Talk:Anna Dora Stein

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

OOOPPS !!! Sandefjord IS in Norway !!!
CHEERS, --Oddrun 16:50, 6 October 2007 (MDT)

Yes, I know, but is there a Sandefjord in Dk also ? I am following the info on the supplied records, and don't want to make too many changes .
Heimdal 16:57, 6 October 2007 (MDT)

Another thought, I think 'Christian den Svende' should be 'den Syvende', but I'm not too up on Scandinavian monarchs ;-)
Heimdal 17:01, 6 October 2007 (MDT)

I don't think there is a Sandefjord in Danmark, but remember, Norway was united with Danmark until 1814....
And I think you are right about Ch. den Syvende, I meant to put a talk on that, but forgot,,,we are busy redecorating..;-), cheers again, --Oddrun 17:18, 6 October 2007 (MDT)

Well, I think we do have two options:
i) to leave it, saying Sandefjord, Danmark because it is correct in terms of archive practice with the name of place & state refering to the date of the last voyage 1812. No archive would change such a record without a strong need ...
ii) to be polite against Shetlopedia users and give it as Sandefjord, Norway (then part of Danmark). In that case we would have to check all other records on Shetlopedia and to add similar notes for example about the Wilhelmina where it reads (again correct in terms of an archive record Memel, Germany but should then read Kleipeda (Lithuania), then Memel, Germany or Memel, Germany (now: Kleipeda, Lithuania).
Otherwise we would create a splitted world what might irritate the users who don't know about why we stick to this rule in the one case but to a different rule of name quoting in a second case ... ;-) Islandhopper 10:56, 7 October 2007 (MDT)

i) Correct in terms of archive practice = Wikipedia "Truth is secondary to verifiability"

ii) Thanks for making my Sunday, a very much funnier day. :-))))))
If I was to say to some of my workmates, "Norway, part of Denmark" (in the past), it would be like saying "Fair Isle, part of Orkney".

But you're 100% right we need to set down rules for this sort of confused information.
;-) ;-)
Robbie 11:29, 7 October 2007 (MDT)

Oh, Lord, NOOO ... ;-)
Not that stupid wikipedia approach "Truth is secondary to verifiability" ... :-)))
That stupid thingy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Sandeford, Danmark or Memel, Germany are verifiable because that was the truth/were the facts. That makes a little difference.
The remaining problem simply is: Is that verifyable for the "standard Shetlopedia user" or can we agree on the fact that the "standard Shetlopedia user" knows, it WAS (well, for Sandefjord, Danmark, I do hope so but for the rest ???) ... in difference, a 'standard archivist' writing down a record takes the position that all the users are learned and will know that it was in 1812 and that they are learned enough to know what happened thereafter ... ;-) or shall we be 'polite' and add some extra info for those who might not know ... :-))))
BDW: "Fair Isle, part of Orkney" ... i) IT WAS NOT ME who created that theory ... :-))); ii) but then, there are lots of old accounts saying "Shetland, part of Orkney" ... :-)))))

Islandhopper 15:25, 7 October 2007 (MDT)

Well...,,If we shall be accurate, ;-), the name of the Union was Danmark-Norge (Denmark-Norway)....but it does not matter, ;-), CHEERS, --Oddrun 21:45, 7 October 2007 (MDT)

I don't want to be nit-picky but, what I was trying to get at is that Sandefjord IS in Norway. NOT in Denmark FACT.
Ignoring any unions or political crap, it is impossible to move a Fjord/Town from one country to another just to make something written by a learned person look good.
The "Firth of Forth is in Britain", or the "Firth of Forth is in Scotland", are correct statements. But the "Firth of Forth is in England", would be just the same as saying "Sandefjord is in Denmark".
We must try to get away from this attitude that, just because something is written by a respected author, it has to be the truth. Even the most respected authors make typos.
At some point in the evolution of the written word, somebody has to say STOP!!!! Let's quit repeating that typo
We can say that " Sandefjord was in Norway, which was at the time in a union with Denmark". But that is the nearest we can get to saying that Sandefjord was in Denmark.
Now, back to painting walls,,, or is that floors??? because the two are connected, and perhaps a learned person might say that because they are united, I can paint the floor, and the colour of the wall will magically change.
;-))))))
:-))))
Robbie 22:15, 7 October 2007 (MDT)

>>>We must try to get away from this attitude that, just because something is written by a respected author, it has to be the truth. Even the most respected authors make typos.<<<

Robbie, Oddrun that's not my problem because in the phrases in question there are no typos. The question is: Do we accept 'technical language' or not. Technical language in this case means the language of historians, archivists and such folks who sort a place to a nation according to the date relevant within the context. The sequence Sandefjord, Danmark, 1812 is correct with Danmark (although the Norwegian town never changed the place!!!) being as correct as we do accept that Orkney & Shetland were pledged by the Danish King ... but sorry, Christian was Danish King since 1448, Norwegian King since 1450 (crowned 2 August 1450 at Trondheim), King of the Danish-Norwegian Union (since 29 August 1450) and since his coronation in 1457 as king of Sweden King of the Danish-Norwegian-Swedish Union ... but it is common sence that it was the Danish King (simply due to the fact that the historians do say so because the documents were prepared and signed at the Danish chancellory and court) ... ;-))) Islandhopper 03:21, 8 October 2007 (MDT)

Yes both need to there ! Jeannie 17:48, 8 October 2007 (MDT)

^^^^^????
Islandhopper,
Simple solution to the problem is, and has been staring us in the face. By virtue of the way that all, or at least the majority, of our wrecks already, have been entered giving Geographical information. Including using modern names wherever possible in location text.
Sticking to this simple format cures the problem, and makes it easier on the 99.9% of Shetlopedia viewers who are not Historical Archivists, but just ordinary folks who will either know that Sandefjord is in Norway, or not know where it is, and assume from our text that we have enetered the country where it is located. Leaving it saying Denmark would just be confusing, or mis-informing for them.

I don't know much about the historical connections between Norway and Denmark, but all the historical texts I have seen give the union as "Denmark - Norway", so using just Denmark is factually wrong anyhow.
I was a bit confused by the way you wrote 'Norway, part of Denmark', because as I understand, from books specialising in the subject, the Denmark - Norway union was just that, a union, under 1 King. One of the texts of the union stated that is was a 'union formed in brotherhood'. It further stated that 'neither Country could go to war without the agreement of the other'. Both these statements emphasise a union, not ownership of Norway by Denmark.
But, ignoring all historical things, we should just continue to enter location information, as we have been doing, in a way which will be as Geographically accurate as possible. Unless there is some reason for explanation, such as a country, or town, has changed it's name.
I don't think this one needs any further information, as Norway has always been Norway, and the Town, and Fjord, are on all maps, and in all historical documents, as being there.
The bit about Memmel, however, is very interesting. That sounds to me more like a case where explanation may be needed, because names have changed, and, it would be interesting to readers to know that sort of information. I think that wreck should be amended to include Kliepdia, Lithuania, so that folks looking on a map can find it, although it also has to have the name that was Geographically correct at the time,, if you see what I mean.
Robbie 22:35, 8 October 2007 (MDT)

Not to upset the above discussion, which is worthy in it's own right, but the details on the page are totally at odds with what Larn & Larn and RCAHMS have for this one.

Between them they offer the following names as well as the one given here, Anna Dora Stine, Anna Dorastein, Anna Dora Sheyne or Anna Dora Stione.

There seems to be reasonable agreement that her owner was S. Jacobsen & Co. Hamburg, Germany. that she was sailing under a Danish flag, and was registered in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The sole reference to anything like Sandefjord comes from Whitaker, who gives 'Seydisfjord' as her port of registry. (Is there not a port in Iceland, where this ship was headed, called something similar to that?).

Biggest difference of all though, all through Larn & Larn and RCAHMS the date of loss is given as 18th/19th December 1880.

Otherwise, all cargo, ports, place or wreck etc tally. Two different wrecks gotten mixed up maybe? It's going to take a bit of unravelling....

Ghostrider 15:51, 9 October 2007 (MDT)

Interesting.... As you say much research required. Oddrun is digging reference books out between tins of paint as I type.........
And the answer is...... Seydisfjordur, is on the east coast of Iceland. ;-) This is most likely a case where place names are a bit mixed up because they sound alike, especially to a Shetland listener.
We'll have to do some digging and compare all records to find the similarities and try to arrive at some consensus of opinion. Especially keeping all the fjords in the right country ;-)
At the moment I am just glad to have my pooter online at all with the mess our sitting room is in, but I should be back in operation properly by the weekend.
:-)
Robbie 16:09, 9 October 2007 (MDT)

Seydisfjordur that's the port of call for the Norröna on the Iceland leg ... ;-) A Hamburg merchant wouldn't have registered and run his ship under a Danish flag ... but Jacobsen & Co were a shipping company based in Altona ... in 1812 still being Danish as far as I know, afterwards being part of Prussia, NOW being part of Hamburg (since 1937) ... :-))) Islandhopper 16:27, 9 October 2007 (MDT)

General note on Whitacker: Where the placename is unclear, he sticks to the original names of the records he surveyed. We had similar cases for wrecks before where Whitacker reported the original names and RCAHMS said "name not on actual OS maps" but they were on the old OS editions sometimes with slightly different spellings. BUT where the location is clear he generally tends to the more recent names that's to say in case of "Altona now part of Hamburg" he quite consequently uses the modern name "Hamburg" for some unknown reasons only ... ;-) To me that is at least clear evidence from his annotations on ships from "Germany" with the exception that he sees Germany within the boundaries of 1939 ... so Memel is Memel, Germany not Klaipeda, Lithuania ... don't ask me why ... Islandhopper 16:41, 9 October 2007 (MDT)