Talk:Harald Greycloak

Big problem

This article says that Harald died in 976, but Haakon Sigurdsson's article says that Harald died in 971. Which one is correct? Academic Challenger 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unknown. There are different dates on sources. Andres (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This problem also occurred to me, it also exists between wikipedias (the French version states 970). The date most commonly given seems to be "c. 970" ([1]) As for references stating 976 as Harald's death, I have only found the Lee M. Hollander translation of the Heimskringla ([2]), which is to be sure a fine one, but there appears to be a problem with the dates given by him in this part of the book (he dates Otto II's expedition against Harald Bluetooth in 988, but Otto died in 983). Thus I have modified the article and others, putting Harald's death in 970. If someone has refs that go contrary to that, let them correct me ! --Alþykkr (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

• Harald II of Norway → Harald Greycloak
• Haakon I of Norway → Haakon the Good

– Calling them by their nicknames are more common in the sources. Also consistency with earlier Kings of Norway and other contemporary Viking monarchs. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. I get 268 post-1980 English-language GBook hits for "Harald II", 146 for "Harald Greycloak". Britannica gives "Harald II Eiriksson". Encarta doesn't have a listing Harald II, but they are also using Roman numerals for Norwegian kings. They give Haakon I as "Håkon I". Kauffner (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your searches include result for Harald II Greycloak/Graafell and Harald II of other countries with brief mention of the Norway like Harald Bluetooth or Harald II Godwinson. See Harald II of Norway compare to Harald Greycloak.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as we should stick with the Name # of country title form. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You forget exceptions like Gorm the Old, Harald Bluetooth, Sweyn Forkbeard, Cnut the Great, Harald Fairhair, Eric Bloodaxe, and William the Conqueror, and even Sigurd the Crusader.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Harald Greycloak I'm convinced by Spy's links that "Harald Greycloak" is way more common in sources than "Harald II of Norway". If you look at the 7 links for "Harald II of Norway", 3 are copies of wikipedia and 1 is Lovecrafts's Magazine of Horror, which is hardly a scholastic source. I like the use of "Harald II Greycloak" in the article body; it's in use by Jonathan Clements, Debrett's, H. E. L. Mellersh's Chronology of World History and Richard Overy's and Geoffrey Barraclough's Complete History of the World, though still not nearly as common as "Harald Greycloak". DrKiernan (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You must know that "of Norway" is a horrid little Wiki pre-disambiguator stipulated in WP:SOVEREIGN. So it is not a phrasing that you should expect to find in the RS. IMO, if other encyclopedias and references are using Roman numerals, we should too. Cambridge Hisory says "Harald II Grey-fur." A king might have several nicknames, so numerals are a useful way to keep them straight. I say down with SOVEREIGN and out with "of Norway." "Harald II Greycloak" would be peachy. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The numeral would not do, for the title anyway. Harald II Greycloak (6) is still less common than Harald Greycloak (198). There are 188 sources that use only Greycloak with no mention of Harald II. Also regnal numbers were unheard of at this time. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it is most appropriate to use the byname for the four original Fairhair dynasty kings (and a few of the later Norwegian kings). I can't really see that there is anything very different between these two, and Harald Fairhair and Eric Bloodaxe, which both use the bynames. Thhist (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is instructive that Haakon I of Norway does not actually mention this name in the lead at all, and this may be an invented nomenclature. There is a case for a move to Haakon Haraldsson but I'd be content with "the Good". I am persuaded by DrKiernan's argument above re Harald Greycloak, about whom I otherwise know little. I like Thhist's logic, although I cannot comment on the extent that such a system is found in RSs. Ben MacDui 14:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It does now and it is probably not invented. I am pretty sure "Hákon góði" comes up in the Norse sagas, which are the oldest sources on these early kings. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I can assure you that Haakon the Good, or Hákon góði, definitely appears in the sagas; the saga about Haakon by Snorri Sturluson (Heimskringla) is even titled the "Saga of Haakon the Good" (Saga Hákonar góða). This is also the main reason why many Norse nicknames are used so prominently in the first place; because they often were the most common contemporary names used. Thhist (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Relisting comment We're leaning towards consensus on Harald, whereas Haakon would probably be closed if it were just him. I'd like to see if we can develop consensus on both, but after a week, we shouldn't feel prejudiced against a split decision. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is no interest of further comments, then both articles should be moved since it seems barely anybody brought up Haakon at all, and the concern that the nickname isn't brought up on his article is already solved. 374 results for "Haakon the Good" versus 37 for "Haakon I of Norway".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Although I support both moves, I would actually think the case for moving Haakon was stronger than that of Harald, who is a significantly less known king. In any case, I can't really see any reason for a split decision on this issue, since the arguments for or against using bynames for the two kings pretty much falls under the same category: they were contemporaries, and they were both commonly known by their bynames. Thhist (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Gold Harald

In the Heimskringla Snorri wrote that it was Harald Bluetooth's brother, referred to as "Gold Harald," who defeated and killed Harald Grafeld at Limfjord. Haakon Sigurdsson (Snorri Sturlusson calls him "Earl Hakon") and Gold Harald were allies, and Haakon convinced Gold Harald to make war on Grafeld so he could carve out a kingdom of his own. However, Haakon betrayed and murdered Gold Harald, and Harald Bluetooth pardoned him because now his brother was out of the picture and would no longer be competing with him for territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.232.197 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)