Talk:Ingrid Ragnvaldsdotter

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Contrary to idea of Barend, the name Ingrid Ragvaldsdotter is not a typo. It is that form of the name that is in the book from which I took material to the article. If I understand the difference correctly, "Ragvaldsdotter" is used in material that has more Swedish background, and "Ragnvaldsdottir" in material with more Icelandic background. If the other of these is used, no one should come and allege it as typo, even if the alleger's own preference is not that. Marrtel 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am sorry, I honestly thought it was a typo, as I'd never seen that form of the name before. Would you be so good as to tell us the name of the source you have used? --Barend 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a book about queens of Sweden, which I read years ago (and do not any longer remember the precise book title). As a reminder of most facts, I have at my bookshelf another book, in Swedish, about history of Swedish monarchy (prosopographing kings of Sweden). Not the same book, and not all those details I remember having read in that book that is more detailed about queens and overall about historical females, but yet a good reminder. Marrtel 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me then formally suggest the move to Ingrid Ragnvaldsdotter. A quick google search gives 247 hits for "Ingrid Ragnvaldsdotter" (most of those that appear on the first page are in Swedish language) and 101 for "Ingrid Ragvaldsdotter". In addition there are 206 hits for "Ingerid Ragnvaldsdotter" and none for "Ingerid Ragvaldsdotter". Both Norwegian and Icelandic medieval sources use Rögnvaldsdottir or Ragnvaldsdottir. It is clearly the most common spelling of the name. I would also like to ask what the source is for the claim that Ingrid left her first husband? According to other sources (see for instance this page , she was already a widow when she married Harald Gille. --Barend 13:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to "icelandify" all names here. As long as both name variants are used in english texts, either of them is good, and as nothing can solve between them, it should just be left as the page was created. Otherwise, we will be in same sort of battle as some have been with variants of dates: "17 December 2006" or "December 17, 2006". No thanks for that sort of naming discussion. Marrtel 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that Ragnvaldsdatter is an "icelandified" form of the name, and I don't agree that nothing can solve between them. Since you and I are not the only contributors to wikipedia, I await any comments other contributors might have to make.--Barend 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was a Norwegian queen and Ragnvald is the only form I have heard of this name in Norway, Ingrid Ragnvaldsdotter is the most commonly used name and used in Sweden. Marrtel seems to base the current naming on the spelling used in one book he read some time ago of which he doesn't remember the name. You are insisting on an unonventional spelling based on very thin evidence. You want us to trust that you remember this particular spelling over a period of several years from a book you don't remember the title of. I support the proposed move to Ingrid Ragnvaldsdotter.Inge 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion hasn't exactly set wikipedia on fire - but as it stands, two contributors want the move, and one wants it to stay here. As far as I have been able to work out, there are no Swedish primary sources regarding Ingrid, the sources are all Norwegian or Icelandic. They use the name Ragnvaldsdotter or Rögnvaldsdotter, either way with the n. The same goes for the English translation of Heimskringla. The only arguments for Ragvaldsdotter seem to be unnamed secondary sources. I think the conclusion is clear: The move should be carried through. --Barend 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a typo in name 

message: I remember having read that Henrik was cruel to Ingrid, she finally left him, and after a while, he was killed in battle. It is not important for the "leaving" part if she had to wait for her separated spouse's death before being able to hunt next husband to the altar (probably priests would not have allowed a wedding before either annulment of previous marriage or Henrik's death; a king with a less than secure throne would probably not risk gaining ire of ecclesiastics, but as soon as a princess' former husband was dead, she again had good prospects). By the way, that book might have been written by some feminist historian... Marrtel 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the implication that she divorced or abandoned her husband, as there doesn't seem to be any specific sources for this.--Barend 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Ingrid's first marriage

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support.--Barend 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support.--Barend 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: According to Lagerqvist, Ingrid's later reputation is bad.
I removed this sentence. The moral judgment of one modern day historian, without any further explanation, is irrelevant. There are different opinions on Ingrid, and a balanced discussion of different views might be appropriate, but not a one-sided condemnation. --Barend 11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "According to Lagerqvist, Ingrid's later reputation is bad." 

message: What is the purpose of moving the article to an article title which does not resemble anything that is used in any written sources or academic literature, and moreover, doing so without any discussion?--Barend (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If no purpose can be provided, it is better to move the article back.--Barend (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the move?

message: This article has references to user-generated articles in Store norske leksikon (utdypning). One cannot rely on such articles reflecting current standards of scholarship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Store Norske Leksikon - reliable?