Talk:Ingamoder

Borderline fictional

This is hardly historical as a Queen of Sweden, as described. There are no reliable sources to back any of it up, to my knowledge. May be a good candidate for a rewrite so that her legendary life dominates the text thoroughly. Left "Queen..." category for now due to good faith of contributor. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit of a misunderstaning. Her correct name is not known. Her depiction as a saint is tradition, and may also be dubious. However. That the king was married and had a wife, and that his wife was the daughter of king Emund, and that she was the mother of said children, is all correct. It is well known in history, that the king married a princess, the daughter of king Emund, and that this may have contributed to his own election as king. This can not be ignored. It is also mentioned in the sagas, which is all information we have from Sweden before c. 1250,a nd all sources we have for the kings as well. Therefore, the correct mesure would be: the article placed in category for real people, as she did exist: the parentage and her children recognized as correct: and the depiction of her as a saint in a special section with the title: "In legend". The queen existed, she was born Swedish princess: even if many things about her is legendary, there is not doubt of her existence and of her parentage as princess. It is important to realise, that a person can exist, and should be recognized as such, even if many things about her life is mere lgend. I strongly advise against labelling her entire existence as legend. The solution is to have a "legend"-section in the article, as her existence and her parentage is correct.--85.226.43.33 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You provide good arguments here, though I have never seen any reliable sources for most of what is in this article. Making up names is never a good solution. No reliable reference of any kind has ever been provided anywhere to show that this name wasn't made up as fiction in the 20th century (which is what I suspect). Only writers known for mixing fact and fiction have called her "Ingamoder" and such. But yes, she did exist, as King Steinchetel definitely had a mate, probably his queen (we don't know) and children. This woman was probably a daughter of King Edmund the Old. Isn't that all we know? Period?

The picture has got to go - it is misleading and irrelevant in an article about someone whom we do not know enough about to be sure she was queen. It is also in several other articles and had a misleading or incorrectly worded caption (which I have adjusted there). Let's leave her as queen, and the image in the other places, and be happy King Ingi's mother is in there! OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added an appropriate image and worked on the article to remove conjecture and separate a very few known facts from legend. The article could stand more work on grammar and wording but is now acceptable by WP standards. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work on this article as a whole! However, there is one thing that need to be pointed out. We agree that she existed. The name, of course, is questionable, but such names are preferable to having no names for the article at all - controversial names, years and such are fully allowed, and also necessary, in an article as long as they are known to have been used about them and their status as questionable are made clear. Hovewer: I understand you still have doubts wether she held the title of queen? Not an odd reservation generally - there were after all kings married morganatically, and their sposes were not queens. This reservation is, hovewer, not necessary in this case. No king in Sweden has ever had a wife who did not hold the title of queen. Especially in the middle ages, when the title of queen was not yet so independent and so distinctly associated with rang and status as it would be in the early modern era. Considering the status of this woman: a former princess, whos spouse was elected king partially because he was married to her, makes it unlikely that she was not granted the title. But in fact: for a any woman to have been married to a Swedish king and still not have been queen would have been quite remarcable and unique in this era. During this age, the title was not very formall, it was not granted, it was simply atomatically held by the kings wife, no matter her rank, and was not at all such a big title issue as it would be in the early modern era. It is very safe and secure to assume that she was the queen simply because she was married to the king. We "know" this because it was not possible for a woman to be married to a Swedish king at this time period and not be a queen. Anything else would be astonishing. In short: it would be far more controversial to claim that the wife of a king was not queen, than the other way around. So you see, your edits that she was ”possibly” queen, even though she was married to a king, is very controversial for this time, place, culture and age. The box should therefore be reinstated. In all other aspects, however, you have done an excellent job on this article!--85.226.43.33 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, as to the matter of the succession boxes, I really should explain it better. The succession-boxes are only there to provide a succession. Other countries do mention royal people who may or may not have existed, and are mentioned in partially in legend, in their succession. It is simply a question of having a practical sucession line who one can use for help to access information : the fact that some of the people may be partially legendary, should of course be clearly stated in their articles: this is the task of the article, not of the succession. Legandary monarchs are included in lists of kings. This is not a problem - as long as the articles states their semi legendary status, of course. You see, it is more or less like this: we now this woman existed, and we now that she was queen in this period, between these two confirmed queens. The fact that her correct name, years, (for example) is unconfirmed, does not change her place in the succession line. The boxes are there simply to state the place in the succession, and that place is not contested : the contested information should be dealt with in the article itself. I hope you understand. But: in other aspects, you have done a great job. My compliments!--85.226.43.33 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK the box can stay if you agree to the text as I have edited it now. Your good work helped since I was here last. Two things I would like to ask you:

1. Please leave Ingvar (see his article) questioned and in parentheses - I intend to introduce evidence that will sway opinion toward King Anwynd James (Anund Jakob) as the one who went east on campaign. Adlerbeth did a whole article about it - very convincing - in 1802 - and this will cast grave doubt upon Ingvar's existence.
2. Please remove the chess queen from this article! It does very well for the other articles you (?) put it in, but the more often it is used the less valuable it looks. It turns into sort of a trade mark for old queens, not a rare and valuable photo of an ancient object. Different images for different articles is always a good idea. I also spent quite a bit of effort trying to find an image that would convey some of the intriguing mystery that surrounds the stories about this interesting woman. That big black-and-white blob does the other sensitively chosen photo no justice.

Y t SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a trade, but I can gladly agree to your proposals, as I really have no objection to them. The text is perfectly fine the way you have edited it now. Just a general remarc: phrases such as "(if he was by then and she was still living)" is a little uneccessary for articles, as they are alreday made clear by reading the text: the years are properly stated to be unconfirmed, (as they should be) which makes this matter clear already. Pharenthesis should be avoided in wikipedia articles unless absolutely neccessary, and here they are simply stating things that are already made clear in the text, which is a form of repetition. I now it is more or less as cosmetic matter, so I'll just correct it when I remove the image. As for Ingvar, I will leave his article to you, as I have no oppinion of it - the question of his existence is a matter for his article, and as long as there is a link to it, were that is made clear, from this, there really is no need for a pharenthesis. As for the image, I can also agree on your new reasons for its removal. Perhaps two images is uneccessary for this article, and the new image you have introduced to the article is quite beautiful. I will therefore remove the image. I will correct the small cosmetic matter and remove the image as agreed, but generally, the article really is quite proper and correct as it is now. Thank you very much for your attention to it!--85.226.43.33 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for another considerate reply! I look forward to cooperating with you again. I would frankly feel much better about this, however if you could be so kind and avoid going into teacher's mode to tell me such things as "Pharenthesis should be avoided in wikipedia articles unless absolutely neccessary,...". I ask you to rest assured that I know very well when to use parentheses and when not to (a little visit to my user page might help you feel more comfortable). The proper use of partentheses is quite different in English than in Swedish and some other languages I know. Will you do me the favor of trying to leave teacher's mode out of our future contacts, at least when it somes to English grammar? Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your quite welcome. I appologize if I have offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I myself am not interested in prestige, pride or status in any way whatsoever, in an academical sense or otherwise, and consequently, I am not in a habit of considering them. As for your edit, I still consider it uneccesary to point out the obvious. Anyone realises that she was not queen if she died before her spouse became king. To point out such an obvious thing rather insults the intelligence of the reader, does it not? But this is not important enough to argue about, so I will leave it at that if you consider it important. Again: I am sorry if I have offended.--85.226.43.33 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Uneccessary image removal

The depitcion of the queen in a contemporary Swedish Chess piece.

This image was removed with the reason that it is uneccessary. I say it is uneccessary to remove it. Wikipedia allow that articles be illustrated. It is allowed to use images which does not depict the person, if the text describes this. This image is suitable, as it depicts a woman from the same time period from the same country: there is no reason to remove it. It makes the article better, and more beautiful. It is an illutration. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See above re image please: I have felt strongly convinced and compelled to remove it because of those reasons and have now done so again. Let's find a better image for this particular article, not one that is misleading. I will look through Commons. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The original caption submitted is under the photo here. In English, this text reads as though this were an actual image of this queen. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see entry under heading above! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, I overlooked that! Then the solution is simple: simply correct the text! The text should say: "A queen", not "The queen", which is after all correct. I am sure that was a simple error. I will correct this and then reintroduce the image. Very good of you to point out the error. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Name "Ingamoder"

The name "Ingamoder" is an invention that has never neen used in any reliable sources as an actual personal name. Reoccurring adjustments to this article to make that less clear are not appropriate. The names of saints are usually in Latin, whereas this is a Swedish fabrication, not a Latin name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Saint Ingamoder Emundsdotter of Sweden → Ingamoder — There has been no saint named "Ingamoder", because the name has only been invented to make possible biographic articles about, and listings of, a woman whose name is unknown. "Emundsdotter" (daughter of Edmund) is a Swedish patronymic that this woman never used and which only has been published (for her) in a few less-than-reliable sources. As named the article gives a reader the false impression that a woman named Ingamoder actually was a saint and a Princess "of Sweden". That is misleading and inappropriate. If relevant at all as a person of interest in history (the sources are very shaky), other than as the nameless mother of two kings (that's all we actually know about her), a WP arficle about this woman should be titled only with the name invented to make the article heading possible at all. There is no other person known to history called "Ingamoder". SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The references claim she was a local saint. Sweden, as far as I am aware, had only one saint recognized by the Catholic curch: Saint Bridget. All others saints before the 20th century was local saints; known and worshipped only in their own area. This was common in the middle ages. None of the other Swedish sants from the middle ages are deprived of their status despite tha fact that they are local saints. It is not confirmed that she was a princess, but it should absolutely be mentioned in the article that this is one of the theories.--Aciram (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So if a few locals call me "Saint Serge" an manage to get that published on a few porivate genealogy websites or find it in some old song lycics 300 years from now, that would mean that I should have a WP article under "Saint Serge", even though "Serge" is an invented name? No reliable sources here for any of that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you never heard of local saints before? They where very common in all European countries during the middle ages: many saints where only worshipped in their own countries and never recongized by the Catholic church. I do not believe any saint in Sweden was recongized by the Catholic church in the middle ages except Saint Bridget. Still, they are many Swedish saints from the middle ages here. Isn't it strange? It seems that you have never heard of this before, otherwise you would not have asked your question above. Ingamoder where the centre of a local cult, with worshippers making pilgrimages from all over Sweden to her well. Still, there is no reason for you to ask for a third oppinion, Sergewoodzing. A third opinion are only necessary when you are in conflict with another user. I have no wish to be in conflict with you. On the contrary, I would rather let you do as you please with all articles about Swedish royalty, rather than engage in a conflict with you. I advice you to get consensus before you move the article, though. Regards--Aciram (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop being personal all the time! Please! Stick to the facts and the matter at hand without going into all these personal things! It is up to 3O helpers to determine if the request was appropriate, not you or me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by saying that I am being personal. You asked me a question. Is that personal? I answered your question. Is that personal? Everything relevant to this matter is relevant to discuss. You have asked for a third opinion here, which is only done when two users consider themselwes to be in severe unresolvable conflict with each other. That is personal. By making the descision to ask for a third oppinion, you have thereby in fact been very personal yourself. As you have asked for 30 helpers, it seems that you regard me as an apponent and have the oppinion that we are in conflict for some reason, I will withdraw from communication with you, if that is your wish and could be of help in solwing the "conflict", as it seems you have decided that we are in one. --Aciram (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Very little seems to be known about her veneration. The fixed point is the well, "Ingemo källa", Ingemo Well, which in medieval times had a chapel. I would suggest writing an article about that. Stålberg was not aware of any connection to ancient kings; I am inclined to guess that making her the mother of King Inge may have been an invention by Ohlmarks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ingemo Well may deserve its own article, yes. But there should, of course, still be an article about this queen, regardless if she was the same person as Saint Ingemo or not. In her article, the possibility that she was a Swedish princess and a local saint should be mentioned, if indeed they where possibilities rather than facts. It is a question about having two articles rather than chaning the name of one, if that is the case. --Aciram (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a move request, not a request to have the article deleted. In choosing between leaving it with its current name, highly labored in my opinion, and deleting it, I would go for the latter. The woman is unknown to reliable historical sources and her name is a modern invention. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: Sergewoodzing should prove that the name is indeed a modern invention. There is not sources for such a claim in the current article, nor here, just a claim that it is so. --Aciram (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The name "Ingamoder" and the connection to royalty is definitely a modern invention. Wilhelmina Stålberg in her 1864 book about Swedish women gives an account of veneration of the local saint Ingemo, but does not mention any connection to royalty. Neither did Toni Schmid (1931) who is quoted in the music 1996 history that is quoted in the article. Neither does Martling in his recent book about Swedish saints. Scholars generally just ignore Ohlmarks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There should still be two articles: one about the saint, and one about the queen. Regardless what the queen should be called, she still existed. There are other articles here on English wikipedia about people, whos names is unknown, which are still given there own articles. As a queen she is notable for her own article. In the queens article, the information and theories about her should be gatthered, such as the theory/fact that she was a Swedish princess and that Stenkil's marriage to her strengthened his claim to the throne. You have been very fast in doing this, and although you have made a excellent article about the saint, I must say that it does not seem to be very proper to make this descission on your own and change the subject of the article withouth discussion. The queen, even if her name is unknown, should still have her own article. --Aciram (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The speculation on how Stenkil came to be elected king can be handled in that article. There is little information about him, because everything (also the stuff attached to the Hervarar saga) is probably dependent on the few things that Adam of Bremen wrote. There is no point in having an article about a nameless queen. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There certainly is not. And now that we can feel certain, without any reasonable doubt, that "Ingamoder" as the name of a queen or princess is a 20th century fabrication, either there should be an article under that one-word name, stating basically that only, or the article should be deleted. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There are in fact already articles about nameless queens, empresses and other nameless notables here on wikipedia. Look for example at Wife of Julius Nepos. Therefore, an article about this nameless queen is equally acceptable. Notability is established because she was queen. I would also recomend that the fact that Ingemo has been identidifed with the queen should be mentioned in this article, as it is mentioned in detail on the swedish version. --Aciram (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, which should not exist either. I have now checked the reference "Sveriges historia i årtal" (Sweden's history in dates), and as expected, this person is not mentioned there. I will remove the reference. There is no basis for the so-called "traditional dates" in the information box and in the categorization. I will remove those too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Brevity is beautiful. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed the lede to fit "Ingemo", but I still think that "Ingemo Well" would be a better name. About the life of the saint nothing is known. She could have been a saintly woman from the late Middle Ages, or she could have been one of the first Christians in the region. Or maybe the origin of the name may be from some pre-Christian goddess. The only fixed point is the well and the customs associated with it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The current title certainly seems weird. If her name's Ingemo, let's move it to Ingemo (but if we want to make it an article about the well, I agree with Pieter - Ingemo Well or Ingemo's Well).--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The only name the princess/queen has ever been given is the 20th century fabrication "Ingamoder". She has never been called "Ingemo" to my knowledge. Two things are unknown to history:

• the actual name of the queen/princess (who did exist)
• who "Ingemo" actually was and any and all details about her as a person (except that her name has been associated with that well).

So, if there is to be an article at all about the queen/princess it should be under "Ingamoder" (only - no other wording), not "Ingemo".

An article about the well could be called "Ingemo Well" but does not need to be associated with the queen/princess, unless the speculations about her in connection with the well are well sourced and relevant enough to be mentioned as speculations only.

This move request is actually only meant to deal with article about the queen/princess, not the well and "Ingemo". SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the current move. There should be two articles: one about the queen, and one about the well/saint. Both the queen as well as the saint are after all notable subjects. The name of the former can be discussed, but there is not doubt that the queen should have her own article. The latter could be named either after the well or about the saint itself, but that is something to discuss separetely in the discussion-page of that article, when it has been created. --Aciram (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are satisfied with this now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Image requests

I removed image request tags from the talk pages of articles about 9 women in ancient Swedish history, one of them here, my reasoning being that no images of those persons exist, nor of anything with a specific relevance to those life stories.

I was reversed by the editor who had added the tags with this comment: "People can create public domain images of historical figures and use them on Wikipedia."

Seems to me to be a misleading way of overtagging, and that we are not really meant to create our own fantasy images to illustrate biographical articles.

Am I right or wrong in assuming that the image request tag should be used only when we suspect that relevant images actually exist? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. (Related concept.) --Gryllida (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not an answer. "It is not a general-purpose 'no image present' indicator. Editors placing this template on a talk page should provide information about what photographs are wanted." From the template link you provided. ???. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

PS Here's more from that page you linked to: "Unexplained and uncategorized templates may be deleted by any editor." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Asarelah is reinstating these templates again and has now added this to the talk pages of articles concerned:

As no pictures of this woman apparently exist, it would improve the article if someone created a drawing of what she may have looked like based on period clothing and any descriptions available.

So far I've found that h/s has done so to Gunhild of Wenden, Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden, Rixa of Werle, Rikissa Birgersdotter and Estrid Svendsdatter. I don't knoe how many other articles, not on my watchlist, have been effected. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a user conduct issue, so a helpme tag is inappropriate. WP:DR may be of use. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the objection here is. People create images for the Wiki all the time. Suggesting that a portrait be created according to historical description and with period and regional clothing to improve an article isn't against any rules as far as I can see. Several historical portraits that are already in the public domain are not drawn from life anyway. I hardly think Boudicca sat for any of the pictures of her that exist. If you find the idea fundamentally objectionable, or if there is some rule against suggesting an image be created that I've overlooked, I'd prefer you simply talk to me about on my talk page directly so we can work it out together, as clearly there has been some level miscommunication. Asarelah (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you were only willing to talk now, after reverting me again and again, and I have very little to add, I've followed the suggestion above by Mdann52talk to me!. We need to get definite advice on this now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The key thing here is WP:OR. a portrait be created according to historical description and with period and regional clothing, made for Wikipedia and exclusively for Wikipedia, is original research. If there is a published depiction somewhere that is under a free licence, then that is acceptable. Creating an image is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on us in this particular bush! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, the suggestion that a Wikipedia editor should draw a portrait of someone based on a description, upload it and add to an article strikes me as a very bad idea (to say the least). I am not even sure how I would feel about an editor drawing a portrait of a living person. Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; and like Serge, I think that this template should only be used if an editor has a particular image in mind, or has reason to suspect that there might be suitable images out there. The best way to encourage someone to find an image, or take a photo, is to leave a note on the talkpage, and tell the reader where and how they can get the image you had in mind.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)