Talk:Þorsteinn Erlingsson

Untitled

Sorry Haukur, but I had to add my two favourites to the list. Cheers Io 18:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of unsourced argumentive footnote

I deleted a footnote that seemed clearly intended to rationalize or justify (or to explain from a certain POV) the use of quotation marks around the word "oppressors" in a description of a poem against Denmark's domination of Iceland during a historical period. I also deleted the quotation marks themselves. This type of footnote seems entirely inappropriate in an article, although the assertion in the footnote (arguing that the Danes were benevolent rulers and did not actually oppress anyone) might be entirely appropriate on this Talk page, to prompt an editorial discussion. If the word "oppressors" had actually appeared in the poem under discussion, it might be reasonable for the article to quote the poet to that effect, but the quote-mark punctuation was not for the purpose of quotation but was instead a "scare quote" attempt to disavow and deny that the Danish rulers of Iceland were oppressive. We don't normally edit Wikipedia articles to add the phrase "so-called" (especially where we don't actually explain what it was that anyone called something or someone, or why the word in question is inaccurate or misleading). Substantively, I'm not an expert on the history of Danish colonialism, but the assertion in the footnote I deleted, stating as fact (and without support) that the Danes tried their utmost to be humane and kind rulers, is inconsistent with information I have read. I imagine there might be a better word to use than "oppressors," but until someone finds the right word, it seems better to undo the footnote and the scare quotes. To offer an example, an encyclopedia might properly state that thirteen English colonies in America in 1776 declared independence from oppression by the British monarch; we probably would find it improper to put the word "oppression" in quotation marks and include an unsourced argumentive footnote explaining that the quotation marks are being used to make the point that British colonial rule in America was in fact benign and benevolent. 100.15.136.71 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The third stanza of the poem in question does include the words <<kúgaðri þjóð>>, which could be translated "oppressed nation." But quotation was not the purpose of the quote-mark punctuation.

1.

Þú átt kannske frækna og fengsæla þjóð,

þér fannst kannske ólga þitt göfuga blóð,

er sástu hana sigurför halda,

þar nábúinn fátæki fjötraður sat,

sem föðurleifð varði, á meðan hann gat,

en látinn var liðsmunar gjalda.

2.

Þá ljómar um salina þjóðheiður þinn,

er þrekaði bandinginn leiddur er inn,

og þá er þér sigurinn sætur;

og veislan í höllinni veglegri þá

og vínið þar bjartara skálunum á,

ef þú einhver er inni, sem grætur.

3.

En þú, sem að hefur í hjartanu blóð,

úr hrakinni, smáðri og kúgaðri þjóð

og eitrað á hörmungar árum, –

það knýr þig svo fast, þegar arfurinn er

á einverustundunum réttur að þér

af minningum mörgum og sárum.

4.

Þó holdið á örmunum þrútnaði þar,

sem þrælkaði faðirinn hlekkina bar,

það harkaði hann af sér í hljóði. –

En kvölin, sem nísti hann, er nakinn hann lá

og níðinga hnúarnir gengu honum á:

hún brennur í sonarins blóði. 100.15.136.71 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)