Talk:Eadgils: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:46, 9 August 2007

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, 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.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Wouldn't 'eth' - ð - be better transliterated into Modern English as 'th' than 'd' the way it is used in this article? Plynn9 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

d is used as a transliteration in the cases where the source texts use d, e.g. in the English translation cited and in the Latin summary of the Skjöldunga saga. His name has different forms in various sources and the different forms are used to help the reader check facts.--Berig 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cheers. I can see that it's been widely used as 'd'. Pity. Plynn9 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some proof?

User:Berig says the identification Áli = Onela is older than Wikipedia. I would like to see a decent reference for that. As it stands, there is only a reference to Ála being a genitiv form. I think this is trying to make the reader believe that the identification is supported by the evidence. The reference provided is very unspecific http://www.sofi.se/GetDoc?meta_id=1464, to a portal site completely in Swedish. I dug it up, but it does not prove anything. Waste of time. Now Berig, put up, or I will delete again. /Pieter Kuiper 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ale in Nationalencyklopedin (1989) is one source. What about Birger Nerman 1925:149ff? You'll find the book in the list of secondary sources. Or Carl Anderson 1999:102, 110.? All the three sources are older than WP. The author of the article in Nationalencyklopedin considered the connection so factual that he does not even mention the name form Onela, but only states that the Ale of Snorri and Ynglingatal appears in Beowulf too.--Berig 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your references to Anderson just point out how problematic that identification is. And Birger Nerman does not seem very current. /Pieter Kuiper 01:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalencyklopedin has to be considered "current" and it does not "point out how problematic that identification is". Moreover, Andersson says that the battle between Aðils and Áli is echoed in the animosity between Eadgils and Onela, so please do not exaggerate. The identification is not a debated issue outside of this talkpage.--Berig 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is exaggerating tenuous litterary parallels. The sagas also 'echo' the Old Testament. Andersson also says that Saxo 'echoes' Cicero. As Andersson says, Áli is not a member of the Ynglinge dynasty, which would make the identification rather problematic. /Pieter Kuiper 07:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No primary source makes any statement about Áli's dynastic origins, so please point out something more substantial. Moreover, it is not *I* who exaggerate "tenuous literary parallels" as you can see by the sources I gave you. It is you who are trying to make up an academic debate in the issue.--Berig 07:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andersson says: Áli not an Yngling

Look, in the reference so kindly provided by yourself, Andersson explicitly states that Áli, although appearing in Ynglingatal, is not a member of the Yngling dynasty. /Pieter Kuiper 08:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, what Andersson probably means is that he is not listed as a member of the Yngling dynasty in Ynglingatal, since he is only mentioned as an enemy of Aðils. However, Andersson finishes his discussion by stating (ch 4, p 110):

[...] the battle between Aðils and Áli on the ice of lake Vænir, which is echoed in Eadgils's and Onela's conflict in Beowulf. Such elements most likely represent native Scandinavian traditions.

Consequently Andersson does not take any stance against the identification between Áli and Onela, but instead he considers the connection to be so well-founded that there is "most likely" a Scandinavian origin for the legend of Onela/Áli.--Berig 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly clear what Andersson means by: "Áli, although appearing in Ynglingatal, is not a member of the Yngling dynasty". The writer of Ynglingatal cannot have regarded Áli as an Yngling. /Pieter Kuiper 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please, explain. You appear to be making two claims here: 1) Andersson contradicts himself when he finishes his argumentation by identifying Áli with Onela, and 2) you know what the author of Ynglingatal had in mind, or not, while he composed the terse poem.--Berig 14:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Andersson is not contradicting himself, just try to understand what he means. The author of Ynglingatal would never have missed the chance of describing a family conflict. Anderssons argumentum e silentio is rather strong here, because it would go against the rules of the genre to not to mention such a thing. /Pieter Kuiper 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that Snorri quoted all stanzas of Ynglingatal or if the poet did not expected his audience to know about the family relationship already. This means that you are pleading argument from personal incredulity, which is using a logic fallacy in addition to your initial shifting of the burden of proof. Note that the discussion concerns an identification between Onela and Áli and it is an identification that Andersson subscribes to. Andersson's identification makes your claim that Andersson means that Áli cannot have been an Yngling a bit extreme as an interpretation. Note that the author of the article Ale in Nationalencyklopedin considers it to be a fact that Áli was an Yngling (described as the paternal uncle of Adils). That is a much better indication of what is generally agreed upon than your personal interpretation of a line in a dissertation.--Berig 14:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Áli was an Yngling, Snorri did not know about this. That is Anderson's position, I do not think it is possible that he meant anything else. /Pieter Kuiper 15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but don't expect Old Norse poetry to convey all the information that was around at the time of its composition. Old Norse poetry was intended to be somewhat of a challenge for the listener with ample use of kennings, and do not expect Snorri to have had understood all the relevant references at the time he wrote it down. There's a reason why the scholars involved in the presentation of the article Ale in Nationalencyklopedin considered the connection between Áli and Onela to be factual.--Berig 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you seem to be in the habit of using logic fallacies when you argue (argument from personal incredulity and argumentum e silentio).--Berig 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that master of nordic lore Snorri did not know about Áli being an Yngling, Áli in the Edda can not be equated with Onela. Whatever Áli's origins, in Snorri's writings he has become a distinct literary figure. Analogous to the characters in Tolkien's epic novels - one would not equate say Galadriel with his possible origins in nordic literature. /Pieter Kuiper 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to forget that most scholars hold Ynglingatal to have been preserved orally for four centuries before Snorri wrote it down. You entered this discussion without knowing anything about this character and suddently, this obscure POV is extremely important to you. What you are engaging in is called disruptive behaviour on WP.--Berig 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreoever, if you edited honestly, you would add that Anderson subscribes to the identification.--Berig 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, please modify. But do not just revert to your version. /Pieter Kuiper 08:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, discussions such as the one that Anderson engages in, if notable, are more properly treated in a subsection by a name such as "scholarship".--Berig 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of WP:3RR policy

User:Berig has deleted three times in a row a scholarly reference to the PhD thesis of Carl Elund Anderson, for reasons that are difficult to understand. Berig himself has adduced this thesis as an authority (see edit history, talk page). Berig regards this as 'his' article, it seems, to be read as gospel, not to be edited by anybody else. Well, in that case he can have his own website, but this is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. I will report this as a violation of WP:3RR. /Pieter Kuiper 07:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR concerns more than three reverts of the same article, within a 24h period. For information about the dispute, please see discussion above this subsection.--Berig 07:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought that 3 times was the limit. In any case, your behaviour is disruptive. The blocking policy does not mean that you have the right to three reverts. And please read WP:OWN. "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." /Pieter Kuiper 08:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you understand that "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" also applies to your own edits.--Berig 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please try to find a compromise solution. It seems it is undisputed that the Ynglingatal does explicitly state Áli was a member of the Ynglings. In this case, why refer to Anderson? Merely state "the roughly contemporary Norwegian Ynglingatal (which does not explicitly count Áli among the Ynglings)" or something. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wait, I don't follow -- why does this even matter? Where do we suggest Onela was one of the Ynglings? It's a complete non-sequitur to state "btw., nobody ever said Onela was an Yngling". If this is at all relevant, take it to the Onela article. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is the total identification of Ale=Onela made here. But I agree that this is more relevant in the Onela-article, and I tried putting this in, but User:Berig reverted me also there (and that is how he got up to more than 3RR). /Pieter Kuiper 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you threaten me, then you say one thing and lastly you go so far as lying blatantly. Please try some honesty, instead of pretending that I made more than 3RRs, which I didn't[1]. You are not going to gain any points here with false accusations, especially not since you made a comparable number of reverts. The only place where Onela/Áli's dynastic belonging is actually mentioned is in Beowulf, and there he is called a Scylfing which is the AS form of Skilfing, another name for the Yngling dynasty in Ynglingatal.--Berig 12:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper: try to be reasonable. Yes, the All=Onela identification is a conjecture, and you can well demand that we note that it is one. That's it. It is not our conjecture, it is a perfectly documented and uncontroversial hypothesis. If you now try to trick Berig into 3RR violation instead of presenting valid arguments, you'll just attract attention to the fact that you hardly have the upper hand in this debate. dab (𒁳) 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The archeological 'evidence' and captions in general

Haukurth proposes an alternative wording in the caption of the picture of the mounds, where I had deleted the phrase "and archaeological finds support this identification". Well, first of all I think that a figure caption should describe the picture. I would prefer plain vanilla: 'Burial mounds at Gamla Uppsala'. Let the text of the section deal with interpretations. I can see no good reason for Haukurth's expansion of the caption. /Pieter Kuiper 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A guideline is WP:CAPTION#Succinctness. This is followed by 'establishing relevancy', so it should say what Snorri was told.

I agree with Haukur, because I don't think that the caption is too long.--Berig 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had written: "Archeological digs have not been able to confirm this", the assertion that Adil was buried in "Adils mound". User:Berig reverted this to: "Archeological finds are consistent with this [identification]." I believe that creates the wrong impression. That is certainly not what the museum at the site will tell you. Adils may be in any one of those mounds, or somewhere else. No rune identifying runic inscription has been found with any of human remains. /Pieter Kuiper 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to the old version which was uncontested until you appeared. There is nothing controversial in stating that the finds are "consistent", whereas your version pleads a logic fallacy named argument from ignorance.--Berig 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are in the know, while the people at the museum next to these mounds are ignorant? /Pieter Kuiper 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion concerns how to present information in this article, not the knowledge of the various people who are hired to work in the museum.--Berig 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not readily available?

Pieter Kuiper removed a reference claiming that it is not "readily available". I disagree and I would like to help him out by showing this link which indicates 13 Swedish libraries where he can consult the work, or from which he can order a copy or photocopies.--Berig 08:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world is larger than Sweden. Articles on en:Wikipedia are for an international english speaking audience, and one should be restrictive with references to sources in obscure languages, not likely to be easily accessible in the larger part of the world.

As to the note on dating, I think the stuff on archeology has no place there. /Pieter Kuiper 08:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is preposterous to remove references to academic sources claiming that they are "not easily available". PKuiper, this is bordering on disruption.--dab (𒁳) 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dab, du verkar bo i Schweiz. Hur lång tid tar det för dig att få tag i den här artikeln? Skulle du kunna läsa det? Hade du någon nytta av den här referensen? /Pieter Kuiper 08:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Swedish, Berig can read Swedish, I can read Swedish and apparently you believe dab can read Swedish since you're addressing him in that language. It would seem, then, that everyone currently paying attention to this article on a Swedish king can in fact read Swedish. All of us could have the book in our hands in a reasonable timeframe, through interlibrary loans if nothing else. I just don't see a problem. If you have an English reference which gives the same information and can be used instead then that's great but if you don't there's no reason to remove the Swedish one. Haukur 10:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eadgils is the name of a character in Beowolf, a well-known anglosaxon poem. I do not think that generally people interested in Eadgils would be able to read Swedish. And all that is needed here is a source dating this guy. The rest of the footnote is not relevant here. /Pieter Kuiper 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, it is perfectly acceptable to add references to sources in other languages but English, but what is not acceptable is removal of references to easily acccessible sources with the claim "not readily available".--Berig 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is that a source in English should be given when available (WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English). I am certain some of you have a English book at home which gives a date for this Beowulf-personage Eadgils. /Pieter Kuiper 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a red herring. Can you explain in what way this argument is related to your questionable removal?--Berig 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerman and Snorri's sources

I had removed the statement that in Ynglingasaga Snorri had used Skjöldunga saga as a source. The was a reference to page 150 of Birger Nerman's book. Well, I could not find support for the statement there. Now User:Berig claims that he "reinserted", but now the reference is to page 103 - sneaky. /Pieter Kuiper 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birger Nerman discusses Aðils, the Ynglinga saga and the Skjöldunga saga on both pages 103 and 150. I must have confused the two pages when I wrote the original reference, and I thank you for spotting the mistake. Can you explain to me in what way it is "sneaky" to correct a reference[2]?--Berig 06:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left it for me to see that you had corrected the page number. But that is not a big deal. /Pieter Kuiper 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 I had removed the statement that in Ynglingasaga Snorri had used Skjöldunga saga as a source. The was a reference to page 150 of [[Birger Nerman]]'s book. Well, I could not find support for the statement there. Now [[User:Berig]] claims that he "reinserted", but now the reference is to page 103 - sneaky. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 :Birger Nerman discusses Aðils, the Ynglinga saga and the Skjöldunga saga on both pages 103 and 150. I must have confused the two pages when I wrote the original reference, and I thank you for spotting the mistake. Can you explain to me in what way it is "sneaky" to correct a reference[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eadgils&curid=602269&diff=150028596&oldid=150007207]?--[[User:Berig|Berig]] 06:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
+::You left it for me to see that you had corrected the page number. But that is not a big deal. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)