convey this to an English reader. I therefore think that the article should keep its old name.--Berig 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, "Eric" so far, but then how do we translate Knut Eriksson and Erik Knutsson? Especially since the Eric X of Sweden is not correct, Eric XIV is OK, since he called himself that despite Gustav I Vasa's protests, the number XIV was invented by some 15th century fantasy historian, maybe Olof Rudbeck, maybe not. But that means that numbering Eric:s before XIV is OR, and so it seems to be about the confusions between Magnus (II) of Sweden and Magnus II of Sweden (redirecting to Magnus IV of Sweden!!). BTW, Magnus Henriksen (that (II) guy) is never mentioned in Sweden. (See User:Rursus/King Rutabaga for this trouble!). No, the naming of kings before Gustav I Vasa must rely on established historic naming, otherwise we create a mess which is neither necessary, nor honorable. So:

• We must establish a principle for a naming that isn't misleading for Wikipedia readers,
• We must strictly adher to outside of Wikipedia usage, to not confuse ourselves and the #redirect system. Eirik Arsale has been used before in English, or if that isn't good, then stick for Swedish from year 0 till Gustav I Vasa.

Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm fix that mess. I'll be back at earliest tomorrow! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric Arsale has only been used once in a translation, and it is only a superficial anglicisation of his cognomen in Old Norse which makes it lose its meaning in both languages. Please, define in what way the present translated cognomen is "misleading".--Berig 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) or in the WP:MOS articles on naming conventions for translating a foreign proper name; the exception would be if the person is best known by a different name in English language sources. If you have any doubts, ask on the talk page of Wikipedia_Talk:Manual of Style (biographies) or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. WP has countless articles on people with foreign names, so there is no reason to debate the issue among the relatively small group of editors involved in this article. Finell (Talk) 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely, User:Finell, the question is precisely whether Arsale/Arsoll (and an English equivalent that springs to mind) is an epithet or a proper name. The small group of editors here discussing this point are those precisely concerned with the particularity of this specific instance, and there is every reason for them to discuss it here, with reference to Wikipedia protocol of course, in order to resolve this particular instance in the best possible way.

There is no objection to rendering Richard Coeur-de-Lion as Richard the Lionheart, I take it, and one is much more likely to see the translated form 'Ethelred the Unready' than the original Ethelred Unræd, which means something else, with reference to Ethelred II of England. It seems clearly to be an epithet, not a family name or a placename or patronymic. It is like Oswald of Northumbria 'Brightblade' (Welsh, Lamnguin) a form which would only be used by a Welsh speaker. Or Penda of Mercia Strenuus (The Strong), as Henry of Huntingdon calls him, or indeed Ivan the Terrible, who in English is never referred to by the Russian equivalent of the word 'Terrible', whatever that may be.
Surely if the epithet has a meaning, it ought to be translated, otherwise, following your rules, it will acquire a formal or 'proper name' status which is itself spurious. It is both a proper name and an epithet. The only question, it seems to me, is whether that translated form should appear as the Title of the article, or among the forms given in bold characters in the opening sentence. It makes very little difference, since all the different forms can be entered as redirects, so everything will lead to the one place. As a title, the things that matter are that the form of the name should be internally consistent (i.e. it should not combine more than one set of conventions) and that the convention used should be similar to that used for other persons from a similar cultural date and horizon, in the titles of their articles. Dr Steven Plunkett 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Recent scholarship"?

I think it is misleading to say that this guy's "historiocity has been called into question by recent scholarship," because it is not as if this was brought up in 1998. Lagerquist is just reflecting generally held scholarly opinion, that here are good reasons to doubt that this guy existed. Already the short article in Nordisk Familjebok (1908) was not far from saying that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to be able to state your point in a more encyclopedic manner than "there is reason to doubt he existed." What language do you propose?Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with my edit in October, where I inserted:"There are good reasons to doubt that he existed. He is dated by some to the end of the 11th century, by others to the 1120's, while more critical historians believe that he is a legendary name belonging to the 10th century." With a reference. The sentence "Eric does not appear in any Swedish or Danish primary sources" was already there, and that is of course the main reason for questioning this guy's existence. Not a shred of evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, since he is mentioned by Snorri, there is "a shred of evidence". It's just evidence that some regard as untrustworthy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)