Talk:Knut Haakonsson

Untitled
Another long awaited article! But shouldn't it be called Knut Haakonsson? I can't see that any of the other Norwegian earls have their title included in the article title. I suggest a move to Knut Haakonsson. --Barend 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not agree on the name Barend proposed. Therefore I oppose. According to naming conventions, as Jarl, his jarl title should be visible in the article title. In basic case, it would be for example "NN, Earl of Norway", but that is not an easy option either. The current name seems a working compromise between several diverging needs. I am open to good proposals, but Barend's proposal is not such. Marrtel 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, that Knut was not ruler of Norway, or monarch of Norway. Which naming conventions are you referring to? As you will see in the category Norwegian earls, no other Norwegian earl is named thus in the article title. --Barend 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for using the name Knut Haakonsson of Norway in the article title, this is also very misleading. He never held real power as king of Norway, he was just the figurehead of a small rebel-band for a while. He also gave up all claims to the throne. And anyway, no kings of Norway, or pretenders to the throne of Norway, are styled thus in the article heading. --Barend 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead of the text: hopefully, no one is claiming that he was in no sense "of Norway", as he certainly was, at least as its jarl. Marrtel 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why we shouldn't remain civil. Please avoid making misleading claims in your edit summary. My revert was not unexplained - it is explained in the text above, which you have just replied to. But to elaborate: If you want him to be styled Knut Haakonsson of Norway in the article, I think you should explain why. He is not called thus in any sources, nor is it common usage to call him that. Nor is it common to call any of the kings of Norway, or pretenders to the Norwegian throne XXX of Norway in the article heading. So if you want to construct a new naming style here, you should explain better why. --Barend 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

--Barend 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a NAMING style question at all. Name of the article is different than how I started the text of the article. Manuals of Style recommend compromises. When we cannot give him "of Norway" in the article title, that can be amended in the start. A different thing is if we move the whole article to Canute, Earl of Norway... but has anyone supported yet such move... Marrtel 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer omitting the Jarl title and "of Norway" from both the title and the first sentence. I don't think it's needed any more than we need to have an article at President George W. Bush. Haukur 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Haukur, that's not what the naming conventions say. I know that you seem to have (had) something against naming conventions themselves, but this is not the place to change them. (If I remember correctly, already earlier other editors have requested you to take your concerns about naming conventions to discuss, and make changes, in appropriate places for such.) If this is here going to be some war over proper naming, I will then move this to Canute, Earl of Norway, which is the purist solution mandated by naming conventions, and not seeking any comproise any longer, if comprmises are met with such demands as this here now. Marrtel 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been going on for only 2 days, with only 3 contributors so far. Is it not a bit early to give up on compromises? I do not understand the aggression Marrtel displays. Marrtel, if you would like to be constructive, please tell me which naming conventions you refer to, and remember that a jarl was not a ruler of the country. As far as I know the naming conventions, rulers of Norway should be titled XXX of Norway - but Knut was not a ruler of the country. Please observe on Category:Norwegian earls that no other Norwegian earls are named the way you want Knut to be named. Please enlighten me as to why Knut should be an exception. --Barend 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Naming convention for this case is: Naming conventions (names and titles). Knut is either a ruler below the level of king, or a nobleman (= peer). Marrtel 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This would seem to apply here: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." and also "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country." which would really apply to all medieval Scandinavian nobility Fornadan (t) 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, how did we go from zero to Diplomacy has Failed in two days? :) I'm honestly puzzled on what naming convention you're referring to. Maybe if you explain we can have a more profitable discussion. Haukur 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On my part, it has much to do to having been compelled to face accusations of misleading edit comments (when I am of the opinion that the accuser actually made a misleading edit comment) and accusations of having made typo in another article's name. Then comes another editor and pretends to be unaware of the relevant NC (names and titles), an editor who himself has even closed move requests on basis of that very NC page. This situation starts to look much like the big struggle of naming Polish monarchs, which has been a really disgusting and migraine-creating experience (synopsis of that: a bunch of natives have decided that, despite of common NC, their own historical figures need to be named as their own-language-sources tend to name them, in language that is not English; and then others desire to have the same biographies named according to systematics of NC, pleading usages of English sources - that has taught me that no native should be trusted when there are differing appellations on one hand in native sources and on the other hand in anglophone sources). Marrtel 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the usage of "earl of Norway" should be avoided as this can give the reader the impression that he ruled Norway as a fief. (Perhaps "Norway's earl" or "earl in Norway" are better?). As a sidenote I find the usage of "Jarl Knut" a bit odd and would prefer either "Earl Knut" or "Knut jarl", but this is not a big issue. Fornadan (t) 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support the name Knut Haakonsson. This is in line with other articles on Norwegian jarls. I would however prefer Knut Håkonson as the name is in any case not in Old Norse form. I don't see why we should use a spelling form no longer accepted in Norwegian (and others). The convention is to use the ÆØÅ letters in article titles when that is the apropriate spelling. Haakon in Norwegian royalty is only for Haakon VII and Haakon Magnus. If we want to go for an option with title I would support Knut Håkonsson, Norwegian Jarl as Jarl of Norway would imply that he was the ruler of Norway with the title Jarl. I prefer Jarl to Earl as it is closer to the original and seems to be used in English. Inge 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Summary: As far as I can see, Marrtel wants the article to stay where it is, or move to Canute, Earl of Norway. Barend, Haukurth and Inge express support for moving it to Knut Haakonsson. Fornadan, as far as I can see, does not express a preferance. The discussion seems to have died down. My conclusion is that the move should be implemented. --Barend 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Children
It does not seem to be mentioned her, but according to the sources I have been consulting in trying to establish a historical veracity in the royal genealogies of Medieval Svandinavia, he might be the father of Cecilia Knutsdotter, previously though to be the daughter of Knut Birgerson.

First sentence Knut Haakonsson of Norway
This is a separate question from the article title, so I'll put it under a new heading: The first sentence of the article, i.e. the bit in bold text, should show the name the person was actually known under. Knut Haakonsson of Norway is an entirely artificial construct, which doesn't appear in either sources or historical litterature. I am therefore deleting of Norway from the first sentence. Most of the other contributors to the discussion page seem to share this view. The name Knut Haakonsson jarl does appear in sources, so whether that should be the new heading is another question. --Barend 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

PAGE MOVED to Knut Haakonsson per discussion below. I chose the double-'a' instead of the 'å' character because of WP:UE. If we determine that he's generally known, in English language sources, with the 'å' spelling, then we can move the page there, but for now, we've at least implemented the consensus about dropping the "Jarl" from the title. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Jarl Knut Haakonsson → Knut Haakonsson — Follows the norm for articles about Norwegian jarls, near-consensus reached on talk page Barend 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * 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

 * 1) Support --Barend 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- As discussed above.Inge 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the move to Knut Haakonsson or, better, Knut Håkonsson -- Sigo 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

As Sigo also commented on this in the survey I would like to add and restate that I prefer the Knut Håkonsson variant. Inge 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.