Talk:Erik Årsäll

Untitled

There is discussions weather the temple of uppsala even existed, or if the two "blot-Sven" and his son where real or fictional characters..

The messup by double move

I'll take care of it! (?) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did take care of it. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of Erik Årsäll

Is Erik Årsäll or possibly Eirik Arsale. Eric of Good Harvests is invented here on wikipedia. I suggest move to either Erik Årsäll or possibly Eirik Arsale. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik/Eiríkr, etc. already has a standard form in English which should be used - Eric, as it is in e.g. Eric XII of Sweden and Eric XIV of Sweden. Årsäll is on the other hand *not* a proper name, but an adjective used as an epithet with a meaning in Swedish, and there should consequently be a translation of it so as to convey this to an English reader. I therefore think that the article should keep its old name.--Berig 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, "Eric" so far, but then how do we translate Knut Eriksson and Erik Knutsson? Especially since the Eric X of Sweden is not correct, Eric XIV is OK, since he called himself that despite Gustav I Vasa's protests, the number XIV was invented by some 15th century fantasy historian, maybe Olof Rudbeck, maybe not. But that means that numbering Eric:s before XIV is OR, and so it seems to be about the confusions between Magnus (II) of Sweden and Magnus II of Sweden (redirecting to Magnus IV of Sweden!!). BTW, Magnus Henriksen (that (II) guy) is never mentioned in Sweden. (See User:Rursus/King Rutabaga for this trouble!). No, the naming of kings before Gustav I Vasa must rely on established historic naming, otherwise we create a mess which is neither necessary, nor honorable. So:

• We must establish a principle for a naming that isn't misleading for Wikipedia readers,
• We must strictly adher to outside of Wikipedia usage, to not confuse ourselves and the #redirect system. Eirik Arsale has been used before in English, or if that isn't good, then stick for Swedish from year 0 till Gustav I Vasa.

Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm fix that mess. I'll be back at earliest tomorrow! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric Arsale has only been used once in a translation, and it is only a superficial anglicisation of his cognomen in Old Norse which makes it lose its meaning in both languages. Please, define in what way the present translated cognomen is "misleading".--Berig 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) or in the WP:MOS articles on naming conventions for translating a foreign proper name; the exception would be if the person is best known by a different name in English language sources. If you have any doubts, ask on the talk page of Wikipedia_Talk:Manual of Style (biographies) or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. WP has countless articles on people with foreign names, so there is no reason to debate the issue among the relatively small group of editors involved in this article. Finell (Talk) 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely, User:Finell, the question is precisely whether Arsale/Arsoll (and an English equivalent that springs to mind) is an epithet or a proper name. The small group of editors here discussing this point are those precisely concerned with the particularity of this specific instance, and there is every reason for them to discuss it here, with reference to Wikipedia protocol of course, in order to resolve this particular instance in the best possible way.

There is no objection to rendering Richard Coeur-de-Lion as Richard the Lionheart, I take it, and one is much more likely to see the translated form 'Ethelred the Unready' than the original Ethelred Unræd, which means something else, with reference to Ethelred II of England. It seems clearly to be an epithet, not a family name or a placename or patronymic. It is like Oswald of Northumbria 'Brightblade' (Welsh, Lamnguin) a form which would only be used by a Welsh speaker. Or Penda of Mercia Strenuus (The Strong), as Henry of Huntingdon calls him, or indeed Ivan the Terrible, who in English is never referred to by the Russian equivalent of the word 'Terrible', whatever that may be.
Surely if the epithet has a meaning, it ought to be translated, otherwise, following your rules, it will acquire a formal or 'proper name' status which is itself spurious. It is both a proper name and an epithet. The only question, it seems to me, is whether that translated form should appear as the Title of the article, or among the forms given in bold characters in the opening sentence. It makes very little difference, since all the different forms can be entered as redirects, so everything will lead to the one place. As a title, the things that matter are that the form of the name should be internally consistent (i.e. it should not combine more than one set of conventions) and that the convention used should be similar to that used for other persons from a similar cultural date and horizon, in the titles of their articles. Dr Steven Plunkett 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 18:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Recent scholarship"?

I think it is misleading to say that this guy's "historiocity has been called into question by recent scholarship," because it is not as if this was brought up in 1998. Lagerquist is just reflecting generally held scholarly opinion, that here are good reasons to doubt that this guy existed. Already the short article in Nordisk Familjebok (1908) was not far from saying that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to be able to state your point in a more encyclopedic manner than "there is reason to doubt he existed." What language do you propose?Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with my edit in October, where I inserted:"There are good reasons to doubt that he existed. He is dated by some to the end of the 11th century, by others to the 1120's, while more critical historians believe that he is a legendary name belonging to the 10th century." With a reference. The sentence "Eric does not appear in any Swedish or Danish primary sources" was already there, and that is of course the main reason for questioning this guy's existence. Not a shred of evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, since he is mentioned by Snorri, there is "a shred of evidence". It's just evidence that some regard as untrustworthy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

Who has invented the current name of the article? It uses an incorrect interpretation of "år", and there are no relevant hits in Google Scholar [1] nor in normal Google [2] (what there is seems to be different sites copying Wikipedia's content, and a person living today with that name).

Andejons (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous name was also an invention, just barely English and was found nowhere else. This is the better of two evils, in lieu of a better known English exonym. Let's let people with English as a first language look at the Swedish, if capable, and decide how well or poorly Sw. år corresponds with year and how well or poorly Sw. säll corresponds with good ! Any comments from such? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we should not invent names at all: if there are no reliable English sources, either the old Norse or the modern Swedish would be better choices than a home made translation.

"År" is not the modern Swedish word for year, but rather "äring" (which is derived from the word "år"), of which "harvest" is a rather good translation. Translating "säll" as "good" is fine.

Andejons (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

English is my first language, so my knowledge of English is better than yours, sir, with all due respect (I have noticed many times that your user page is not OK where it gives your English skills as near native), and thus you are not correct about the origins and various historic uses of the English word year. Tell me about Swedish or Dutch words, but please do not play the expert on English words! It isn't becoming to you and confuses the good work we are trying to do here, in English. (I have spoken English for almost 60 years and have taught English in North America. My translations are always highly appreciated for their accuracy and very well paid for. You are a physics student in Gothenburg, according to your user pages.)

Since I wrote about this last, I have talked to some friends at Upsala University and done a bit of research. Goodyear is beyond reproach as an etymologically accurate exonym for årsäll in this exact context. The identical well known English surname is of the exact same origin as the Swedish word årsäll.

of the Good Harvests is far-fetched, cumbersome and looks like another cocksure Swenglish translation [sic], of a lesser and uneducated quality, of which there already are far too many on English Wikipedia. I spend a large part of my time here trying to clean up the mess.

Finally, if we can use an educated exonym here, for a man who is otherwise unknown in English literature, why use a Swedish word? Especially one that comes very close to a very vulgar English word (for a body cavity) not used in polite society, if pronounced according to English phonetics? There are already hundreds of phonetically cumbersome Swedish words in these English texts, many for no real reason that I can see. They all have a very disadvantageous effect on reading here, especially in trying to read anything aloud about Sweden (I read to the blind). Why add another one? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not care whether "Goodyear" or "good harvests" are etymologically closer to "årsäll" (translating according to etymology is like trying to find your way using an historical atlas). The real problem is that, although "year" is misleading, the current name seems to be the translation of some random Wikipedian. The relevant policy is quite clear on this point: "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on)." Unless sources can be presented, the article should be moved to the Swedish form, no matter if it upsets your sense of delicacy.

Andejons (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Passing by the issue of whether the EN Wikipedia needs this article: I do not understand why the article is not named "Erik Årsäll" with redirects from the proposed translations.- Sinneed 13:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, dear Sinneed, to be frank: (1) the man is unknown by that name in any other language but Swedish, except for Swedish writers writing in English [sic]; (2) people using correct English phonetics will pronounce it as Eric Arsehole, or close enough thereto. Can the dilemma be avoided? Eric (Swedish 10th century king of legend)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What dilemma? The pronunciation of the Swedish is of no interest to Wikipedia whatever. According to the discussion above, the man is known by no name at all, outside Sweden, save in WP, where made-up names are being used. Andejons' response seems quite correct, and I don't understand why this is an issue. That preteen males in the US may giggle over the pronunciation and annoy their teachers is of absolutely no significance in determining how to name a WP article.- Sinneed 14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any guidance document at all for WP that says anything like "If a name will sound offensive when pronounced in English, it should not be used in an article title?" I am fairly confident there is not.- Sinneed 14:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not raise your voice at me by using capital letters! I thought we might try to be flexible enough to avoid the issue in some way without having to check for established WP policy?

Did you reply to this as a WP:3O volunteer, Sinneed (and forgot to remove the template and listing)? Otherwise your comments, after 3O was requested, are bound to confuse a neutral 3O volunteer who tries to help us here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

While I followed the link from 3O, I am not doing the 3O thing.- Sinneed 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"flexible enough to avoid the issue" - No WP issue has been raised, and I see none. WP runs on wp:consensus and the usual practice here seems clear, simple and "flexible".- Sinneed 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"ABSOLUTELY" - sorry you see that as raising my voice. I note the usage Eric Arsehole, would you prefer that? I will be happy to make the change to italics if you wish, strictly as a courtesy.- Sinneed 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Went ahead and converted to italics. - Sinneed 14:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Flexible enough to avoid the issue you raised about Eric Arsehole as an appropriate pronunciation for WP to inspire (or that you think we absolutely should disregard that risk), the issue which I had hoped we could avoid somehow rather than find it the only possible solution for the name of the en.WP article about this man of legend. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Flexible enough to avoid the issue you raised" - I have not raised an issue that I am aware of.

The only issue I see is that you do not like the man's name, because if pronounced in American English, it sounds rude to you. Again, this is not an issue in Wikipedia at all. Is there an issue? Any WP guideline, essay, anything that indicates we should not simply name the article his name? If I have missed something, please share.- Sinneed 00:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE (pardon me for shouting!) stop commenting here and give a neutral 3O volunteer a chance? Such a volunteer is supposed to comment on my opinions and those of one opposing user. You are butting in where you are not wanted and sabotaging my 3O request. You have made your points now, over and over, though it was not very respectful of you to interfere without being a neutral 3O volunteer. PLEASE stop! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I encourage you to redact that, as it has no place in Wikipedia whatsoever. wp:own might be a good read.- Sinneed 02:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On review: Should the article's name be "Eric of Good Harvests", or "Eric Goodyear of Sweden" or use a Swedish-language epithet? seems not to be a neutral presentation of the issue. No one proposes to change the article title to a "Swedish-language epithet". I think I understand the proposal is to change the name to "Erik Årsäll", which we are told when spoken sounds quite similar to "Eric Arsehole" to speakers of American English.- Sinneed 03:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) - Sinneed 13:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Årsäll is a Swedish epithet used for this person with the Swedish personal name Erik, in Swedish. That is a fact that is not in dispute here, and not any conjecture of mine. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems not to be covered in the article. Perhaps it might merit a mention. While I would not say "dispute" would apply, it does seem a bit doubtful, at the moment.- Sinneed 13:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sinneed: See below and please withdraw! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Warned editor again. Please redact both of these, and review wp:own and wp:civil.- Sinneed 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

When there is no obvious candidate English common name for an individual, the following policy statement applies (WP:UE): if there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). In my opinion, the title of the article should be whatever name he is generally known by in Sweden. If Årsäll is a vulgarism or an epithet that is not an overriding common Swedish name for the king, then it is reasonable to explore alternative Swedish names, but, per policy, it is not proper to translate the name or invent a new name for him. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Erik Årsäll" is also used in an old English edition of Anders Fryxell's "The History of Sweden" (p. 180, 182). The name is explained when it is first mentioned, and in parentheses "Year blest" is given as an equivalent. But that translation has never caught on. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you RegentsPark! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Grave

Who came up with "the first to be buried in the graveyard at Kaga"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems very questionable. sv:Kaga kyrka is rather enlightening: apparently someone noted down a local tale in the eighteenth century(!), that says that the church was built by Sverker's father Kol, but does not identify him with Eric. It thus seems to be speculation based on evidence from two bad sources. I'm going to remove it.

Andejons (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now clarified this well known legendary material a bit in the new sentence added by Andejons, who should be thanked for adding that and the sources. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

PS I am not too fond of our passing judgement on unverifiable sources such as legends and calling them bad sources. Bad as far as WP facts go for sure, but bad in general? Many esteemed writers of history have deemed such sources good enough to mention and expound upon greatly, without ever intending to declaim that they are factual. Who are we to judge? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No serious historian of today would make use of a legend written down 500 years after the event, which might be dependant on earlier sources which we know to be of low quality, so yes, it is an extremely bad source, to the point of it becoming a non-source. As for the identification of Eric with Sverker's father, even Nordisk Familjebok calls the source for that "not very trustworthy" [3].

Andejons (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you twisting this to try to make it look as if I think we should use such unverifible sources to verify facts? That would be very bad. I just wrote that we cannot do that, didn't I? These legends have been expounded upon greatly by distinguished scolars, and still are, but certainly not as sources for historical facts.

Intrigued by your use here of "written down". Is that Swenglish again, or did use use such odd language to make some kind of a point regarding our discussion of this particular article? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Info Succession box dropped

The info box was dropped with this edit summary:

• The succession appears to be highly speculative... even the existence of this individual is questioned in the sources. Dropped the box. Easily reverted if someone feels strongly.

OK by me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor point: This was the succession box.- Sinneed 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible RfC

If the actual issue with the proposed name (and a clear set of proposed names, possibly) can be identified, this might be worth an RfC. Simply gathering a single new set of eyes on the article seems to have fared poorly. On the other hand, the whole thing seems to be a tempest in a teapot... there is a redirect from the proposed "epithet" name, should anyone search using it, so it might be a waste of RfC-respondent time.- Sinneed 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wouldn't have replied when I asked for a third opinion without giving that third opinion (as per your own decraration above While I followed the link from 3O, I am not doing the 3O thing.- Sinneed 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)), we probably would have had one by now. But you have made such a mess of this now - and now complain about a tempest in a tea pot! - that it hardly seems likely any neutral volunteer will help us two (not including you) who were discussing this.

Proposal: Withdraw from this page now and give the 3O process a chance! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing's customarary tantrums... anybody is welcome to give their opinion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:own and wp:civil seem to apply.- Sinneed 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: First let me note that I am disqualified from offering an opinion in this matter due to having prior dealings with one or more of the editors involved in the dispute. I'm making these remarks, however, to clear up an apparent misunderstanding about the Third Opinion process: There is absolutely no restriction in Wikipedia against additional editors becoming involved in a discussion or dispute after that dispute has been listed at the Third Opinion project. Nor is there any restriction upon an editor becoming involved in a discussion or dispute as a regular editor after having taken note of the dispute at the 3O project site, even if that editor sometimes acts as Third Opinion Wikipedian. I am, personally, of the opinion that if a regular 3O Wikipedian — one who either publicly identifies himself as such or who gives Third Opinions often enough to be recognized as such — does choose to enter a 3O–listed dispute as a regular editor that it is good form to make note of that fact to avoid confusion and I have even created a personal template to use when I do so. (But I hasten to add that making such a note is just my opinion). However, the 3O Project is by its terms limited to disputes between exactly two editors or, in some cases, between two groups of editors representing two clearly-differentiated positions. Due to that rule, the entry of a third editor into a dispute after it has been listed at WP:3O can result in what I semi–humorously call The Third Opinion Paradox: the third editor's comments may constitute a third opinion which was not a Third Opinion but which was a Third Opinion. Sinneed's entry into this dispute may or may not have such an effect. That effect is, moreover, further complicated that there a number of Third Opinion Wikipedians, such as myself, who feel that the two–editor rule should be eliminated and who are willing in at least some circumstances — which vary from person to person — to either issue Third Opinions involving multiple editors or refrain from removing them from the active dispute list at the 3O Project due to having more than two editors. In any event, there is no problem with a third editor coming into a dispute after a 3O request has been made. If such an entry causes some Third Opinion Wikipedian to remove the request from the list at the 3O Project for having too many editors involved, then the editors involved in the dispute are free to move on to some other form of dispute resolution such as the RfC that's being discussed here.

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify these things. Very helpful. What I found disconcerting was that Sinneed entered into the discussion without declaring what he/she was up to in regard to the 3O request. Had to be asked, and then called it "the 3O thing". Anyway, I'm finished here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing: Remove your focus from me.- Sinneed 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

Proposed rename of article to "Erik Årsäll" or possibly "Eric or Kol (semi-legendary 11th century Swedish king)" or to leave it with its current name or to use some other name. There are objections that "Årsäll" is not the name by which the individual was known. There are objections that "Årsäll" is an epithet. There are objections that, when pronounced by English speakers, "Årsäll" sounds like "arse hole" and should be avoided because it is offensive.

Thoughts?- Sinneed 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Add "There are objections that the current and previous article names are made-up names used to avoid the "Erik Årsäll" usage."- Sinneed 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To move this article to include the name of "Kol" would be rather POVish. Erik is a legendary figure that has long been weeded out of Swedish history, and while attempts at identification with other legendary figures could and should be mentioned in the article, they should not be implied in the title. If he is ever written about in Swedish, it is as "Erik Årsäll". If that isn't good enough, one should find an English source.

As for the possible offensive nature of "Årsäll", I'll consider that a valid argument when the article Uranus has been renamed.

Andejons (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand your argument, but what I am looking for is thoughts on the wording of the RfC. Does it explain what the dispute is? The arguments for and against each option would belong under the actual RfC.- Sinneed 13:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That was actually great feedback... I was putting short forms of arguments in the RfC, which is less than ideal. The RfC wording for which I am seeking feedback is currently:

Rename of article to "Erik Årsäll" or possibly "Eric or Kol (semi-legendary 11th century Swedish king)" or leave it with its current name or rename to some other name.

Any feedback on the wording for the RfC? Not looking for pro or con arguments yet, just looking for wording for what to ask the community. [Unsigned]

It's fine. Re: Uranus - come on! The planet is already famous in English. Eric is not. It's up to us to choose what name he should be famous under in our language. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"It's up to us to choose what name he should be famous under in our language." - And such an effort would need to be made on some site other than Wikipedia, if it should be undertaken on the Web. Wikipedia is not used to promote a view, name, or perception. It is to provide information that appears in the generally wp:reliable sources, either in a wp:NPOV or with wp:BALANCE if that is not practical.- Sinneed 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the first article ever published about this person in English. Each one of us can take that as he/she wishes, and disregard or acknowledge the responsibility involved.

Would anyone else like to comment on the English phonetics issue? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The phonetic question is in a formal way not to be considered in WP: WP formally does not "care". It is not important at all, in WP. wp:NOTCENSORED.- Sinneed 16:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Expanding: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so..." - Sinneed 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename article?

After the 3PO input, is there now wp:consensus (there is certainly not 100% agreement) to rename the article to Erik Årsäll? - Sinneed 18:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: To avoid the unusually sticky phonetic problem here, I suggest that the article could be named

• Eric or Kol (semi-legendary 11th century Swedish king )

I know it's abnormally long, but it would be incontestibly accurate, as nothing else really would. There were earlier legendary Swedish kings called Eric, but none other in the 11th century. As the article mentions, his personal name may very well have been Kol (Coal or Cole in English) and Eric Årsäll may have then been an epithet meaning something like a man who was rich in honor and very fortunate in annual harvests. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"To avoid the unusually sticky phonetic problem" - There remains no phonetic problem. At all. There is an wp:IDONTLIKEIT issue for editors... that is an editor problem, not a WP problem, and has no impact on content. WP in a formal way does not care that people will be offended.- Sinneed 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that there is presently no redirect from this new proposed name to this article, so clearly no one has felt it was a name by which this individual was known. Why in the world would we name the article something that didn't even merit a redirect?- Sinneed 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no name "by which this individual was known" in English. None exists. There is always a phonetic problem when a foreign word, pronounced correctly in English, ends up sounding extremely vulgar. This effects all writing, even WP, and is not a matter of likes or dislikes. Phonetics are like matematics = not subject to opinion just to application. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is, however, a policy for just such cases: "follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". That would be Swedish, or if you argue that the source language is more important, Icelandic.

Andejons (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, thanx, but the phonetic question is important enough to consider, in my opinion. If no one else agrees, do as you all please! Let's stick with Eric (not Eirik) in any case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The phonetic question is in a formal way not to be considered in WP: WP formally does not "care". It is not important at all, in WP.- Sinneed 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Eric/Erik bit... is the lead then currently incorrect? If so, please fix it, but "Erik" seems to match the sources.- Sinneed 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sinneed, for repeating your POV and/or interpretation of what is formal on WP re: phonetics over and over! Would anyone else like to comment on that part of this?

And I wrote Eric not Eirik e-i-r-i-k (Icelandic). Eric is the normal spelling in English throughout en.WP. Erik is the normal spelling in Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:NOTCENSORED - we don't leave things out because they are offensive. This isn't POV. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so...". Each time you present this as an issue, I will reply that it is not an issue, and explain why it is not.- Sinneed 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no proposal to use "Eirik". The proposal above is to use the Swedish included in sentence 1 of the lead.- Sinneed 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read before you write! Icelandic is suggested above as a possibility, by a knowledgeable Scandinavian editor named Andejons. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone other than Sinneed like to comment on the English phonetics issue? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:NOTCENSORED-The phonetic question is in a formal way not to be considered in WP: WP formally does not "care". It is not important at all, in WP.- Sinneed 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to Erik Årsäll

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: move DrKiernan (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Eric Goodyear of Sweden → Erik Årsäll — The current name is not established usage, so I'm suggesting to move the article to the normal Swedish name. See discussions above. Andejons (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose - neither name is known in English, this one is in English, the Swedish one is a phonetic impediment in English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support The only usage I found across any language was Erik Årsäll (Scholar: [4] Books: [5]) and Eirik Arsale (Books: [6]]) I would rather go with English cited usage but either is better than the current title. Given the current name is not employed at all (see:[7]), employing a cited named (even if its not from English sources) is preferable. The name employed across the other wikipedia projects is Erik Årsäll but there is also English usage for Eirik Arsale. Either is good by me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia should use names used in reliable sources, not invent names of its own for historical people. --Hegvald (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This person is totally unknown in English. There is no established English usage whatsoever. This is English WP, not Swedish or Icelandic WP. Thus we should be free to use an acceptable exonym in English, not a name that is phonetically unacceptable in English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I would have to disagree. My links show that Erik Årsäll is knowns by the exonym Eirik Arsale in English, at least in the few English reliable sources available online. However, as noted, Eirik Arsale does not appear to be widely employed in English, which is why I indicated that either Erik Årsäll or Eirik Arsale would be acceptable. Either way, you have two name possibilities employed in some form of reliable source, which is more than I can say for the name Eric Goodyear of Sweden.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to use an Icelandic exonym (Eirik Arsale) for a Swedish king on English WP? Eric Årsäll, with the epithet in Swedish, or the current correct English exonym, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't, I would rather use Erik Årsäll given it's the name most employed, regardless of language. I was simply trying to indicate my view that even Eirik Arsale is preferable to the current title. I am more than willing to admit the shortcoming of the name Eirik Arsale, appearing to have originated from a translation of works published by Snorri Sturluson. Lacking a reliably sourced Swedish to English translation, the native name seems most appropriate given the sources currently accessible.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should this be the only king spelled Erik when all the others consistently are Eric which is standard English? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Am I to understand that the name "Goodyear" is a calque which was made up here on Wikipedia? If so, I strongly support the proposal.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A true, academically correct exonym is usually just that, a calque I believe. The question is whether or not we should have a true English exonym here or if the Swedish version of his epithet (Årsäll) is frequent in English academic literature and should be used on en.WP. No reliable sources - whatsoever - on the Internet will help us, so we have to decide this ourselves or have an article without a title. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And do you have any sources that are not on the Internet? If there are no sources at all in English, then I think we have to go with the Swedish name by default. It's not Wikipedia's place to be inventing exonyms.--Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Faced with stiff opposition here for quite some time, I am willing to give in on the epithet, as long as the given name is Eric (not Erik) in normal English as matches the rest of the Swedish kings. Thus:

Alternative proposal: move to Eric Årsäll (epithet meaning "Good Yearly Harvests"). SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 10 December 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.

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 not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Erik Årsäll → Eric Årsäll — To conform with all the other Swedish kings by the name. See discussions above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unless we have some sources for such an Anglicization. (The few English-language hits that show up on Google Books seem to use Erik.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Same basis as Kotniski. The few sources I had found used Erik.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:51, 30 December 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.