Talk:Ingrid Ylva

message: "Ingrid Ylva was known in her time as a so called white witch". Any claim as exceptional as this has to be clearly attributed and discussed. Which sources contemporaneous with Ingrid Ylva states that she was a witch? What have modern historians had to say about such claims? Olaus (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "witch" is not to be seen as a negative thing in the meaning it was used about her. As the article says; in the 1200s, the word witch had a much different meaning than what is would have in the 1600s, when witches were executed and burnt. The citated source "Häxornas försvarare" (The defender of the witches) by Jan Guillou, a book about the history of witch craft in Sweden, states this. (Here is an excerpt for to those who can read Swedish [].) It is very important to understand, how very different the title "witch" was in her case. It did not have anything to do with the later witch-persecutions, which were unknown in her lifetime and was to take place much later, in the 17th century. The difference is pointed out in the fact, that in the 13th century, Ingrid Ylva was admired for being a "witch", while in the 17th century, she would have ben executed for the same reputation. Ingrid Ylva was not considered a bad person, and her reputation to master magic was ment as a compliment, not as an insult; it was considered a good thing, and she was much admired for this. The legends about her are old; how old, I do not know. It does seem, as she was known for being able to fortold the future in her lifetime, but it is hard to trace to how far back this reputation actually goes. In any case, as they were considered a good thing, they should be from before the 16th century, when magic became associated with the Devil and considered a bad thing. I agree with you, however, that it is important to know if these legends are in fact contemporary, or if they were made up after her death. This could be hard to get information about, as they are few such sources in Sweden in the 13th century. The main thing to understand, I think, is that these legends were not made up as slander, and had nothing to do with the later meaning of the word "witch"; they were ment to honor her.  --85.226.235.206 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. I now understand that this claim comes from Jan Guillou. If you have access to Guillou's book, could you check if he gives any references to sources? The problem with mediaeval history is that there is so much later legend, speculation and embellishments, and one needs to be careful to reconstruct where the information originates. If this legend, for instance, is known only from some 16th century source, one should state that clearly. Olaus (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, i do not own the book by Guillou, so I can't answer that. But it is true that it's hard to confirm what is contemporary and what is later additions, when it comes to this period. I agree with your wiev completely. If it is at all possible to confirm from which period these stories about her originates, it should be stated in the article. And if it can't be confirmed, one could perhaps insert; "It is not known, how much of these legends originates from her own lifetime" in the article. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No action is required - Guillou's book is a source - it does not need to quote any further references itself. And although a valid Wikipedia source, it is not expected that the reader can easily obtain a copy, and so that is not Wikipedia's problem. However, anyone who does have a copy may well remove from this article anything which is not actually supported by the book. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you quite understand the issue. Jan Guillou is a journalist and a novelist, not a historian. I don't think he would invent a "legend" about Ingrid Ylva being a witch (unless it was for one of his novels), but it would probably not be beyond him to retell what he would consider a good story, even if it is one historians would dismiss as an unreliable fabrication from a much later period than that of the subject of the article. In any case, the book is easily obtained, so that is not really an issue. I'll check it whenever I get around to it. Olaus (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ingrid Ylva - a witch?

message: The witchhood of Ingrid Ylva is based only on a book by Jan Guillou, a modern journalist/novelist who gives no citation for that claim. The rest of the sources are all complete junk, private genealogy websites and a completely outdated popular book from the 1860s that really cannot reasonably be used as a source for anything. This article needs desperate improvement or deletion. Olaus (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the 3 links to personal websites.  I agree, this article is problematic. I will probably nominated it for deletion if no one can find decent sources. Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meant to ask, what does this say and what is it?  Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To nominate the entire article for deletion because some of the information in it is questioned, is hasty, and hardly the right thing to do- nor according to wikipedia's rules either, I would think. As for the question about her alleged rumour as a white witch, about her being able to fortold the future, and about her relation to the bell tower, that is old legends worth to mention, wether they are true or not. I won't meddle with that, as I (unfortunately), can't give a specific source, but I do hope that someone will reference it further, if the source are doubted merely because the author is not a historian. I myself have read about them long before Jan Guillou's book was published- that's typicall folklore legends, which I am positive are mentioned in older sources- for example in the history of the church in question? Oh, and as to your question; the link you ask about, is from an encyclopedia from the 1860s. It mentiones both mythical legends and actual facts about historical people. The fact that it is mentioned in a book from the 1860s, prooves that it is an old legend, don't you agree?. As a legend, it should be there, wether true or not; legends about people are valid to mention in their articles. Everyone is free to have doubts about sources, but as long as there is a source, wether it is doubted by some or not, the information should stand. It would probably be best to leave this to those who truly know what is true or not. Obviously, non of us here do. My best wishes!--85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, why not nominate it? Perhaps that could solwe the matter. I'ts very drastic to nominate it for such reasons, so it probably won't be, and then you could relax and leave this to others. And if it is deleted, then the matter would be solwed (in a swept-under the-carpet way) also. Im fine with either one, so I support a nomination for deletion. Either way, good luck! --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Being mentioned in an 1860s encyclopedia by no means proves it is an old legend.  If it is a legend, great, but we need something that gives it some sort of date as to when it was first written down and some details as to what the legend said at that time. Doug Weller (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this could also be something to include in a future delete-discussion[]; Wikipedia does not have a deadline regarding references. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is still problematic