Talk:Ingrid Ylva

Ingrid Ylva - a witch?

"Ingrid Ylva was known in her time as a so called white witch". Any claim as exceptional as this has to be clearly attributed and discussed. Which sources contemporaneous with Ingrid Ylva states that she was a witch? What have modern historians had to say about such claims? Olaus (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "witch" is not to be seen as a negative thing in the meaning it was used about her. As the article says; in the 1200s, the word witch had a much different meaning than what is would have in the 1600s, when witches were executed and burnt. The citated source "Häxornas försvarare" (The defender of the witches) by Jan Guillou, a book about the history of witch craft in Sweden, states this. (Here is an excerpt for to those who can read Swedish [[1]].) It is very important to understand, how very different the title "witch" was in her case. It did not have anything to do with the later witch-persecutions, which were unknown in her lifetime and was to take place much later, in the 17th century. The difference is pointed out in the fact, that in the 13th century, Ingrid Ylva was admired for being a "witch", while in the 17th century, she would have ben executed for the same reputation. Ingrid Ylva was not considered a bad person, and her reputation to master magic was ment as a compliment, not as an insult; it was considered a good thing, and she was much admired for this. The legends about her are old; how old, I do not know. It does seem, as she was known for being able to fortold the future in her lifetime, but it is hard to trace to how far back this reputation actually goes. In any case, as they were considered a good thing, they should be from before the 16th century, when magic became associated with the Devil and considered a bad thing. I agree with you, however, that it is important to know if these legends are in fact contemporary, or if they were made up after her death. This could be hard to get information about, as they are few such sources in Sweden in the 13th century. The main thing to understand, I think, is that these legends were not made up as slander, and had nothing to do with the later meaning of the word "witch"; they were ment to honor her. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I now understand that this claim comes from Jan Guillou. If you have access to Guillou's book, could you check if he gives any references to sources? The problem with mediaeval history is that there is so much later legend, speculation and embellishments, and one needs to be careful to reconstruct where the information originates. If this legend, for instance, is known only from some 16th century source, one should state that clearly. Olaus (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i do not own the book by Guillou, so I can't answer that. But it is true that it's hard to confirm what is contemporary and what is later additions, when it comes to this period. I agree with your wiev completely. If it is at all possible to confirm from which period these stories about her originates, it should be stated in the article. And if it can't be confirmed, one could perhaps insert; "It is not known, how much of these legends originates from her own lifetime" in the article. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No action is required - Guillou's book is a source - it does not need to quote any further references itself. And although a valid Wikipedia source, it is not expected that the reader can easily obtain a copy, and so that is not Wikipedia's problem. However, anyone who does have a copy may well remove from this article anything which is not actually supported by the book. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the issue. Jan Guillou is a journalist and a novelist, not a historian. I don't think he would invent a "legend" about Ingrid Ylva being a witch (unless it was for one of his novels), but it would probably not be beyond him to retell what he would consider a good story, even if it is one historians would dismiss as an unreliable fabrication from a much later period than that of the subject of the article. In any case, the book is easily obtained, so that is not really an issue. I'll check it whenever I get around to it. Olaus (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have checked Guillou's book. He gives no specific reference for the story or anything else, but has a one-page list of references at the end of the book. I'll see if I can reconstruct where this originates. Ankarloo may mention the story in one of his books (both Ankarloo's Trolldomsprocesserna i Sverige and an conference volume he edited together with Gustav Henningsen are included in Guiilou's references). Olaus (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is still problematic

The witchhood of Ingrid Ylva is based only on a book by Jan Guillou, a modern journalist/novelist who gives no citation for that claim. The rest of the sources are all complete junk, private genealogy websites and a completely outdated popular book from the 1860s that really cannot reasonably be used as a source for anything. This article needs desperate improvement or deletion. Olaus (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 3 links to personal websites. I agree, this article is problematic. I will probably nominated it for deletion if no one can find decent sources. Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meant to ask, what does this say and what is it? [2] Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To nominate the entire article for deletion because some of the information in it is questioned, is hasty, and hardly the right thing to do- nor according to wikipedia's rules either, I would think. As for the question about her alleged rumour as a white witch, about her being able to fortold the future, and about her relation to the bell tower, that is old legends worth to mention, wether they are true or not. I won't meddle with that, as I (unfortunately), can't give a specific source, but I do hope that someone will reference it further, if the source are doubted merely because the author is not a historian. I myself have read about them long before Jan Guillou's book was published- that's typicall folklore legends, which I am positive are mentioned in older sources- for example in the history of the church in question? Oh, and as to your question; the link you ask about, is from an encyclopedia from the 1860s. It mentiones both mythical legends and actual facts about historical people. The fact that it is mentioned in a book from the 1860s, prooves that it is an old legend, don't you agree?. As a legend, it should be there, wether true or not; legends about people are valid to mention in their articles. Everyone is free to have doubts about sources, but as long as there is a source, wether it is doubted by some or not, the information should stand. It would probably be best to leave this to those who truly know what is true or not. Obviously, non of us here do. My best wishes!--85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, why not nominate it? Perhaps that could solwe the matter. I'ts very drastic to nominate it for such reasons, so it probably won't be, and then you could relax and leave this to others. And if it is deleted, then the matter would be solwed (in a swept-under the-carpet way) also. Im fine with either one, so I support a nomination for deletion. Either way, good luck! --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Being mentioned in an 1860s encyclopedia by no means proves it is an old legend. If it is a legend, great, but we need something that gives it some sort of date as to when it was first written down and some details as to what the legend said at that time. Doug Weller (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All the information about her that can be found in the Swedish biographical dictionary Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon is genealogical: Ingrid ylva has no article of her own but is mentioned in the article "Folkungaätten", on the Folkunga family into which she was married. According to that article, authored by Dr Hans Gillingstam (a historian who is an authority in this area), Ingrid ylva (that seems to be the full name, as far as we know) was married to Magnus minnesköld and had a few children, including Birger jarl. As Birger jarl had an apparently considerably younger brother named Elof, mentioned only twice in contemporary sources, whose descendant used a different coat of arms from that used by the Folkunga family, it is likely that Ingrid ylva was married a second time, but nothing else is known about this second husband.

Some of the evidence, as you see, is circumstantial. For this early a period in Swedish history, that is often the case, and few things can be stated as facts. We hardly ever know when people were born, often not even when they died. Even with people like this, who belonged to the top echelon of society, much tends to be unknown. Historians writing biographies tend to state things with a lot of caveats and in circumlocutory fashion, as "was of an adult age in 1296 based on sealing a document on such-and-such a date", "mentioned as being alive on such-and-such a date but as dead on such-and-such a [sometimes considerably later] date". It doesn't result in the best prose, but there are good reasons for this. (Enthusiastic amateur genealogists often simplify these things, add stuff from some older printed source they thought was missing, but which had actually long been rejected as unhistorical, and distribute it on their websites, where it gets picked up by other genealogists who enters it into their databases, distorting it even more in the process. Then they put their "research" on-line. Et cetera.)

Since the late 19th century Swedish historians have critically evaluated and rejected many things that were previously accepted as history. The author of the 1860s source, Anteckningar om svenska qvinnor ("Notes on Swedish women"), Wilhelmina Stålberg, lived before this process really started, and she was not even a historian but a novelist and author of historical romances and such things. Her stated aim with the book was to write what we would call "women's history" in an emancipatory context. Her agenda dictated that she found as much interesting stuff as possible to say about her female article subjects, and she can hardly be expected to have made any kind of critical evaluation of any historical sources, let alone mediaeval ones.

Guillou has an agenda of his own with his book on witch hunts: to show the similarity between the naïve belief in the testimony of children in the 17th century, which caused the death of hundreds of people, and the view propagated by some child psychologists today about how children can never lie, and how this has caused "witch hunts" against alleged paedophiles, panic about systematic abuse of children by possibly imaginary Satanist cults, and so on. In the book, Guillou attacks Eva Lundgren, a controversial Norwegian-Swedish feminist theologian and sociologist, who has been accused of making claims of this kind. The reason he mentions Ingrid ylva and the legend (or whatever it is) about her in the beginning of the book, is to show how social status insulates against such persecution (or at least how it did so back then). He makes no attempt to discuss the origin of the claim and gives no citation. He wants to make a point in passing, but it is not really in his interest to question the veracity of the story.

I am not categorically against including legendary material in a article on a historical person, provided a clear difference is made between what is historical and what is not (this article seems, on the contrary, to intentionally confuse these things). But the article needs to clarify when, where and how these "legends" are first attested, and it has to discuss their historical context and development. All with references to authoritative academic sources, of course. If any of this is old, I would expect some historian to have debunked it and perhaps some folklorist to have written about it somewhere. But it should be the burden of the person who wants to introduce something in an article to find the good, reliable references for that something.

As for deletion or not, I think the best solution should be to redirect this page to that of the Folkunga family or dynasty (the article is located at House of Bjelbo, which can probably be questioned, but that is a different matter), and to move all the legendary material to the talk page as a reminder to find better sources, if any exist. As the mother of Birger jarl, Ingrid ylva is well-known enough that someone may look for her, but if all we can say based on good sources is what Gillingstam states in his article in SBL, there is no point in having that in an article of its own. Olaus (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could also be something to include in a future delete-discussion[[3]]; Wikipedia does not have a deadline regarding references. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)