Talk:Olaf II of Norway

Untitled

There is a wrong wikilink here "to win back the kingdom after Knut the Great's vassal Håkon Jarl was lost at sea" The grandson of this Jarl is meant here. I dont know if there is an article about him in English. It is at least in Norwegian.

Olaf vs. Olav

You NEED to pick one and stick to it in this article. "Olav" is suddenly used as a section header name and then within that section without any prior reference. Very confusing. Moncrief 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All the Olavs are with v not f in Norway. Inge 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you either need to change the whole article to "v" or keep it all "f." The point is you can't change the spelling of the subject of the article halfway through without explanation. It's called standardization and it's expected in all articles. Moncrief 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, in England his name is spelled Olaf. Besides the ON spell was Óláfr, the English spelling is therefore closer to his actual name, and pronunciation, than the modern Norwegian form. DDH89 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence points to Olave being the traditional spelling in English (English spelling convention follows a v with e in a word ending, unless directly adopting a foreign word in modern usage). The churches of medieval foundation in England dedicated to the saint, before 1055 in the case of St Olave's in York, are invariably spelt in this way. Is there evidence of spelling with an 'f' in English before the nineteenth century, when this spelling was probably preferred because it followed the then common Nordic spelling convention? The point is recognised in the paragraph on the English churches but the article heading and box should acknowledge the alternative spellings. It isn't a case of the different spellings being right or wrong even though there is a need for consistency in the body of the article.AJHingston (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The map is wrong

According to the map was Jämtland a part of Olav's realm. This is incorrect since he made two failed attempts to collect taxes from Jämtland. The population there preferred to pay their taxes to Sweden and killed the Norwegian tax collectors. See Heimskringla, Olav the Holy's saga chapter 63 and 141.

Incorrect. Jamtland ruled themselves at first, but as it grew it became more and more interesting for both Swedish and Norwegian kings. Both countries tried to gain controll and while Sweden failed, Norway suceeded. 155.55.60.110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The map is still wrong. Iceland, Orkneys, Man etc were parts of Norway at that time.St.Trond (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible citation for statement under "Christianisation"

There is a Citation needed for the statement, "Olaf is generally held to be the driving force behind Norway's final conversion to Christianity."

Professor Kenneth W. Harl, in his series "The Vikings" for the Teaching Company says this, "But far more important was his defeat at Stiklestad which is seen as a great Christian martyrdom. And from that point on there is no way Norway is ever going to go to the pagan cults and traditions. To be sure, many Norweagens continue to worship the old gods, but henceforth Christianity is the religion of the court. They have their own royal saint. It is the legitimate, the only legitimate religion in Norway and and associated with this only legitimate family."

This can be found in the last two minutes of the thirty-second lecture in the series "The Vikings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogus (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive and messy

I think that the present article is very compact, and thus also messy and difficult to read. Should there be more space in the article, and especially between the sections? Is it perhaps good if also all images are placed on the article's right side?--- Aaemn784 (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The table of contents was 'compacted' with a special template, which I've just removed. I think removing it may have helped a bit. Maybe a few of the images can be spread evenly throughout the article too. It's not a good thing to have two images opposite each other with text squished in the middle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article looks improved already. I will try to fix the images, be it by giving them identical sizes. Thanks.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)