Talk:Sigard, Count in Luihgau and Hainaut

questions etc
User:Andrew Lancaster. Andrew. I'm not going to make changes to this article as you will likely revert them, but will point out some problem areas: This writeup clearly contradicts what is in Pagus of Luigas and uses the same set of references.
 * The title of the article is Sigard, yet the body and the references use Sigehard. At a minimum, the article should use the same name as the title.
 * The title uses Luihgau and the first line uses Luigas. Also the frequent references to Liege are confusing.
 * Should the first line be "Count in Hainaut" and "Count in the Pagus of Luigas" based on the comments in Pagus of Luigas" and in the title.?
 * The first bullet says "the county Sigehard." It is unclear what that would mean, as it later says in the "pagus of Liege" which we know doesn't exist. Wandre redirects to Liege. I think what this is trying to say is: "The county of Sigehard included Wandre....in the pagus of Liege." Does this say that Luigas was a county run by a Count Sigehard that included Liege?
 * Theux (presumably a city) is described in the the pagus and county of Liège and, in the next line, in the pagus of Liège and the county of Sigehard.
 * Sigehard --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)is "described three times as a count in the region of Liège." Since no reference is given, we don't know what word was used for "region", but presumably it was not pagus.

Back to the use of pagus. Sometimes it is italics, sometimes not. Sometimes initial cap, sometimes not. Sometimes "of" is not used, as in pagus Madriensis from Bury (the only reference in the Cambridge Medieval History). I don't know what the approved format for using a Latin word in an English article.

The references are unusable. The external links label [1] and [2] are not listed and so we have no idea what they might be, and the contribution of Jackman's work is unclear. Also, Noll's references need to be formatted. (Hopefully, my autocorrect didn't make it Null) Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes there is some tidying up to do here. I think some wording is from older versions of the article. Normally non-English words are done in italics unless they have become everyday English.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See for a discussion of what may be his descendants (starting at p.121). Manannan67 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting book, but what connection do you see apart from the name?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He tracks Sigard of Clocques back to a proposed great-grandfather Sigard I suggesting a distinguished and high-ranking family of Hainaut and Flanders (where Sigard is not all that common a name); both with connections to Lobbes and Crespin Abbeys. -but nevermind. Manannan67 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see the whole book, but which pages?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Chapter "Sigard's Belt" starts on p.121. Nieus attempts to identify something of Sigard I by tracing back from what he believes are his descendants. Suggested family tree p.128; conclusion p.141. There is more information on the later Sigard of Clocques, but Nieus argues that he was so prominent, because he started out from a prominent family in the area in the first place. Manannan67 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see those bits but not an even earlier connection to Hainaut and the empire. I'll try to get access eventually. Thanks anyway, as it is interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)