Talk:Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 1

Archive 1

So - Cunigunda and Boleslaus? --MichaelTinkler

---

While the names were often recorded as Boleslaus, Stanislaus, etc this English language encyclopedia has the name already recorded in the known English version :Boleslaw I Chrobry Is there a reason that Bolislaus is used ? Should it be continued ? user:H.J.

It was used because I didn't want to have several different wiki logins going at once. Change it to Boleslaw -- but also, I would perhaps be more careful about creating entries in non-English forms in the first place. The person creating the entry (not entrance, by the way -- a very different thing) should really make an effort to find out what term (or name) is most widely accepted in English, then try to follow the naming conventions we've discussed (for example on History Conventions?). I've noticed that a lot of recent articles have names that are not necessarily familiar to native English speakers. Last week there were Scandinavian research institutes and Polish political parties in their native languages. No English speaker (except one who is bilingual and already knows the subject better than a wiki article) will ever search for those names. THe articles are therefore pretty damned useless, IMHO, until redirected to an English equivalent with the proper name in translation. JHK

Oops -- missed something. My personal vote would be to cut Boleslaw and paste him into a Boleslaus article. However, I didn't make any links to that name, because as H.J. says, we've got a page already, and I am willing to let it stay -- although Boleslaw I Chrobry isn't really accepted English, as far as I know. Frankly, it's hard to tell, since Americans at least seem to be trying more for native spellings. I think the -laus ending has an edge, though.

As for Cunigunde, yeah. Mostly because I've only seen it spelled that way in English (except for those real English francophiles who use Lothair and Mayence and Treves, which I find personally offensive). I like the nice, middle of the road Cunigunde, all syllables pronounced, 'cause it's a good old clerical Latin spelling. No German K's, no Franch O. Frankly, your average scribe of the time could well have used all three in one document...<hitting self in head over the problems of medieval names> JHK

you can always do one of those piped links - [Boleslaw I Chobry|Boleslaus I] and ignore the situation. The danger is broken links if someone retitles one or the other, but we'd catch it eventually. I'm for 'Cunigunde', too (having done a google search), but let me point out that it currently says 'Cunigunda of Luxemburg'. Someone should change it before someone writes the article. --MichaelTinkler

---

To JHK and M T altavista shows 7537 for Boleslaw and 586 for Boleslaus . Almost all books I have read say Boleslaw I Chrobry, which of course is Polish. But that is what he is best recognized under. Boleslaus is fine with me. (Would you recognize him under : Burislaf von Wendland ? )

---

To [JHK on Danewerk, I have a lot of reading material for you : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16071c.htm Roskilde http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13542a.htm Schleswig http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16070b.htm Ribe Ripen http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16001a.htm Aarhus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07141b.htm Harald Bluetooth http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07121b.htm Hamburg http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal5349 H. Bluetooth (Jomsburg=Jomsborg=Jumne(Danish)= near Wollin, Pomerania)

823 Danish chief Harald Klack went to imperial Ingelheim and he and entire retinue were baptized by Louis the Pious.

Gorm the Old fought, was subdued by Otto I the Great, son Harald Bluetooth pledged allegiance to Otto I. He had to find rescue in Jomsburg from his son. Jomsburg was destroyed by Danes ca 1040. (Later Wollin and Pomerania).

Danewerk, Dannewerk was started around 600 (till 1200) to ward off Slavs .Of course the heathen Danes (Vikings) also used it. It was still used in 1800.

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think that my answer stands -- there may be a trend in scholarship towards the more naturally Polish -slaw ending, but I think most English speakers still think -slaus. Michael's suggestion is the best way to deal with it, I think.

I would also like to clarify something here: when I ask for sources, I am not looking for an Internet search. There is no regulation on the internet as far as what people can or can't say; there is no peer review to ensure accuracy. You can't trust much on the web, unless you know the source. Also, different search engines find different things -- some require sites to register with them, for example, before they will show the site in a search. Wikipedia is in many ways an exception from the inaccuracy rule -- but only because there are casess where many people have an interest and knowledge on a specific subject and so try to keep it clean. To me, sources are scholarly texts and articles and, more importantly, primary sources.

As for the encyclopedia entries on the web that you cite as evidence, I'm not sure I understand why you've cited them. All they really are are descriptions of bishoprics...the fact that one is in Schleswig Holstein NOW, for example, doesn't mean S-H existed in the 9th century... Could you please explain on the Jutland Talk page how this supports your argument? Thanks! JHK