Talk:Inge the Elder

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Inge I of Sweden → Inge the Elder — He was probably Ingi IV or V - we do not know due to the obscurity of facts on the earlier Swedish kings. Calling him Inge I is pure speculation and in all probablility wrong. Not one reliable source calls him Inge I. His nephew is correctly named Inge the Younger on en.WP. That is what serious writers always have done to avoid using numerals for these kings. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would strongly support moving the article to Inge the Elder, as that is how a majority of English language sources refers to him. Inge the Elder of Sweden is unneccessarily long; we have Philip the Good instead of Philip the Good of Burgundy, Alexander the Great instead of Alexander the Great of Macedon, Alfred the Great instead of Alfred the Great of Wessex, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised request to Inge the Elder to exactly match Inge the Younger. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as the most common name. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Info sourced to academic historian removed as "speculation"

I am restoring info recently removed because it was properly and dependably sourced. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Speculation" is the right word. Woodzing's wording suggests that there are medieval sources making the connection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Dispute as to whether an academic source is "speculation" ):

"Speculation" is the right word if a source calls it speculation. Otherwise it would be OR to call it speculation.—OpenFuture (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Professor Thunberg writes that it is likely that these two are one and the same man, based on his academic findings. Is that speculation? Is that OR? I provided a valid reliable source here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is, from Wikipedias point of view, speculation if, and only if, reliable sources say that it is speculation. As I understand it, there are no such sources, and hence it should not be called speculation. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Tiny theory"

According to this edit summary, there is a "tiny theory" involved here. Anyone know what that means? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor means that it is not a widely accepted theory.--Atlan (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So since that editor has no merits as a historian, and no insight whatsoever into what is or is not a widely accepted theory in this case, WP can disregard his personal opinion about that I assume. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Serge, I don't see how Andejons' merits as a historian are relevant. Aside from that, I don't see how you can comment on his perceived lack of merit and insight without any evidence to that effect whatsoever. Comment on content, not on contributor.--Atlan (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a source for this identification not being commonly accepted if that's what you want: [1] ("Ragnvald Knaphövdes släktförhållanden är okända." - "Ragvald Knaphövde's relations are not known").

Andejons (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are good in these cases. I see no problem with keeping the information as log as it's noted that is is not mainstream. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when did "sources indicate that this may have been the same person as Ragnvald Knaphövde" become any claim that "this identification" is "commonly accepted"? No one has ever claimed any such thing. Andejons main interest in English WP, as usual for years now, is correcting me for the sake of correcting me, with little or no expertise (as a physics student with an admittedly very limited knowledge of history) and with lots people's time wasted over this kind of totally needless nitpicking, amounting to nothing substantial. "Tiny theory" is a condescending and sarcastic wording totally typial of this, chosen only try to cause irritation, not for any constructive reason at all. The one theory is no tinier that another when it comes to a king we know virtually nothing about. I reserve the right to "comment on the contributor" in such cases where the contributor's motivation is purely personal and less than appropriate for the better values of Wikipedia. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Since always. You are in the wrong here. Cool down. The identification of these two persons as likely being the same is made by one historian only. It is as such a "fringe theory". But it is a proper historian so it is noteworthy. Therefore this identification should be mentioned, but it should also be clearly attributed to this single historian and not mentioned in a general way as if they identification was commonly done. The line "sources indicate" is general, and implies it is a common identification. It is also unclear. What sources? It therefore breaks Wikipedia policy in several ways. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The source was given with that sentence, so it was not at all unclear "What sources?" and the professor writes about other sources too.

"Sources indicate that this may have been the same person" is absolutely not equal to "this identification is commonly accepted". When you assert that it is you lose me. I repeat (why do I have to?) nobody ever claimed that this identification is commonly accepted. That's just Andejons's typical way of twisting things around when he's in his commonly sarcastic attack mode. So is his choice of words in "tiny theory". That's what we're wasting time on here, not on anything constructive.

The language just doesn't work your way in this case, OpenFuture. Sad that you are asserting it does.

I don't contribute to English WP only to nitpick at one particular user's work. That should please you, at least, even though it irritates the heck out of me that some people do; and whether or not I obey your command to "cool down!". SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Serge, I have explained already. If you do not wish to listen or take advice, that is up to you, but I don't think your current attitude is constructive. I don't think we'll get any further here. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not reply to what we are discussing and avoid analysis of me? That would be constructive. Where do you find (in supporting Andejons's mischief) that anyone has suggested that the identification is commonly accepted? R.S.V.P.! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied to it and explained above. What would the purpose be in repeating it? You can read it, the text is still there.

"in supporting Andejons's mischief" - I support no mischief. "anyone has suggested that the identification is commonly accepted?" This has been explained twice above. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact here is that nobody has ever suggested that the identification is commonly accepted or anything else that reasonably could be interpreted that way, and there has never been any wording in the article that reasonably could be interpreted that way either. If sources indicate that something may have been, that cannot be misconstrued as the identification is commonly accepted, unless there is mischief and sarcasm (such as "tiny theory") involved. It is quite disrressing to me that (as it looks to me) you are asserting, in line with Andejons and his sarcastic mischief, that I have suggested that the identification is commonly accepted. Not what I expected from a neutral 3O editor. This only makes me sad, though I'm sure Andejons has a huge smile on his face. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Listen now Serge, this is my last effort to get through to you: If you say "Facts indicate that the earth may be flat", this is a general statement that makes the case that it is commonly accepted that facts indeed indicate this. In reality, the view that the earth is flat is a WP:Fringe theory and you can therefore not say "Facts indicate that the earth may be flat" as that violates WP:Neutral Point of View. You can however say "The members of the Flat Earth Society claims that the facts indicate that the earth may be flat". Do you understand the difference? If this still is unclear, please no *not* just repeat your previous assertions, but instead ask questions so I can help clarify this to you, as I do not know what it is that you still don't understand. Just repeating something that has already been answered isn't going to get you anywhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll try to get through to you once more myself. Partly, you are skipping over the essential word "may" as if it wasn't in there. There is a difference, in my opinion, if something may be indicated or if something is indicated, but you and I may just disagree on a minor semantic point there.

Also, in this particular case (leaving a flat earth without further comment) Prof. Thunberg says that sources he accounts for in his 5-page academic article indicate that the one Reginald (English name version I use) may be identical with the other Reginald. As the primary theme of his article, Prof. Thunberg then draws the scholarly conclusion that the one is identical with the other. In other words, there was nothing at all incorrect about what was in this bio, well sourced, before Andejons began his hounding mischief. I'm sorry I drew you inte that trap (of his) and that you and I had this spat because of it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The "may" is irrelevant. I'll simplify even more. If you say "X", this is a general statement that makes the case that it is commonly accepted that facts indeed indicate this. In reality, X is a WP:Fringe theory and you can therefore not say "X" as that violates WP:Neutral Point of View. You can however say "Y claims X". Do you understand now?

And stop trying to get through to me. I understand what you say. YOU ARE WRONG. I am trying to explain Wikipedia policy to you. Please listen. If you don't understand, ask, but stating your position further is pointless as I understand what you are saying, and I'm trying to explain to you why you are incorrect. OK? This is a chance for you to learn something about how Wikipedia works. Take it. Please! --OpenFuture (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Y claims X". Tunberg claims identical. That I think is essentially what was there from the beginning, and it was never my intention to assert of infer anything else. In any case, please do not shout at me! You and I actually agree on this, as I see it. If you think I am unusually hard to explain this to, it may be because your condescending tone is too distracting and irritating and repulsive. Thanx for trying, though. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it only gets condescending after repeatedly trying to get through to you. I'm glad I finally did. I don't know what was there from the beginning, but when the 3O was made, this was not what was there, it said "sources indicate that this may have been the same person as", ie "X", not "Y claims X". --OpenFuture (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inge the Elder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227085107/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507080025/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/barefoot.html to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/barefoot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)