Talk:Sprota

Deleting source citations

There was no valid reason to delete information in the lead section. It was well supported by a valid published authority, which is why it was undone. You need to look up and read the citations to verify what is being stated is correct (which in this case it was). Bearpatch (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the source again, as the cited pages say absolutely nothing about her being a 'key' individual in Norman history. Yes, she has descendants who were kings and counts and archbishops and earls, but that doesn't make her role in history any more important and the cited source never says anything of the sort. Yes, they show some of her descendants, but it is your conclusion that the fact she had these descendants (as do most people of the time) makes her somehow noteworthy for this reason. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It was plainly stated and made evident by the source. However, your opinion is duly noted.Bearpatch (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The cited pages are nothing but genealogical charts, and none of them says Sprota is a "key figure in Norman history" or anything remotely similar. If this is what you call 'made evident', that is going beyond the sources, as it expresses your own interpretation of her role. Don't confuse your reason for being interested in her with the authors' incidental coverage of her, as a name in a chart that is meant to show a general pattern of kinship and nothing specifically about Sprota and her relative importance. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It was plainly stated and made evident by the source.Bearpatch (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you already said that before, and as best I can tell, it is just as wrong the second time as the first. Again, as best I can tell, not one of the cited pages 'plainly states' anything about the importance of Sprota. Looking at a bunch of charts and reaching a specific conclusion not explicitly given by the authors (however evident) is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agricolae, You have followed this editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_I,_Duke_of_Normandy here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_1st_Earl_of_Surrey&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodulf_of_Ivry&action=history and now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey all in a little over one week's time. This is beginning to look a lot like Wikipedia:Harassment. Mugginsx (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, you and I have edited many articles in common. That does not mean either of us has been stalking the other. That this editor has decided to edit several articles that I have been watching (or at least checking on occasionally) or to create new associated articles, is obviously going to attract my attention, in every place where there is overlap in our interests. (The material I am not fond of is no less of an issue on a second page where it has been inserted than on the first.) That is not stalking, it is common interest.

Obviously, my three reverts have been used up here, but I am no more in favor of it now than I was before, and Bearpatch just boldly asserting "It was plainly stated" repeatedly doesn't change things. The cited pages say absolutely nothing of the sort, and changing the precise phrase doesn't conjure it into existence. If Bearpatch thinks that the source "plainly states" this, then Bearpatch should either provide a specific quote or at least a specific page rather than the page ranges in the citation. If Bearpatch thinks that the material is evident, then they should read WP:SYNTH. Finally, there is the UNDUE issue - virtually everyone that had children in the Middle Ages is ancestor of kings, counts, earls, archbishops, etc. So, the fact that someone had such descendants is indiscriminate information. To go from a set of charts that address more generally the familial patterns among the Norman nobility and reach a conclusion specifically about Sprota being ancestor of those people is WP:SYNTH, and to then conclude that because of this, Sprota is somehow special, different from all of her peers who likewise were ancestors of a lot of important people, and somehow make her in any way 'key' (or even 'important') is lacking in perspective and solely reflects the personal POV of the editor. Gunnor actually played a role in government and was instrumental in elevating her family within the nobility. These actions have been discussed in detail by historians and this attention justifies such a characterization of her, but Sprota just got knocked up by the Duke, and I have never seen any historian give her more than passing reference, a level of attention that in no way supports such a claim to importance. Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make clear my objections, as there are two sentences being added, and I will address them in turn:

• "While not a great deal is known about her, she remains an important [previously "a key"] figure in Norman history."

This sentence is unreferenced and contains a claim that this person holds some special position in Norman history. I know of no historian that has stated this to be the case, or has given her more than passing reference. The statement is completely unsupportable personal opinion and has no business being in an article. If you have an author that draws specific attention to Sprota as an "important" or a "key" person in Norman history, now would be the time to quote them.

• "From Sprota are descended numerous kings, dukes, earls, archbishops, bishops, and numerous famous families"

The source cited for this shows Sprota in the context of numerous genealogical charts that shows the families akin to the Dukes of Normandy did, in fact, include such people. However, it does not explicitly state this of Sprota, and to pull out of this chart some specific conclusion about Sprota not made by the authors is WP:SYNTH. Further, placing this in Sprota's account makes it seem that she is unusual among medieval individuals due to this characteristic, when nothing could be farther form the truth. The same could be said of just about every medieval individual with known descendants. Thus the statement represents indiscriminate information, and its inclusion when no author chooses to mention it (specifically about her) is to put WP:UNDUE weight on this unimportant factoid.

The fact of the matter is, Sprota probably doesn't even meet the criteria for having a page. After all, we know precisely three facts about her: 1) she was a Breton captive; 2) by some sort of liaison with William Longsword she had Richard I; 3) by some sort of relationship with Esperlengus, she had Rodolf of Ivry and several daughters. That is the sum total information about her, and no historian has given her more than passing reference, nor does she have any inherent characteristic that bring notability with it (you can't make the argument that everyone a duke bedded is inherently worthy of a page). We really shouldn't be filling out the article with personal opinion and indiscriminate information, just for something to say. Agricolae (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agricolae: I have always had the greatest respect for you, you know that. But this argument sounds offensive and weak to me: These actions have been discussed in detail by historians and this attention justifies such a characterization of her, but Sprota just got knocked up by the Duke, and I have never seen any historian give her more than passing reference, a level of attention that in no way supports such a claim to importance.

What then, should we put Eleanor of Aquitaine up for deletion? How about all of the great Ladies and Queens in Wikipedia? How about all of the women who were matriarchs of great dynasties in history. After all, they just got "knocked up" as well. No, that is just wrong. All of these women have a place in history as much as the men. Your reasoning here sounds sexist. Most historians are men anyway and I cannot agree with theirs or your reasoning about their "Opinions" in that regard. I am sorry.

Further you know that you should not be deleting other editor's source citation because you wp:IDON'TLIKETHEM. It could be considered vandalism. Mugginsx (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where this discussion has gone off the rails, but this is ridiculous. The answer to your first question is found within the question itself - the great Ladies and Queens of Wikipedia were great Ladies and Queens. They participated in the politics of their time, they ruled their countries during minorities, they did things that got them significant coverage by historians. That is the basis for notability on Wikipedia, someone has received significant coverage in the secondary literature. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for correcting historical wrongs. That you don't like the fact that historians haven't considered Sprota interesting enough to give her significant coverage is completely irrelevant. The simple truth is that she hasn't been subject to such coverage - she isn't notable. As to "my reasoning about their 'Opinions"', I have no idea what you are referring to. I only mention the opinions of the editor, who has decided that the mere act of being ancestor of important people makes Sprota important.

Second, I have already explained, in detail, that I am not deleting the sentence in question because I don't like it. I am deleting it because it represents WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. You should know that these are valid reasons to delete material from an article, while you should also know that to take legitimate reasons and simply label them as IDON'TLIKETHEM and suggest my actions are vandalism is completely inappropriate. This is getting rather frustrating because I took the time to explain, using policy, why I thought the material should be deleted, twice, and Bear simply dismissively repeated themself and filed a bogus report for edit-warring, while your response has accused me of sexism and vandalism but neither of you have addressed the issues in the least: that the first added sentence has no basis in the scholarly literature and represents nothing but the personal opinion of editor(s), and the second is SYNTH and UNDUE because a whole lot of women (and men) are ancestors of important people, such that there is nothing distinctive about this claim, and no cited source draws the least attention to this not-at-all-unique characteristic specifically with regard to Sprota. Agricolae (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

First, while I appreciate you toning down the rhetoric, at least while this might be under scrutiny, it occurs to me what this is really about. You’re projecting your bias onto me and that’s not where it belongs. The article, as written, follows WP:NPOV. You’re the one who edited the word wife out of her page even though you know what more danico means. You inserted the story where Louis supposedly called the boy’s mother a whore, then your note stated "to show her character". This doesn’t go to show her character at all, it shows yours. She was taken captive, and entered into (willingly or unwillingly) a Danish or Viking-style marriage, which unlike a Christian marriage does not require consent of both parties. And you want to deny the fact that she is a progenitrix of two dynastic families? You’ve been very transparent about what it is you want here. Whittle down the article until there’s not enough of it left then try to delete it—even though it’s still less than three days old. Coupled with your attempts to deny Gundred her ancestry (constantly deleting her son’s pedigree) this is definitely a pattern.

I see, so you appreciate that I am 'toning down the rhetoric' as that gives you an opportunity to attack my motivations and my character in a more calm manner? Including the quote about Sprota shows Louis' opinion of her character, or at least it shows William of Jumieges' reflections on Louis' opinions of her character. It has every reason to be in the page, because it is one of the few notices of her in any primary source and it has garnered comment in a secondary source. It has nothing to do with my character. (In fact, you have no business even mentioning my character - it is a clear violation of Wikipedia's rule against personal attacks.) As to a 'marriage' that "doesn't require consent of both parties", there is a name for that in modern English, and not a pleasant one. And I don't want to deny that she is progenitrix of two dynastic families. I am saying nothing of the sort, but rather that most medieval people of whom we have significant records are ancestors of dynastic families, such that a statement to that effect provides no basis for notability, not being a distinctive characteristic. The deletion of two unsupported sentences in a whole article is not an attempt to whittle it down then delete it. It is an attempt to remove two unsupported sentences, nothing more, nothing less. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agricolae, you can’t let up on twisting things—the two sentences were not 'added' as you well know, they were part of the original article built up a piece at a time. One you couldn’t even allow to be finished before jumping in one hour after the article was started. So one more disingenuous statement on your part when you told the administrator you weren’t following my work at all. One hour—what, did you take a break for lunch? I don’t own any article I’ve created or edited and I’ve never claimed to. But this is just another projection on your part because clearly I’m editing in what you feel is your territory. So this is about teaching the new guy a lesson and you’re the self-appointed hall monitor. I get it—I just don’t care.

The sentences weren't there, then they were - they were "added", by any reason able use of the word. How dare I edit pages you have created or are editing? Please! Wikipedia is collaborative - that means that you don't get to browbeat any editor with the temerity to change your words. I am not going to play this game of yours, this "I'm rubber and you're glue", "I'm not, but you are" exchange of personal sleights, because this is not about my feelings or how many seconds, minutes, hours or days happened to pass before I found the material, this is about content. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you’ve attempted to explain yourself in great detail. Problem is, it’s not believable. You’re rhetoric and misapplied WP policies, not to mention the trail of edit comments you’ve left, makes it clear you’re bent on disrupting any article improvements you don’t like. Just to be clear, this isn’t about these two miniscule points. Anyone familiar with medieval history can spot the double-speak. You will not allow Sprota to have her small due and will wikifinagle anything you can to prevent it. Finally, "where did this get off the rails?" Pretty much where you steered it my friend. This was never about any lofty principals on your part, it’s about your favorite things, arguing and disruptive editing. Your arguments are transparent and disingenuous while your disruptive editing is, yes, just short of vandalism. You've learned just about how far you can push it. Bearpatch (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not 'disrupting' any content I don't like. I am editing and discussing content I don't like - that is what Wikipedia editors do. What makes you think your edits are sacrosanct? And this IS about these two minuscule points. As much as it makes you feel better to label me a misogynist with a grand evil scheme, this is about these specific sentences in this specific article. I am making legitimate policy-based edits, and I will not get distracted by your insults and insinuations about my character.

The good news: in all these lines that you have spent attacking me and mischaracterizing my motivations, you have finally if only inadvertently addressed the question at hand when you said, "You will not allow Sprota to have her small due" (it still managed to be about me and not Sprota, but it is the closest this so-called response came to addressing the issue at hand). That is exactly the issue - the question of what is her small due. You don't get to decide that. It is up to scholars, and an Wikipedia page on her needs to represent that scholarly opinion and weight. You don't get to decide that she is a key figure, historians have to do that, and if you don't have a citation to a historian reaching that conclusion, it has no business being in the article just because you happen to think it is the case. Yes, she is progenitrix of a dynasty. So what? so are Sancha of Aybar and Ida of Toeny, and a thousand other medieval mistresses. That is likewise not an observation that you get to make - it cannot simply be "evident" from a set of genealogical table not directly addressing Sprota. If a historian has said that "Sprota is notable as ancestress of two dynastic families", then by all means, it belongs in the article. If a historian has pointed out (specifically) that she is ancestor of this whole list of important people, we can cite that. But at least thus far, you have provide no such reference, and I can only conclude that the reason is that these sentences reflect your own conclusions and are not those of any historian, and as such don't belong in the article. We are right back to where we started: if no references are provided for this information, it has no business being in the article, and it should be deleted on this basis alone. (As I said above, if you have such a reference, now would be a good time. . . .) Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your very articulate sounding answer did not hit the mark Agricolae. It is YOU that made the SEXIST statement here: These actions have been discussed in detail by historians and this attention justifies such a characterization of her, but Sprota just got knocked up by the Duke, and I have never seen any historian give her more than passing reference, a level of attention that in no way supports such a claim to importance. If you think it is nothing and deny making the remark YOURSELF, then I will point you to many noticeboards which are about the same topic and do think it is important.

If that is what the other historians think that they should not even be cited here on Wikipedia. And if you agree with them, which it seems that you do, then it seems to me that what you are saying is that: since Sporta was not married in the traditional sense, she "just got knocked up", therefore her genes did not pass on to her notable sons and descendants, that she had no positive influence on her (husband) and children, and that she can take no credit for anything her descendants did and therefore she cannot be notable, whereas Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc., is notable because she was married in the traditional sense? I may not be a scholar but I know pure sexism when I see it and this is it and is also the weakest argument I have ever heard on non-notability. You can dress it up with your words, but it seems to be that is what you are saying is sexist and it is your personal opinion as well. Further, you did not even apologize which would have been nice. Mugginsx (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(Sigh. Off the rails completely.) Please take a step back, take a deep breath, and respond to what I am saying rather than inventing grotesque straw men to attack. The fact that a duke made his captive pregnant does not mean that she didn't pass her genes to her descendants. (However, you could perhaps point me to the Wikipedia policy that states that the conveyance of DNA is a sufficient basis for notability.) She almost certainly had some influence on William and her children, but neither you nor I can say what that influence might have been because the only chronicler to mention such an influence only did so in relating how the king of France insulted her son by calling his mother a 'whore', and even that may have simply been used as a pseudo-parable by William of Jumieges to reflect how Richard's birth was perceived in the more Catholic context in which he was writing. More importantly, without a secondary reference providing such a commentary specifically on the role of Sprota, the assumption of specific effects doesn't belong in an article. That she can't take credit for her descendants? Credit? Since when is Wikipedia concerned with assigning credit for actions of people centuries later to those who never knew them and with whom they only shared a small fraction of DNA and familial continuity? That is little short of genealogical mysticism.

Eleanor is notable, not because the church sanctioned her marriage (then unsanctioned it, then sanctioned another one), but because she has been the subject of extensive historical writings. The chroniclers of the time reveled in her behavior, her indulgence in the politics of France and England, and her influence on her husbands and children. Modern historians have shown a similar interest. She has been the subject of scholarly writing for centuries. She has been the central subject of full-length biographical and historical studies (e.g. Eleanor of Aquitaine: lord and lady; Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Life; Eleanor of Aquitaine: the queen who rode off to battle; Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen and Legend; Eleanor of Aquitaine: the richest queen in Medieval Europe; Eleanor Of Aquitaine: By the Wrath of God, Queen of England; Eleanor of Aquitaine: heroine of the Middle Ages; Eleanor of Aquitaine: queen and rebel; Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England; Eleanor of Aquitaine: queen of the troubadours; Eleanor of Aquitaine: Medieval Queen; Eleanor of Aquitaine and the four kings; Eleanor of Aquitaine, courtly love, and the troubadours; Queen Eleanor, independent spirit of the Medieval world; and I could go on). She has been featured as a main character in movies and plays. These have all specifically addressed her motivations, her influences, etc. That is notability. For Sprota, we have the statement that she was a Breton captive, the statement that she had Richard I, the statement that she was forced to go to Esperlengus and by him had Rodulf and several daughters, and the fact that the French king insulted her son by calling her a whore. That is all, and no modern historian has done more than mention her in passing. To contrast with Eleanor, here is a list of the biographies of her that have been published: . . . . . (none). That is not notability. If the only difference you can see between the status of these two women is the fact that one of them had a church-sanctioned marriage, then I don't know what to say, but you don't really think that, and neither do I, as you well know. It has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with coverage by historical sources, and it is ridiculous that you are trying to blackguard me for insisting that Wikipedia's notability standards shouldn't be waived simply because of the gender of the person in question. I apologize if you have taken offence by my description of the historical record relating to this obscure woman, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire historical record about her is that she was captured, produced progeny and was called a whore - we know nothing else about her. She may have been a fascinating woman, she may have been an important woman, an influential woman, a despicable woman, a tragic woman, a dynamic woman, she may have been anything for all we know, but we don't know and we don't get to make it up. Such is the fate of millions of people of any gender who "lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them". Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor of Aquitaine was considered promiscuous in her day as well and you know that. And you still have not apoligized for your sexist remark you also stated. You said it. I am very saddened and very disappointed in you Agricolae. I really looked up to you before this. That is all I have to say on the subject. Mugginsx (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[doubletake] Huh? promiscuity? What? This has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity, any more than it had to do with church-sanctioned marriage. I explain in detail the difference in the coverage of the two women in the primary, scholarly and popular media, and what you take from it is promiscuity? Given the number of times I have stated that my position exclusively derives from scholarly coverage, the fact that that you keep trying to portray it as relating to sexual politics, promiscuity, church-sanctioned marriage, or sexism in general is increasingly offensive, bordering on irrational. I did apologize, but I will do it again: I am sorry that the manner by which I expressed her role in recorded history caused you offence. I now recognize that had I been less flippant and used more-scholarly language, it might have prevented the subsequent trip down the rabbit hole that this discussion has devolved into. I am not entirely convinced that this is could have thus been avoided, though, as you seem to be calling 'sexist' my very act of pointing out the fact that the historical record preserves nothing more about her. The historical record is what it is and no amount of calling me names or insulting my character will change it, and I will not apologize for its deficiencies. My position has always been, and remains, that the decision regarding inclusion of material in this article should rest on the coverage received in the scholarly and popular literature, that the specific statements in question have no such support, and that the notability (by Wikipedia standards) of the subject of this article herself is dubious. If you have references that support the inclusion of the material in question, I would encourage you to incorporate them. If no references are presented to support the statements, I will act accordingly. Agricolae (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I accept your half-hearted apology but note you surround it beautifully in your rhetoric. Stop biting the newcomer while you at it following him around and challenging him on every article and calling it 'common interest'. If he reports you the edit histories will not hold up under the scrutiny of a sharp administrator. Mugginsx (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have just exceeded my level of tolerance. I made a comment that due to its flippant nature was (apparently, in retrospect) insufficiently clear, and you decided to read into it something that was never meant - that is as much on you as me, because you failed abysmally to assume good faith and quickly passed on to extreme incivility. If you think that an administrator is called for, don't wait for Bearpatch. Make a complaint, but before you do, you just might want to consider who has been attacking whom here. I am not ashamed of my edits, not in the least. It is simply a lie to pretend that I am challenging Bearpatch on every article, and I have not bit the newcomer. I have made policy-based edits and when asked, explained why, and in exchange have been told to stop making those policy-based edits because, well, just because, and have since been accused of vandalism, sexism, stalking, of harboring some grand plan to (not quite sure, but it sounds pretty insidious), and been falsely reported for violating 3RR. Go and find yourself the sharpest administrator you can, because I am not the one who is out of line here - in all the lines of response, you have attacked and insulted me, found fault with my behavior, cast aspersions on my motivations, made up outlandish phantasmagorical interpretations of what I have said that can't possibly be read from the actual words, demanded apologies and hinted at administrative action, but never once have you actually addressed in any substantive way THE ACTUAL CONTENT IN DISPUTE. Bring it on. I have no reason to fear the consequences of anything I have said or done up to this point in this whole sordid affair. Can you say the same? Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The pages are just tables, and Sprota's name appears only once in the entire book. So Agricolae has it right. It's not harassment to edit articles we have on our watchlists; ATM Bearpatch's edits appear on a number of the pages I've got on my watchlist.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)