Talk:Sigrid the Haughty

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)

Truths

How can a woman who was married to a Swede and a Dane be "Queen Consort of England" as claimed in the sidebar?

Loida7879 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I cleaned up the language a good bit more, because discussing IRL I found people were interpreting the first sentence of her wiki stating that she was one woman who existed in exactly that time and place and married both Sweyn and Erik as unilateral historical fact. I put it front and center that her status is unclear and there are multiple interpretations, *then* listed some of the possible interpretations second. user:awibs 1 Dec 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Split

Material on Sviatoslawa should be moved to a new article (which is presently a redirect), like it is on Swedish Wikipedia. Then this article could focus on Sigrid the Haughty and have a section on her possible identity with Sviatoslawa.--Berig 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable proposal. We have separate articles about Rurik and Rorik of Dorestad, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Most of the books I know have no doubts about Swietoslawa and Sigrid being the same person. In fact, until my discussions here I would be fast to ridicule any thought that Sigrid was not Swietoslawa as typical nationalist anti-Polish nazi rambling (don't get offended, please - this was my stance BEFORE the discussions and right know I know better). Splitting the material is asking for troubles, and, since we don't really know whether Sigrid was separate woman or not (historians does not seem to be agreeing on this!) would mean wikipedia takes a stance in ongoing discussion. Szopen 07:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, there is no NPOV reason for WP to conflate a semi-legendary Swedish queen with a historical Polish princess if their possible sameness is debated. And above all, this debated conflation makes the article very messy and hard to follow. I was impressed with the simplicity and clarity of the Swedish articles, which divided them into two articles without losing the neutral point of view aspect.--Berig 08:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Swedish, so, can you summarise how the division would be done? E.g. Would you move EVERYTHING about Swietoslawa, or leave some short notice, or else? Szopen 08:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It simply summarizes the stories of Sigrid the Haughty, and then it has a section about the history and the pros and cons of the identification with Swietoslawa of Poland. Everything would not need to be moved, but the first part of the article would deal exclusively with Sigrid.--Berig 09:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, do it. Just left a prominent link somewhere in original article :) Szopen 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Great :). I'll wait a few days to let more people have their say.--Berig 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It is clear to me these people are different. Here, you have the Polish noblewoman, and mother to the Danish princes Harald and Canute, and, you have the Swedish noblewoman, and step mother to these princes. I will look at this attentively. Are you going to more or less copy the Swedish versions? Certainly as far as Sigrid the Haughty goes, though, I assume, Swietoslawa's article may be shorter. I think the Swietoslawa should be the longer. Alot of her story is lent over by the confusion. Surely, the key is which of these women was the mother of Harald and Canute. Sigrid the Haughty has the Olaf connection. Swietoslawa was swept up by the existence of this woman. So, as long as the split is correct as far as the Polish identity of the mother to the Danish princes, and the Swede's separateness, this split will be good.

WikieWikieWikie 01:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to be so late to answer your question WikieWikieWikie. I was busy elsewhere and had such a great time writing articles that I completely forgot about Sigrid. It would probably be fuller versions of the Swedish articles with more citations of primary sources and subsections. During the following months, I will unfortunately have to cut down on my article writing and so I am not sure whether I will have the time to give Sigrid and Sviatoslawa the attention they deserve.--Berig 08:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that Den Store Danske Encyklopædi debunks the Sigrid character as mentioned in the sagas (without mentioning the Polish princess at all). It identifies the consort of Sweyn I as Gunhild, and considers the Sigrid the Haughty of the sagas to be based on Gunhild, but essentially a work of "complete fiction". According to this description, Gunhild subsequently married Sweyn II, who later divorced her on orders from the church, since both of them were grandchildren of the Slavic consort of Eric the Victorious of Sweden. She died no earlier than 1060. Source: Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, CD-ROM edition, entries Gunhild and Sigrid Storråde. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many scholars have debunked the existence of Sigrid. Still, her historical existence is supported by the fact that the Danish crown's property in Sweden was called Syghridslef or Sigridslev ("Sigrid's inheritance").--Berig 08:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Berig's proposal of a split. The article in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon does mention various theories about the connection with the Polish princess, but it does not identify them. /Pieter Kuiper 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It took over eight years, but now I made the split. Seemed silly to claim that the sagas was wrong about everything but still use their name.

Andejons (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Apocryphal

When an article in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon states that Sigrid is an apocryphal queen, this cannot be just brushed aside by writing "one author says she is apocryphal", with Berig's assertion "I know two recent sources who say otherwise". That does not make it Berig 2 - Kuiper 1. SBL is an authoritative source. The articles are reviews of the scholarly literature, with references. The authors are experts in their field. The idea of a normal encyclopedia is to reflect this kind of literature, without giving undue weight to minority standpoints. But Berig does not like the conclusion in SBL, and is pushing an antiquated POV. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you claim that it is an "antiquated POV" that she may have been historical? Are you really honest, here?--Berig (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have attempted a significant rearrangement and rewrite, intended to separate and clarify the distinctions among the legendary Sigrid, the historical record, and the reconstructions deriving from these. As it read before, they were so intermixed that the discinctions were blurred (or erroneous, misattributing legend or hypothesis as history). This is a first draft, and I would encourage rephrasing and expansion, but it is important to retain the distinctions regarding the nature of the information (saga, chronicle, and modern hypotheses). Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of xref

I see no reason to remove an informative cross-reference of this type from the top of any article:

Sources indicate that this may have been the same person as Gunhild of Wenden.

Restored. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not what hatnotes are for. Removed again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If SW wants to guide readers to articles about figures that might have been the same person, that is best done in the article itself, not in a hatnote. See Wikipedia:Hatnote.

Andejons (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Świętosława

Why does Świętosława redirect here instead of Gunhild of Wenden?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edit ambiguous?

Hi, the newest edit (by user Agricolae) states: "Sigrid is named in several late and sometimes contradictory Icelandic sagas". Not a native EN speaker, but I find the phrase "contradictory saga" curious, as if the saga itself in contradictory, while, I assume, the intention is to state that a number of sagas contradict each other. How about "Sigrid is named in several late Icelandic sagas. (some of) which give contradictory information" or something along those lines? I know it's nitpicking, but ... T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Later in the text it reports "Snorri also claims that Estrid Svendsdatter was a paternal sister of Cnut the Great, and as a daughter of Sigrid was maternal sister to Olav the Swede, but in another place says that Estrid was a daughter of Gunhild of Wenden", so we are talking about Heimskringla being self-contradictory. Referring to 'sagas' here, a holdover from the previous text, suggests multiple ones, yet we only refer to Heimskringla in the body (and Saxo, but his work is an overly-credulous national history, not a saga). Are there multiple sagas that name her, in addition to Heimskringla? or was this meant to reflect the multiple individual sagas within Hemskringla? or just a word used generically as shorthand, like when one sometimes sees 'medieval chronicles report . . .', just intending to identify the class of sources with the specifics being deemed unimportant? I don't know. (The body of the text should probably be specific about where she is mentioned within Heimskringla.)

That all said, I am not invested in any particular phrasing. My edit was primarily aimed at having the lede reflect the article's segregation between Sigrid as the subject of the sagas and saga-inspired material vs. modern scholarly opinion, speculation and sources brought to bear on who she may equate to historically, which I think is a distinction worth maintaining (particularly when we have a separate article on the Polish princess), instead of intermingling saga and chronicle and interpretation and fact as the prior lede did. Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I do think sagas can be contradictory, one or more to another or more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking generally, yes, but I think we want to move beyond that, and be able to speak specifically in this case. Are there any sagas that name Sigrid other than Heimskringla? Is she named in more than one of the constituent sagas? If so in either case, how do the accounts compare? Agricolae (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

She is mentioned in the genealogical appendix to Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks as the wife to Eric.

Andejons (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks. That should be in the article. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, there is a strong anti-saga bias among Swedish editors, due to the influence of hyper-critical historians. The Swedish WP is permeated by such negativity towards legendary matters that I refuse to edit there.--Berig (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Were this article about the historical individual, presenting the sagas as possible historical evidence, then it would take more care in dealing with it all, but this is about a legendary woman from the sagas, so a mention in another saga is directly 'on the nose', independent of how historians view its accuracy. Agricolae (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here on English WP we have a healthier editing environment.--Berig (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Back to the original issue, this additional saga, in making her wife of Eric (and being silent about Sweyn), would not represent a contradiction with the Heimskringla account. Agricolae (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The sagas are often in agreement. They represent the oral historical tradition of the educated class of Scandinavia of the 12th and 13th c.--Berig (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not questioning this. The original concern raised was that the lede refers to generic sagas (plural) as being sometimes contradictory with regard to Sigrid. There was some question over what that referred to, between broader body of saga material or specifically between the individual sagas within Heimskringla. With this additional instance of mention, the only contradiction identified thusfar is still only within Heimskringla, specifically regarding maternity of Estrid, so it is a valid question whether this lone peripheral disparity even merits mention in the lede. Agricolae (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I trust your judgment in this.--Berig (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Found another instance, this time with more detail, in Yngvars saga víðförla: "Hann átti Sigríði ina stórráðu ok skildi við hana sakir óhægenda skapsmuna hennar, því at hún var kvenna stríðlyndust um allt þat, er við bar. Hann gaf henni Gautland. Þeira sonr var Óláfr svenski. (Google Translate, cleaned up: Eric "married Sigrid Storada, and divorced her because of her uneasy temperament, for she was the most belligerent of women in all that happened to her. He gave her Gautland. Their son was Olaf the Swede.") Again, nothing contradictory. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please go ahead and improve the article as you see fit! I am glad a serious editor commits himself to this article. Usually these articles are attacked by Scandinavians with an unfortunate combination of lack of competence and historio-ideological agendas.--Berig (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this account does have a contradiction with Heimskringla, at least as we summarize it. In the latter, we say Sigrid was Eric's widow, while Yngvars saga has her cast aside for being disagreeable. To me, this might rise to the level of justifying the lede 'contradictory' characterization. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The "contradictory sagas" might also be explained if we consider that Heimskringla is strictly speaking not one saga, but a compilation of several sagas (Ynglingasaga, and several sagas about individual norwegian kings).

Also, the appendix to Hervarar saga is not found in the medieval manuscripts, but in copies rom the 16th century (in Kershaw's introduction at the end (!)here she does not talk about the appendix specifically but does mention that the two medieval sources cuts of before it). It is a later composition than the saga itself, see [1] (p 14).

Andejons (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you asserting the appendix did not exist prior to the 16th c.? I hope that you are not pleading to a logic fallacy here claiming that no content is older than the oldest surviving manuscript, which is a very strong claim indeed. World religions would fall if that claim was widely accepted. From what I can see, Alaric Hall traces the content to older medieval sources, and there is another theory by a more established scholar that the Hervarar Saga was written on the request of the Swedish king in the 12th c. which is why the appendix ends where it does. .--Berig (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm claiming that it is a addition that was not a part of the original composition, and that the dating of the original saga can not be taken as the date for when the genealogy was compiled. The 17th century (my mistake earlier) is a very unlikely last possible time of compilation.

Andejons (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed a strong claim considering how often the manuscripts are missing parts.--Berig (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, since Alaric Hall says that "the consensus of historians is that the substance of the list was composed separately from the rest of the saga and integrated with it later", it is not unsupported one. You say that you have a source with a differing opinion, but you have not given enough detail to actually discuss it.

Andejons (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You are free to write whatever you want as long you base it on WP:RS, and try to abide by WP:NPOV (BTW, Dick Harrison is not the same thing as NPOV on English WP).--Berig (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to adjust the text to take this into account - feel free to take your own whack at it. Agricolae (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The "contradictory sagas" might also be explained if we consider that Heimskringla is strictly speaking not one saga . . . Yes, as I have mentioned several times. This ambiguity will likely remained unresolved so long as we continue to only refer in the article to Heimskringla without further specifying which of its individual sagas. More important than trying to explain 'contradictory sagas' (my phrasing, but derived from earlier text saying something similar) appearing in the lede is to better understand the actual situation, so we can clarify or modify accordingly. Agricolae (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the current text is OK. Andejons (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Ex-indenting) Hi, sry to spark such a long exchange by ignorance, and thx for all the elucidation :) Regarding only Snorre, then, and accepting the fact that Heimskringla is not a saga, but a collection of sagas, I wonder what light that sheds on Snorre as a compiler. Assuming he was aware of the contradictory info on Sigrid, does that make him a negligent historian or an "honest reporter", choosing to include the material he found as-is, when he could easily have streamlined it? Or perhaps he was not aware, and only a bungler. Well, we'll never know (and it doesn't matter here), but discussing saga reliability, this case and each of the three Snorre versions would certainly be worth considering. So, thx again. And as Andejons said, the current text is OK, I guess. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't apologize. It was a question worthy of discussing. Evaluating Snorre as a historian using modern standards is to fault him for failing at something he wasn't even attempting to do. Sagas were never intended to be scholarly history. For any writer of 'popular history' of this period (as opposed to chronicles or church history), entertainment value trumped assiduous attention to historical accuracy. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thx for the kind words. Wrt. the reliability of the sagas, both wrt. to Snorre and all the others, I "have views", as they say, diverging somewhat from yours, I am going to assume from what you write. I certainly don't see him as a purveyor of simple Slasher Stories to pass an evening. Wrt. sources, people like Walter Ong made a case for the weight of oral tradition. Also, a factor which is most often not considered, is that Snorre didn't sit down and compose out of his head, but used earlier written material as sources. Then there are functions of knowledge of the past that play a role in contemporary society, e.g. tracking royal bloodlines, as they influenced who could claim kingship; and tracking local familiar lines, as they played a role in mate selection (as they do in Iceland today - although they now do it through an app - so you don't sleep with too many close relatives) as well as property issues, particularly inheritance. Of course this in no way supports any claim to "truth", as one might want to be a king without any accepted pedigree (Sverre?) or claim other people's land without justification; but these are pretty specific errors, or lies, if you will; the sagas cannot have been so random as one might assume from the inevitable "composed several centuries afterwards" trope. Well, probably the wrong place for OR ... allow me to apologize this time ... but now its preserved for posterity :) Thx again, and keep up the good work. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say he was nothing but a purveyor of slasher stories. He was doing history as it was understood in his time, but this is not the same as doing scholarly history as it is now understood. It led to him inventing dialog for his characters, taking a single short skaldic poem and spinning entire paragraphs of historical narrative from it, bringing together heroes from different places or times for which there is no evidence (or in some cases, no possibility) they actually interacted, etc. - Geoffrey of Monmouth did basically the same thing. It was the common practice of popular historians of the era, in contrast with the compilers of chronicles, who tended much more for a 'Just the facts, Ma'am' approach, or the authors of hagiography, who were equally inventive in different ways and with different motivations. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thx, I'm sure you're right, so to my "negligent, honest or bungling" I'll add your "entertaining". It just irks me that many writers shrug him off so easily, in toto, as it were. But that's neither here nor there, perhaps mainly Not Here. Thx for elucidating! MVH, T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Gunhild's marriage

I made an embarrassing error while adding a book about Sigrid to that section. When I corrected it, that too was reversed, now with the claim that Eric the Victorious never married Gunhild. If that is to be accepted as a new reliable fact, despite what's in our article, irt needs to be discussed here (not on my talk page or in edit summaries). I will reinstate the book unless someone can come up with a more convincing reason not to do so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This entirely misses the point, or rather the points. No association of Gunhild with Eric is mentioned in this article unless Gunhild is actually a confused rendering of 'Świętosława'. To just drop a 'literature' reference making Gunhild the wife of Eric after Sweyn comes compeltely out of the blue. Whatever the claim with regard to Gunhild, it needs to be better contextualized. (And I don't want to harp on the mistake, but the original mention of Olaf here only added to the confusion, and raised the possibility that just as a mistake had been made over Olaf, a similar mistake might have been made over Gunhild.)

Equally important, if this is non-fiction, it seems more appropriate for the 'Modern reconstructions' section than 'In literature'. Or is this more like popular history rather than scholarly history - is that distinction even important in deciding where it goes? (And as long as we are at it, Wikipedia doesn't give ISBNs within the prose narrative). Likewise, the type of source that it is matters with regard to whether iots material is WP:UNDUE or not.

This is all complex and it would be extremely helpful if you would explain your source's reconstruction in more detail. Does your source really portray this as a wife-swap, with Sigrid marrying Eric then Sweyn, and Gunhild marrying Sweyn then Eric? I am unfamiliar of any source that has Eric marrying a woman previously married to Sweyn. The whole concept of Eric marrying Gunhild arises from Gunhild being dismissed as a garbled rendering of 'Świętosława' but Adam (at least as explained here) has the latter marrying the two men in the opposite order. There is just too much under the surface here to deal with so simply as the prior edit did, and I can't fix it without a better understanding of what the source is really saying, and what type of source it is. Agricolae (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard to ignore what's in our article on Eric and hard to understand why we should and hard to understand why this article and that one should be left at odds. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nonetheless, there is nothing on the Eric page that suggests a wife of Sweyn subsequently married Eric. It is representing the hypothesis that 'Gunhild of Wenden, daughter of Bureslaw' is a confused rendering of 'Świętosława' (or whatever her name was) of Poland, the siser of Boleslaw, who married first Eric then Sweyn, according to Adam of Bremen, i.e. the marriage pattern your source assigns to Sigrid, and we already mention this proposed equivalency in this article so they are not at odds, as it stands. The Eric page is (rightly) not suggesting that any actual historical source has Gunhild marrying Eric, let alone doing so after Sweyn, so that is why any information you can provide about your source's unique interpretation would be helpful. Agricolae (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)