Talk:List of rulers of Frisia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Friesland, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Friesland-related articles to a feature-quality standard. 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within Friesland articles.

This 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.

The source that I added comes from the Radbod page, from which this information was gleaned. I can only surmise that the reference contained there is the reference for this material (once contained there). Srnec 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pier Gerlofs Donia

I've added the text beneath to the article-page, -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the early 16th century, Pier Gerlofs Donia a legendary Frisian folk hero, freedom fighter, declared himself King of the Frisians. He died fie years after it, without succesors (his rebellion had been overrun, and the Arumer Black Heap-members where killed).

[edit] Hoaxes

Everything from the Oera Linda Book is a hoax, of course, but Tharkunkoll is right that the potestestates of the Middle Ages are also figments of Friesian imagination. For starters, I will revert to the version by Dougweller. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. He's complaining that things are a hoax, but he added them himself. That doesn't seem to make sense.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I do not quite understand Tharkunkoll either. In my opinion, phantastic friesian historiography should be removed here, but I know that there is a high tolerance on enwp for this kind of stuff. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Tolerance or ignorance? I hadn't realised the problem completely. Just found this description of a course at the University of Amsterdam:


"One of the characteristics of Frisian historiography and literature from the Middle-Ages up to the nineteenth and twentieth century is the existence of a comprehensive corpus of fantastic, apocryphal and mystified historic works, which deal with the origins and identity of the Frisians. Well known examples are medieval myths of origin like the Gesta Frisiorum or the Tractatus Alvini, sixteenth-century humanistic scholarly books by e.g. Suffridus Petrus, Ocko van Scarl en Martinus Hamconius and nineteenth-century forgeries like the Tescklaow and the infamous Oera Linda Book. This tradition of spoofs, hoaxes, fakes, forgeries, and invented traditions will be the subject of this course, in which we will elaborate on some specific questions, i.e. to what extent is there continuity or discontinuity in this literary and historical tradition? Is there a connection between the writing of fantastic, mystified or even forged history and the peripheral geographical location of certain regions (which seems to have been the case not only in Friesland, but also in e.g. Bohemia and in Scotland)? Is there a European pattern in this? What's the connection between a felt Frisian historical destiny and (quasi-)religious, nationalistic views? What are the differences between forgeries, mystifications and inventions of tradition? What can we say about the exact relation between fiction and fakes?"

I've taken out everything but the kings source from the Merovingian Chronicles (supposedly). What's the story about those?--Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a good quote in english about this corpus of friesian history! I will weed a bit in the Merovingian period. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And now Tharkunkoll puts it all back in, without taking part in the discussion here, claiming in the edit summary in classic wikipedia style that this is "info", that should not be removed. Reverting without discussion is just edit warring. Right now he is on his own, soon he will get a friend, nobody else will care, and the mythologists will win. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've restored your version because you weeded the Merovingian period, moved the legendary stuff to the bottom where it should have always been, then added a section on literary hoaxes including Tharkuncoll's stuff. Of course, if anyone had time, it looks as though an article could be written on Frisian literary hoaxes.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is certainly enough material for an article about fantastic friesian history, but "hoax" is probably not the best word to describe the phenomenon. Of course, the Oera Linda book is a real hoax. The stuff about folk-mother etcetera should not be here. If it is really impossible to delete "info" on enwp, I think it should be moved to the article Oera Linda.
The list of potestates is equally apocryphical. These guys were invented by friesian antiquaries and geneologists, but were not real hoaxes. The historians combining mythical ancestors in lists with regnal dates believed this. (Just like Eric XIV of Sweden believed that he was number 14.) The Oera linda book was a spoof of this kind of history writing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
All the claimed rulers should be here, legendary, or hoaxes or real, and clearly labelled, we want to add information not remove it. Some of those characters are very well known, so they should all be here, along with the mention of how reliable the information is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (U
Look at other lists of monarchs and kings, they don't seem to have anything but historically attested rulers, with other articles for legendary ones. Doug Weller (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What you've done is created a short section in the middle called legendary rulers. Fair enough - but why have you used Hamconius's dates and names in that section? At least be consistent, or have some knowledge of the subject. TharkunColl (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Tharkunkoll is engaging in discussion! Let's first discuss the stuff that was never meant to be taken for history: the Folk-mothers and all the other stuff from the Oera Linda book. That is the same thing as for example the List of Kings of Rohan. If you want that kind of fictional history in wikipedia, it belongs to the article Oera Linda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Hamconius meant to be taken as history? In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked why some of Hamconius's data was put into the legendary section. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they are legendary, of course, none of them known from contemporary sources. Hamconius had their names from Suffridus Peters and from Andreas Cornelius. Very credulous writers all of them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I find Mythical kings of Sweden, Legendary kings of Sweden (candidates for merger?), Legendary Kings of Magadha, Legendary early Chola kings, List of legendary kings of Britain, Semi-legendary kings of Sweden, and Legendary Danish kings. For me the only issue is what we would title an article for the non-attested rulers of Frisia. Doug Weller (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Legendary kings of Sweden is a disambiguation page for the other 2 Swedish articles. Doug Weller (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One issue is that most of the names in the list are legendary. This is because most come from the distant past. There has not been a Frisian king or Queen for over a 1000 years. The potestaats are partly historical at least and not entirely legendary, but are not in the category of hoax or fabrication. So we cannot really compare this list with Britain or Sweden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)