Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gunnhild, Mother of Kings/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 01:03, 14 March 2009 [1].

---

Gunnhild, Mother of Kings

Review commentary

User:Briangotts notified; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway notified

Throughout the article material from Norse sagas is presented as if it had a chance of being a reliable source. It frequently cites such sagas directly, which besides being in practice borderline violation of WP:NOR, is historically inadvisable and such sagas represent complex material whose legendary and historical elements are not distinguishable without much study and scholarship. The handling of the literature is very poor in relation to WP:RS. Note 16 writes Ashley 443–44; for an alternative reconstruction, see, for example Clare Downham, Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland (2007), i.e. preferring to use a mediocre tertiary source against a recent work of a specialist scholar (Mammoth Book of British Kings versus Dr Claire Downham) [and incidentally it's tough to get what parts of the text are being referred to here]. I have no doubt whatsoever that if I were to investigate more individual bits of the text closely it would come up failing. In aspiring wikilawyer language, this is a strong fail against 1 b)—d). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not actually raised any issues with the article. The article is quite clear what sources are used, and presents the information known from each source including skeptics like Gwyn Jones which doubt the validity of much or all of the source material. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentences from first to last explain why the article cannot be held to FA quality. Read it again please. It's just poor history. E.g. the Life of St Cathroe of Metz says that Erik's only wife was a relative of Cathroe, a Scot, who was far from Gunnhild's background; this is a more reliable source, being near contemporary and 2 centuries younger than the sagas. If that source is correct then 1) either Gunnhild doesn't exist or 2) Erik of Norway isn't the same as Erik of Northumbria, and hence she was only married to one. Sorry, I just don't think wikipedia's corpus of FAs needs to accept literary characters masquerading as historical figures. We have many good FAs in the period. Angus' Oengus I of the Picts is an example of an article that handles sources well. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric of Northumbria should probably disambiguate between Mr Axe and Eiríkr Hákonarson (who was handy with the axe too, ask Eadric Streona). Haukur (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the Eric mentioned in St. Cathroe's life is intended to be the same person as Erik Bloodax is a relatively recent, and not widely accepted, theory. The king's list for Jorvik is probably incomplete and in any case its kings came and went with alarming frequency. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When this article was first suggested for FA status I opposed a promotion and made extensive comments on what I saw as problems with the article (see here). Some of the problems were addressed but not enough of them to make me comfortable in supporting the article so I never struck my oppose. In my opinion the most serious problem remains that scholarly sources specifically on Queen Gunnhildr are not used in the article. With the most cursory of searches I identified two academic articles specifically about Gunnhildr and to this day they remain unused. I'm sure there are others. Now, despite all this, I'm still going to mount a little defence of the article and its methodology.

Queen Gunnhildr is a subject of historical study but she is also a literary subject. It is true that it is difficult to distentangle those two aspects but it is also true that they are both important. An article only on the historical aspect would not be complete, we need to summarize even the obviously unhistorical parts of the saga material. The problem here, speaking generally about articles like this, is that old historians liberally mixed and combined accounts from different primary sources into what they saw as the most plausible coherent narrative. More recent historians (which we would like to rely on as much as possible) are much more skeptical and may completely ignore a lot of the more literary material. In my opinion we do have to summarize the accounts of the sagas and often the only good way to do that is to use the primary sources directly. Just as we summarize the Harry Potter novels working from the books themselves. We do have to do this in the light of recent scholarly secondary sources as much as possible but sometimes it isn't quite as possible as one might like.

My longest foray into writing on a semi-legendary subject is the Battle of Svolder article. What I ran into there is that recent historians don't like to go into the legendary details. What they have will, in the worst case, amount to "There was a battle. Or there may have been anyway, we don't know. And if there was one we hardly know anything about it worth mentioning." That's just no good for writing an article about it. I ended up using the older historians who had bothered trying to sort out the legendary details. I also summarized the primary sources extensively, though I always tried to do that in light of the secondary sources I had. Now, I don't think I entirely succeeded - the article is a mixed bag, I'm happy with some aspects of it but not all, but I think that in principle I was using the right method.

So, in summary, I think the article does have non-trivial problems, including problems with use of scholarship but I don't think those problems are as deep and as methodological as Deacon implies. Haukur (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on what Haukur writes above: I fully intend to add new material as I'm able and to address his citation concerns. However, please note that these concerns were raised at the initial FAC vote and the community decided by consensus to make the article featured anyway, over Haukur's objections and despite the shortcomings he legitimately calls attention to.

Deacon, however, has not actually identified anything that's changed since the article was granted FA status that would merit it losing that status. In fact, the article is largely identical now to the version that passed FA. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I should say that the offending footnote was something I added the day before this went on the front page. It is hard to see, now and always, how the article can be said to fulfil item 1b on the "What is a featured article?" list. If it's to be read as "Writing about fiction", it's written in an in-universe style. That's a major flaw. It lacks much in the way of context. To pick one statement in the lead which leads nowhere, why were Icelandic sources hostile to Gunnhild and Eric? The sources Haukur mentioned, the introduction to the MacDougall's edition of Theodoricus, and an essay on Hakon in The North Sea World in the Middle Ages would help here. All in all, too much saga history, not enough modern academic herstory (IYKWIM). But not beyond repair. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. For all the good faith, I really don't see how the article can be saved without virtually a total rewrite. @ Briangotts ... I haven't compared each version, so you can be certain I didn't think it mattered what the article was when passing FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the problem, isn't it. A FAR is appropriate if the article has been significantly changed so that it no longer meets the FA standards or if the standards have changed such that the article no longer meets them. The article was passed as FA by consensus of the community. You have not indicated any way in which the article has either declined in standards or no longer meets more stringent standards. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, while I deny that the article as it stood at the beginning of this review deserved to lose its FA status, I have made a number of additions from scholarly sources, rewritten the troublesome footnote, and added information regarding the hostility of Icelanders to Gunnhild. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article will be delisted if the article is not of FA quality according to the reviewers. The system assumes the system sometimes makes mistakes, so an FAC can be overturned on an FAR. Looking at the diffs, the problems with the article were already present - as you said - when it passed. Unfortunately articles get through FAC primarily based on how they are written, and often no knowledgeable person is there to check the quality of the content. I incidentally find it rather perturbing that even when knowledgeable users do add their say, it often gets ignored and passed anyway because of a few !votes, as with what happened here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the historicity of saga material, it should be enough to state that the accounts are doubted among historians, because there are rarely any consensus views on the historicity of material in the sagas. Sometimes, it is actually the sagas that get the last laugh, as in the case of Lund which was a commonly cited example of the un-historicity of sagas, since they claimed that it existed before the town was founded. Today, we know that such an early Lund actually existed (Uppåkra). A recent book defending their historical value is Mats G Larsson's Minnet av Vikingatiden (2005)[2].--Berig (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's enough to to state that the accounts are doubted among historians. A saga's dependability depends on the source material the saga writers or compilers themselves used, being separated by the events they relate by centuries. This topic matter is beyond the competence and/or scope of most the references used and far beyond the handling of this article. I think if this were grasped there'd be no question of this article remaining an FA. The article as it stands constructs a narrative of this woman's life using primary sources taken from unannotated translations in a manner that'd make the designers of WP:SYNTH shudder, with no reference to provenance or reliability nor any evidence that the editors knew what they were doing in this regard. Doing this is probably overlookable for normal articles, but not for GA let alone FA articles, which act as ambassador articles for wikipedia. Simply unacceptable to wikipedia and potentially embarrassing thusly. I don't see where the room for debate is here, quite frankly. The article is however very enjoyable to read and well written, so all credit to its writers for that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the concerns raised above that warrant a delisting from FA.--Berig (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be on the status of the FA article (I admit that I haven't dipped by toe in this pool yet and as a result my understanding of the process is minimal), I recommend restructuring the article to reflect the body of work we're drawing on to squeeze out what information we have and point out any contradictions. Right now, there is basically a single narrative divided into subsections. I think it would be much better to break down Gunnhild's major attestations source by source in an "attestations" section, organized chronologically. I would remove all theories from this "attestations" section. Second, I would bring out the theories into a "theory" section, where theories can be listed by author and they can present their cases individually. In my experience, this solves practically all issues that come up regarding primary sources, is completely neutral, and also facilitates growth of the article (additions can be added with ease to their appropriate sections, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this grabs the jist of concerns here. I think a good exemplar for how this article ought to look to stay an FA, roughly, would be an article no less famous than King Arthur. A bit literary perhaps, but that is king Arthur. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See valkyrie for an article I've recently rewritten from scratch for an example of the system I'm talking about. Sources are isolated and handled on their own terms and commentary is brought in later. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the way to do it; I don't think though this article's gonna get up there any time soon, and the rewrite would need to be so drastic that it wouldn't be the same article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In places, the article does frame the saga information as legendary, but too often it narrates saga material as if it were history. This leads me to agree reluctantly with Deacon that the article is not satisfactory. A useful distinguishing device would be to report saga narrative in the literary present and historical information in the historic past tense. Passages of saga narrative could then be included so long as they are topped and tailed by clear indications of their nature, along with pertinent analysis. qp10qp (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really seeing any major issues here; if editors are concerned that the article doesn't make it sufficiently clear that the material is based on the sagas, then two or three more "according to the Icelandic sagas" etc. should suffice. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as is written above, that won't suffice to rescue the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is sources. Joelito (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Remove Sorry, I still find it confusing. I agree that the distinction between accepted history and fable is still unclear in parts. It's certainly unclear to me, as a non-specialist, anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, As well as agreeing with this comment by DrKiernan (talk · contribs) that pieces of the article are confusing, I also agree with above assessment by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) that there are sourcing issues and a wider issue of WP:NOR to be addressed in greater depth as well. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The assumption that information from Heimskringla is necessarily false is one with no basis. The article clearly provides the sources for all information; readers are capable of judging for themselves the historiocity of the sources. This is like denying an article about Leonidas I featured status because the information must, of necessity, come primarily from Herodotus and similar sources. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. Briangotts, no-one here has expressed that blanket assumption about Heimskringla, and the concerns are about how the article is written and how it uses and presents its sources, not that such sources are indirectly used. Given the point made by Alex Woolf in "Eric Bloodaxe Revisited", Northern History, 34 (1998), and by other historians since, and repeated by me above (i.e. that Erik of Northumbria's wife is verifiably NOT Gunnhild), the narrative section and infobox about "Queen of Norway and Jorvik" is pseudo-historical fiction. This is embarrassing to have in an FA, and there is no question that it should be removed. Let me add I think it's undignified to be !voting on your own article, though I think you are a great contributor Brian and hope you don't resent me for listing this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Undignified? How is my vote any less valid here than yours? That is preposterous.

The theories you cite are revisionist history, and should be dealt with as such. The fact is that such historiography is by necessity unverifiable. I agree it should be included in the article, but as side-notes, or footnotes, not instead of the multiplicity of sources (Fagrskinna, Morkinskinna, Heimskringla, etc.) far closer to the source temporally. Just because Woolf disputes the account in those sources doesn't make them the fringe and his the mainstream, accepted version. Not that it's relevant to this vote, but I should note that historians like Woolf have a vested interest in proposing controversial new theories, because if they write accounts agreeing with Heimskringla in any significant way nobody will be interested in reading it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This response is completely counter-productive for your purposes, Brian. Woolf is a mainstream expert in the area, and all early medieval historical writing is by necessity "revisionist". Your dismissal of him will only bring discredit on yourself, not him. It's not just Woolf btw, read other historians like Downham. If you'd actually bothered reading the article you'd know that Woolf doesn't discount Heimskringla, rather he demonstrates that Erik of Northumbria's wife was not Gunnhild, in reference to the late 10th century Vita of St Cathróe of Metz. Downham argues that this shows Erik of Northumbria was not Erik of Norway. These are salaried historians who've published in highly respected peer-reviewd sources, and you have to take them seriously whether you like it or not, per WP:RS and WP:NOR. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Woolf's article, and with Downham's book. Both are interesting works, but both are revisionist works that present theories. These are interesting and worth mentioning but do not replace the more mainstream, traditional account and do not relegate that account to the realm of folklore. Other historians have disagreed with Woolf's translation of the Vita, and if you're going to include his opinion you need to include theirs; in any case these are supplemental to the traditional narrative and not instead of it. Peer reviewed in this context means that other scholars have found Woolf's work plausible, and nobody is arguing that point.

Frankly, I have reached the limits of my interest and patience in this article, and to a great extent with this project as a whole. So I will not be making the changes you demand. Have at it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem very familiar, honestly. Woolf didn't "translate" this saint's life for instance, and your understanding of the historiographical debate seems limited; the number of historians who contribute on such topics could be counted on one hand, essentially in English there's about 4 historians, and two of these have been mentioned. You actually seem to misunderstand entirely how early medieval insular/Scandinavian history works, by presenting it as one would expect, say, World War I or something. Mainstream early medievalists are paid to be nontraditional. There are no "mainstream traditional" accounts in the area. Sometimes you just need to admit when you're wrong and move on. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem wish to accord Woolf (who certainly did use a translation of the vita in preparing his article) equal status with Gwyn Jones, Kendrick, Foote, Miller, et al., without any evidence in support of this status. This is laughable, but as I said, you may do as you like. I am no longer monitoring this page and will not be responding to any further comments by you, including speculations as to whether I did or did not read Woolf's article and/or understand it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, the article's problems go far beyond you "ignoring" (i.e. not having been aware of) the publications of specialist historians, but its use and presentation of sources and the information they supposedly reveal. I don't see why Woolf wouldn't have the same status as those writers, none of whom as far as I'm aware have expressed an opinion on Woolf's article, nor am I any wiser about why you're casting aspersions against Woolf (like I said, attacking a good historian like that is just gonna bounce back on you and is thus counter productive). At any rate, an article in a peer-reviewed journal by Woolf is a more reliable source than your own assertions, and, for all your laughter, that's really where the matter on wikipedia ends. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, if articles were perfect when the passed FAC we would protect them at that moment. The opposes appear to be based on the assumption that there is a clear-cut difference between "accepted history" and "legendary history", which there is not. Different scholars accept information in the sagas differently, ranging from almost uncritical stances to what I consider to be virtual conspiracy theories. IMO, the most recent publications are strikingly uneven by being surprisingly uncritical as to the description of cultural and religious practices and more critical concerning biographical content, and I'm quite sure that the fashions will continue to change which they have done for centuries now. As long as this kind of article sources the information properly, there should be no need for delisting.--Berig (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's not the basis of delisting, Berig. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• If the hard-to-find difference between fable and fact is not the reason, what is it?--Berig (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've already explained above. For your own info, while it is true that historians are not always able to tell the difference, it isn't quite as black and white as you think. It comes down to the strengths and limitations of current methodologies. The basic one is that the reliability of any particular "saga" passage depends on the sources used to write it, something that can sometimes be worked out. See the first paragraph in the Eric_Bloodaxe#Marriage, for an example of this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remove The article is a terrible mishmash of legend, fiction and dates given with historical accuracy. It does not take account of current scholarship like the biographical article by Claus Krag, described by User:Barend in this response on the talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Claus Krag is hardly a representative scholar. He is most known for the extreme theory that Ynglingatal is a forgery from the 12th century, a theory that has been widely debunked since.--Berig (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  Berig's arrogant dismissal of Krag's recent scholarly review in Norsk biografisk leksikon is just incredible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  Show me a single recent publication that takes his Ynglingtal theory seriously, Pieter.--Berig (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  This FARC is not about Krag's PhD thesis, but its conclusions were well received by many hisorians as can be seen in the current article in Nationalencyklopedin about Yngligetal (link probably requires subscription). The 1991 book invigorated scholerly debate about the subject, and few history PhD theses have been as influential as his. More recent reevaluations of the dating have led to different conclusions. This is no reason for a Featured Article to withhold wp readers Claus Krag's review of current scholarship on Gunhild in the standard Norwegian biographical reference. Berig seems to be advocating censorship of scholars that he/she does not agree with. That is even worse than POV. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that lacking a reference to Krag is a valid reason, Pieter, but how could that be tantamount to "advocating censorship"?--Berig (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. I've just read the article again, and though it has some good critical material in places (and I respect the amount of work Brian has put into it), it too often veers into straight narrative without the necessary framing. By framing, I mean that dates and composition information (why and from what sources were the sagas written, etc.) need to be given for each of the sagas, and that it should be made clear at each point which saga or history any particular narrative detail is taken from (a footnote is not enough, because that does not overtly frame the narrative). Pure saga narrative needs to be placed in the present tense to show that it is literary. Passages such as the following mix things up in a way that it is (for me at least, a medieval history graduate) imprecise.

Gunnhild was widely reputed to be a völva, or witch.[14] Prior to the death of Harald Fairhair, Erik's popular half-brother Halfdan Haraldsson the Black died mysteriously, and Gunnhild was suspected of having "bribed a witch to give him a death-drink."[15] Shortly thereafter, Harald died and Erik consolidated his power over the whole country. He began to quarrel with his other brothers, egged on by Gunnhild ...

Use of the historic perfect here and at similar points assumes the authority of the article's voice.qp10qp (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:ACCESS issues throughout, please read accessibility to understand the order of items within sections, images go in sections not above them. Very concerned about points raised by Qp10qp, veering towards Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.