Talk:Civil war era in Norway

Untitled

OK, trying not to seem personally insulted here (because I'm not), but I'm curious: A stub is defined on the task force page as: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. So which is this article? Irrelevant or incomprehensible? --Barend 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

List of pretenders

Most of my books are unaviable atm, but some of the minor pretenders from Sverre's reign seems to be missing. Also were there not a band called "Slittungene"?

Missing articles

Just a list of articles we should have, but don't

• Eirik Ivarsson the archbishop
• Nikolas Arnesson
• Orm Ivarsson "King's Brother"
• Gregorius Dagsson
• Sigurd of Røyr
• Sigurd jarlsson
• Ingerid Ragnvaldsdotter
• Kristin Sigurdsdotter seems to have left her husband and gone to Constantinople?

Some of the battles could well have their own articles. Not sure if Fimreite is supposed to be about the battle or the location Fornadan (t) 12:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Names of people from medieval Norway

In modifying the article on Philip of Norway and on the talk page of civil war era in Norway, I have become aware of a problem of consistency: How do I write the names of people from the norwegian middle ages? I wonder if anyone could summarize the wikipedia-policies, if any such exist. Until now, I guess I have had a tendency to automatically use the modern Norwegian names for people, with the exception of kings, where I have used the names of the article titles. But when I think about it, it seems just as natural to use the old Norse names - the modern Norwegian names are all well and good on the Norwegian wikipedia, but maybe not here. So I end with an article using names like Símon Kárason and Philip of Norway next to each other, which looks odd as well, because it's inconsistent.

So, to take an examle, if we write an article on bishop Nikolas, king Sverre's archnemesis - and I think he definitely deserves an article - should we call it Nicholas Arneson (anglicized), Nikolas Arnesson (modern Norwegian), Nikolás Arnason (old Norse), or something else entirely? --Barend 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I used to be very interested in this problem but nowadays I think consistency in Wikipedia is almost impossible to achieve and usually not worth the bother since it tends to lead to long debates about relatively inconsequential matters. Nevertheless I'll give my opinion :)

I tend to favour the standardized Old Norse forms, in my experience that's what's normally done in reliable scholarly literature in English. Here's a (perhaps extreme) example from Google Books:

• 1 pages on Øystein Erlendsson (Norwegian) [1]
• 30 pages on Eystein Erlendsson (Anglicized) [2]
• 150 pages on Eysteinn Erlendsson (Old Norse) [3]

This led me to move Øystein Erlendsson to Eysteinn Erlendsson. Of course the question gets much more complicated and difficult once you have diacritics or thorn in the name. I still stick with the standardized ON forms for the title and give other forms I can find in a footnote (see Skúli Þórsteinsson). Other people do things differently - Norwegians tend to use the Norwegian forms they're familiar with, Icelanders tend to use modern Icelandic forms etc. The kings are a bit of a special case since they can be said to have conventional anglicizations (Olaf, Haakon, Harald etc.) Mostly we follow that though it sometimes creates silly inconsistencies (see some recent thoughts at Talk:Battle_of_Svolder#Name_forms). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) for the result of my last attempts to 'solve' naming problems. Haukur 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple observations, this article is sub par

First off, where does that cliché about "The reasons for the wars is one of the most debated topics in Norwegian medieval history" come from? It is pretty clear, Magnus and Harald Gille hated each others guts, and Magnus was provoked by Harald claiming the title of king. It also says that Sigurd Slembe is an irishman, which is false, as he was southern Norwegian, not even having lived in Ireland. He lived for some time in Scotland and the isles. Also, the Øyskjeggs are probably worth mentioning. The "Units involved" field is quite lacking.

Suggestion for some editor(s) who know(s) far more about these topics than I do: While cleaning up this Civil war era in Norway article, merge into it the two articles Birkebeiner and Bagler, cleaning up the lacks of citations and resolving any contradictions between the three articles. (E.g., were or were not the Baglers peasants?) Then, delete the [[Birkebeiner] and Bagler articles. Acwilson9 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

and more about ensuring and When

There is a piece of a sentence missing the civil wars were less about putting a particular "legitimate" king in power and more about ensuring and When