Talk:Magnus Barefoot

Links for years

Rettetast has removed links for years, I've restored them. I suppose this isn't a very big issue, but I can't see the reasoning behind removing them. Having years linked is the common thing. Rettetast apparently thinks they're disturbing, I can't really see that that's the case. Rettetast seems to think he has support for his actions in Wikipedia guidelines, I can't really see that that's the case either. The guidelines say "Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it". Well, the users who have established this article, and practically all the other articles about medieval kings, preferred it. Maybe a reader wants to know which other people were born in 1073, for example. If you don't prefer it, just overlook the blue text. How annoying can the blue color be, anyway?--Barend (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

February 2011

I have reverted recent changes to help bring article into line with the published historical assessments. Sorry if this has caused any offence - not intended. Lopthaena (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The changes you made (that was removed without explanation[1] and reverted back by you) seem perfectly fine with me. I'll keep an eye on this article and make sure that it isn't removed again without a discussion. (I added a new heading to separate this from previous discussions). Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to make changes in line with published scholarship, and hope I have avoided offence. However, names in modern Norwegian need Norse equivalents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopthaena (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a difficulties interpreting the recent edit history of the article, but it seems to me that both Lopthaena and the unregistred user editing from ip have now been improving the article, and not reverting each other. If there are any remaining disagreements, please direct them here. Thanks. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the conflict is about the place of death (not burial) and is ultimately about the published sholarship versus local designations. I wonder if the solution would be a separate section on the modern interest and re-enactments? this would undoubtedly increase the value of the article. I am not aware of a source (annals) for a battle on the north coast, hence deletion, but am willing to be proved wrong. Reluctant to work on other articles, as this one has inadvertantly caused offence. Lopthaena (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Here is a map of the Ulaid lands in 1014: http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/00/4/1/9/6979264430505390.gif

They were like this when Magnus landed, his death in Portrush is well known and often repeated. It is known, from an archaeological dig, that a battle was fought in the Portrush site between invaders and local warbands at this time, much was found from the era.

The Magnus Barefoot saga indicate he was in the north, his ally (the King of Munster) had returned to Connaught: "King Magnus was in winter (A.D. 1102) up in Connaught with King Myrkjartan, but set men to defend the country he had taken. Towards spring both kings went westward with their army all the way to Ulster, where they had many battles, subdued the country, and had conquered the greatest part of Ulster when Myrkjartan returned home to Connaught."

Magnus now sent for supplies from his ally (in Connaught): "He lay at Ulster ready for sea with his whole fleet. As they thought they needed cattle for ship-provision, King Magnus sent a message to King Myrkjartan, telling him to send some cattle for slaughter;"

So your contention of "Downpatrick" being the "scholarly consensus" is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.229.119 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone has removed the mention of Magnus's conquests in Ireland and left the article with simply the information that "In 1103 they apparently made a joint assault in the north, in the Armagh area, where Muirchertach's forces were routed. Magnus, probably then in the vicinity of the Quoile estuary near Downpatrick, decided to return to Norway."

This is wrong, the saga says: "King Magnus sailed to Ireland with his fleet, and plundered there. King Myrkjartan came to his assistance, and they conquered a great part of the country, both Dublin and Dyflinnarskire (Dublin shire)."

If you want to help as you say, then do not delete information or revert additions without some form of discussion. Your assertion that the sources back your contention up are not valid. They simply state as I have quoted above. This does not show that Downpatrick is any more likely than Portrush. Take into consideration the numerous artifacts found from the era in the Portrush site, and the common knowledge of a great battle being fought there between invaders and Irish warbands. 87.114.229.119 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that there is communication at this talk page, hopefully disagrrements can be sorted out here, and future reverts and rereverts avvoided. Now, the whole article suffers from depending to heavily on the saga-accounts. The Norse sagas are late, and can't be used as accurate sources for anything but what kind of traditions existed in Iceland/Norway at a certain time. Whenever something is quoted from Snorre, it need to be made explicit that this is an account from the sagatradition, not (necessarily) something that modern mediaevalists hold to be historical accurate. The map you pointed to 87.114 is better linked here, it's a map made by a Wikipedian based on a map from wesleyjohnston.com - hardly a reliable source for the actual Ulaid lands in 1014. However, I agree that narrowing "Ulastir" to the easternmost parts of of present Antrim and Down is probably limiting the area too much.

What we should do now, IMO, is to present all views on where his deathplace may have been as neutrally as possibly, with sources and with accurate descriptions of the sources. I would like to require both of you to use this talk page for discussions prior to making new changes to the article. (If you persist reverting each others additions I will most probably have to request that this page is semi-protected for a while, but I really hope we don't have to resort to that). Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lopthaena is no longer involved.Lopthaena (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Magnus III of Norway → Magnus Barefoot – Suggest to move the title of this article to Magnus Barefoot (alternatively Magnus Barelegs, but it is somewhat unclear which is more common, Google Books: "Magnus Barefoot": 1,580, "Magnus Barelegs": 1,990, Magnus Barefoot: 11,400 and Magnus Barelegs: 4,900) which is a widespread, and by far the most common (per WP:COGNOMEN 2.), name used when referring to this king. Thhist (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Magnus Barefoot--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Barefoot per nom - As I Norwegian I know him as "Magnus Barfot", not the number. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - if a numeral is legit, I'll always go with that, or here possibly Magnus III Barefoot. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • First off, "Magnus III Barefoot" is in any case a problematic form which there are no support for using (I've never seen anything comparable at least). It is either the "# of Country" or cognomen form we can use. Otherwise you apparently say you always go with the numeral form. This seems to me to just ignore WP:COGNOMEN entirely, which makes clear that cognomens should be used in relevant cases. Thhist (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as we should stick with the Name # of country title form. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this your general opinion, or just about this article? If it is your general opinion that all articles should use the numeral form, you ignore WP:COGNOMEN. If it is your opinion about this particular article, you could preferably say something about why you believe it should stick with the numeral form. For instance, do you have any evidence that "Magnus Barefoot" is not an overwhelmingly used cognomen? Thhist (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. He's almost always called Barefoot/Barelegs/etc in the things I've read. He's instantly recognisable by these names.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per common name: even the gbooks links for "Magnus III of Norway" (such as Benjamin Hudson's Viking Pirates And Christian Princes page 6) say "Magnus III of Norway, better known as Magnus Barefoot" (my emphasis). DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am with SergeWoodzing. Britannica gives "Magnus III", so this numeral is certainly legit. Kauffner (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Um.. I am pretty sure there are many articles on wikipedia that don't follow the naming system for Britannica. 11,400 sources versus one, you do the math. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I get 780 (112 deghosted) post-1980 English-language GBook hits for Norway "Magnus Barefoot" -llc, 445 (96 deghosted) for Norway "Magnus III" -llc. So on a straight common name basis, it is a dead heat. That's before we get to the issue of consistency of naming among kings. Kauffner (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • But in your 445, you've got instances of "Magnus III Barefoot", "Magnus III Barelegs", "Magnus III Olafsson (Barelegs)", "Magnus (III) Berrføtt", etc. plus completely different people like "Magnus III, earl of Orkney". I get 77 hits for "Magnus III of Norway" -llc. So, it's an order of magnitude less common. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
        • "Magnus III Barelegs" is fine by me. No one is claiming that "of Norway" is part of the subject's name. It is a pre-disambiguator required by WP:SOVEREIGN. Kauffner (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Regnal numbers and nicknames should never be used side by side in the title; it is okay, by me, if they are in the aritcle content. Everyone acknowledge William the Conqueror and Peter the Great are the first in their name, but their article titles aren't William I the Conqueror or Peter I the Great. There an additional 300+ references to Magnus Barefoot without mention to Norway [2], and 1150 results for Magnus Barefoot without Magnus III. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Britannica consistently uses the numerals for every single king (apparently its their policy), including "William I" who here on Wikipedia even is used as an example in WP:COGNOMEN of where we should use the byname (William the Conqueror). The Britannica-argument is thus as far as I can see pretty irrelevant for this discussion. Thhist (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Such sweeping claims, so little research. Encarta also gives "Magnus III". Cambridge History says "Magnus III Olafsson Bare-leg". Columbia doesn't have a listing for this subject, but they do give both "Magnus I" and "Magnus VI". Since this subject has several common bynames, a numeral is the obvious solution. Kauffner (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I never said that "Magnus III" is not used by other sources, only that Britannica consistently uses numerals or don't use bynames (e.g. Alfred, Peter I, William I), which effectively means it can not be used for support against the use of bynames in discussions concerning individual monarchs (if we did, we'd have to move virtually every single monarch on Wikipedia to the numeral format). Whether Encarta subscribes to the same policy, I don't know, but it seems that Columbia does too (e.g. Alfred, William I, Peter I). Thhist (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Style

The lead states "he additionally became King of Mann and the Isles from 1098". I'd be interested to hear if anyone can provide a source for this specific statement. There is little doubt he became a ruler of the Kingdom of the Isles, but the titles of these rulers were very varied as you can see from the list. R. A. McDonald in Manx Kingship in its Irish Sea setting states of Ragnvald Godredsson: "Some of his successors were grandly styled Rex Manniae et Insularum, 'King of Man and the Isles' ", implying the title had not been used prior to that time, i.e. the early 13th century. Ben MacDui 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? In my experience, the modern "titles" for ancient/medieval rulers do not always need to represent the exact contemporary terminology. For instance, even the title "Roman emperor" is a later invention intended to simplify the more complicated contemporary situation/terminology, Roman emperor#Titles and positions (compare with the similarly fuzzy contemporary situation in Man and the Isles). Also per contemporary terminology, the last Roman emperor was not Romulus Augustulus but Constantine XI Palaiologos who died in 1453, since calling him a "Byzantine emperor" is a later invention. Ironically it was not until the time of the "Byzantines" that the office of "Roman emperor" was developed into the modern concept of an Emperor. Thhist (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the problem and I think there are two main options:

• "ruler of the Kingdom of the Isles". If we don't know the precise title Magnus assumed and KoI is the "common name" then I can't see any argument with this phraseology at all.
• "King of the Isles". This is a reasonable variant of "ruler of" in my view as Godred Crovan was "King of Dublin and the Isles" and some of Magnus's other predecessors had titles that are a variant on this theme. Ben MacDui 09:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find any sources actually supporting the "King of" the Isles or Dublin statement (it is just as likely the he simply annexed the conquered lands as the King of Norway), I have rewritten the sentence to instead say that he "extended his direct rule over the Kingdom of the Isles and Dublin". Thhist (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OK - looks good. Ben MacDui 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnus Barefoot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I've made quite a few copyedits, mostly to remove unnecessary wordiness/unencyclopedic language and fix minor spelling/punctuation issues. Please check them and let me know if you find any issues with my edits.
   • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, without including new information. From what I can see, the information on naming (given in the third paragraph of the lead), at least, is not present anywhere else in the article.
   • Establishing his kingship, "Magnus may have gone on his first expedition to Scotland already during" - "already" is redundant
   • Establishing his kingship, "or if it is mixed up with his later expedition" - The meaning here is unclear. Perhaps "or if it has been mixed up with his later expedition in historical accounts" or something similar, if that is the intended meaning?
   • Establishing his kingship, "he saw with discontent upon the actions of Haakon," What? Also, what does his view of Haakon's actions have to do with his winter quarters? As these are discussed in the same sentence, I'm assuming they're related.
   • First Irish Sea campaign, "He attempted to install his own vassal king Ingemund in the Southern Isles in 1097, but he was soon killed in a revolt." Need to re-write to specify the "he" in the second clause, as I'm assuming it refers to Ingemund, who is not the "he" referred to in the first clause.
   • First Irish Sea campaign, "Magnus led his fleet, for this excursion only of six ships" What? Does this mean his fleet was only made up of six ships, or is it trying to say something different?
   • First Irish Sea campaign, " In any case, it came to nothing." Perhaps reword to, "However, no marriage resulted from these talks." if this in indeed what the sentence means.
   • Campaign in Sweden, "The background for the attack was that Magnus claimed the ancient border between Norway and Sweden, which went by the river Göta älv." A bit more background would be good here. Was the actual border different? When had it changed? Was there a previous war/campaign conducted by the Swedish that had taken land that Magnus was now claiming?
   • Second Irish Sea campaign, "he needed his assistance to crush Domnall." This sentence (or at least the clause) needs to be rewritten to avoid referring to two different men as "he" within a four word span.
   • Second Irish Sea campaign, "It has however been considered more likely" Considered by who?
   • Second Irish Sea campaign, "Muirchertach may have considered every possible measure to get rid of him." This is a very vague statement. Why "may have considered"? What is "every possible measure"?
   • Second Irish Sea campaign, "Alternatively, Muirchertach may have made..." I really don't understand what this whole sentence is trying to say.
   • Succession, "with his (alleged) nephew" whose nephew?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:Kong-magnus-berrfott-menn.jpg has a caption that says it was drawn by Christian Krohg, but on the image page gives no author and has a source listed as Snorre Sturlasson. The image page should be expanded to include the author (and author death date, given that the tag used is author life + 70 years), and a better source (did it come from a book by Sturlasson?)
   • Same as above for File:King-magnus-kityre.jpg.

   • The images are from the same source as File:Magnus Berrfoetts saga-Egil hengt-W. Wetlesen.jpg (the 1899 edition of Heimskringla). I've updated it with information from the complete collection of images from the book found at Heimskringla (Soga om Magnus Berrføtt). Thhist (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Overall, this is a nice article on what appears to be a figure with a lot of myth and supposition surrounding him. I've done some copyediting, and left some suggestions above. Once these are addressed, I think the article should be good to go for GA status. For now, I'm placing the review on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Okay. I'll begin addressing the issues you brought up in a short time. Thhist (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
   • Hi again. I've now resolved all the issues you have mentioned, as well as a few more details. I also copyedited/rewrote the entire section on the Campaign in Sweden. If you don't have any further issues, I want to thank you for helping out with reviewing the article! Thhist (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

   • My apologies for taking a few days to get back to this. I've now gone back through the article and made a few last copyedits. Your changes all look good, and address all of the issues I had with the article. So, I'm now passing the article to GA status. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Might a parenthetical remark on Magnus II be in order?

In the sentence "In the north, his claim was contested by his cousin Haakon Magnusson,.." readers unfamiliar with Norse dynastic relationships might be confused why a mere nephew of an earlier king (Olav Kyrre) had the political weight to contest Magnus III's bid for the throne.

Adding, parenthetically, with link: ""In the north, his claim was contested by his cousin Haakon Magnusson (son of King Magnus II),.." might clear that detail up for som readers, without being overly pedantic. Arildnordby (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Thhist (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnus Barefoot. 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/20130412173927/http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf to http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing book

This source; Duffy, Sean, red. (1997): Ireland in the Middel Ages. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, seem to be missing from the list. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnus Barefoot. 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/20120311094650/http://lind.no/nor/index.asp?lang=&emne=asatru&vis=s_e_magnus_berrfott to http://lind.no/nor/index.asp?lang=&emne=asatru&vis=s_e_magnus_berrfott

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Silly Conspiracy Theories

Forsund's writing is a joke. Muirchertach was betraying Magnus, Some of the Norse were betraying him, directed by powerful figures in Norway. She should have stuck to theatre. Ethnocentricism and hero worship isn't good posing as history.

Deliberately not dating or signing one's comment is also not a good thing...

My signature (complete with date): Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)