Talk:Harald Bluetooth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I have a vague memory of Harald Bluetooth being the first Christian king of Norway. Same guy, different guy, or am i just remembering wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.81.xxx (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2001 (UTC)[reply]

"Gyrid Olafsson" seems a most unlikely name for a woman at the time - it means "Olaf's son". Is there contemporary evidence for the name?
S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.176 (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2002 (UTC)[reply]

According to some sources, Harold Blatand had a chronic dental condition which caused the discoloration of his tooth (teeth ?). Can anyone confirm this information?

It is possible, but I think it is folklore. Another possibility I've heard, is that his name is actually misspelled (I have this from a Danish book, of somewhat questionable character): "Tand" is actually supposed to be spelled "than", which is a title, equivalent of a duke. "Blå" was supposed to have been blod (the Danish word for blood), or blot, and so his name should have been Harald Blottan - a "blodhertug" (Blood Duke) or "offerhertug" (Duke of Sacrifice), because he sacrificed the old nordic gods, and made Christianity the national religion of Denmark. --Niffux 12:53, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Blå Tand" means Blue (Blå) Tooth (Tand)

Tand is just the modern Danish spelling of Old Norse 'tönn'. Trying to reinterpret the meaning of his name based upon a modern spelling of it is simply ignorance on your part - of Old Norse, Modern Danish, and linguistic evolutionary processes. BodvarBjarki (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrithe Olafsson[edit]

I believe that it should read Gyrithe Olafsdatter (or Olafsdotter) since she is female. Although I'm not an expert in this, in my family tree I have her listed as the daughter of Olof Bjornsson.

'Datter' would be modern Danish, whereas 'Dottir' would be the Old Norse. She would correctly be Olafsdottir. I'll edit the article to reflect this, it seems like the original writer wasn't fully aware of Old Norse patronymic conventions. BodvarBjarki (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy - Bluetooth wireless specification[edit]

"The Bluetooth logo consists of the Nordic runes for his initials, H and B." Image:Bluetooth-logo.svg (click the link to see the image. It may not be displayed on talk pages due to Wikipedia's copyright policy)

This symbol is not the combination of hagall (H) and bjarkan (B). It is the combination of gipt (G) and bjarkan (B).

kiawin: It is stated clearly of the logo runic description in Bluetooth SIG website.

That link is broken. The Bluetooth website itself does not seem to make any mention to that. When was that link last accessed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:B00:3FF:317E:B15A:F29:76 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Danish Futhork runes
If it helps, the page Runic alphabet shows several variant Runic alphabets, with many different forms of the H-rune (or many different runes labelled as corresponding to H, depending on your perspective). About half-way down is this image which seems to support the claim in the article. Maybe the article needs wording in a more circumspect fashion. (Disclaimer: not a rune expert, just trying to help.) Andrew Kepert 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he called "Bluetooth"? Heard some legend about his habit of munching on berries that stained his teeth blue.

Unlikely. The popular interpretation says that he had a dead tooth. A second opinion is listed further up this page.
The page quoted clearly states that the runes used are H and B.[1]. It is the younger futhark alphabet, and the logo is composed of half an H and a complete B. The younger futhark alphabet is the most known rune alphabet in Denmark, since the Jelling stones - often referred to in Denmark as Denmark's birth certificate - use this alphabet.Valentinian T / C 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was nicknamed "Bluetooth" due to his role in developing the Bluetooth wireless standard. Xkcd says so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Harald[edit]

Why in this article is his name spelt 'Harold'? In fact the page is inconsistent, it is spelt both 'Harald' and 'Harold'. The article is linked to in most places as 'Harald', so I think this should be used. That and the fact that it is the correct spelling.

You are right. The title of this article should be Harald I of Denmark, and Harold I of Denmark should be redirected there. If there are no protests until next time I read this article, I will take this as a yes, and venture to change it so.DanielDemaret 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do it. --194.47.143.5 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one really annoyed me. Page moved. Valentinian (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Harald[edit]

I seem to remember reading in a book written by Robert Hardy, entitled "Longbow" about Harald Bluetooth's death. From what I remember he died by being shot with an arrow up the backside by warming himself over a fire.

I do not have a copy of this book but if it can be confirmed then it would be a "nice!" addition

--Peter

It is mostly down to anglo-saxons at the time feeling sour from their losses.... it does not hurt ones pride too much if you can succesfully ridicule your "nemesis"..... Infact he is more likely, in my oppinion, to have died in the civil war that was initiated by his own son (Svein/Sven Forkbeard/Tveskæg)....

--Lasse

Actually the story is that Harald had gone to the bushes to relieve himself. When he bends down he is shot by an arrow directly in his behind. It derives from Saxo, but is nothing but a "good story".

SaxoX 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's from the Jomsvíkinga saga - but it is still a good story... ;o) --dllu 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and conflicting views[edit]

Thyra a supposed daughter of Harald Klak: Harald Klak died around 850, so Thyra should be at least 80, when she gave birth to Harald?!

Although Harald's predecessors had adopted Christianity at the instigation of the Frankish Carolingian kings in 826: Yes, Harald Klak did, but he had no reign in Denmark at that time and was baptized in hope of making himself an ally in the battle for the throne of Denmark. A battle he never won.

His mother may have implanted in the boy the first seeds of Christianity which his father, a devout servant of the Norse god Odin: This is clear speculation.

It was not until 935 that Christian missionaries had a major breakthrough in the Christianization of Denmark. At this time the Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, Unni received Harald’s permission to begin preaching across Denmark, even though Harald was not yet the king: Probably not the same Harald; certainly not if he was born around 935 as stated earlier. There is much dispute about this source. See below* The major breakthrough seems to be the convertion of Harald around 965.

As early as 948 sees were established with German missionary bishops in Denmark at Hedeby, Ribe and Aarhus: But these bishops probably never attented Denmark and never had a church in these cities. Their appointment was most likely a part of church politics for the Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen.

Christian houses of worship were also built in many other places during Harald's reign; in these German and Danish priests preached the gospel of the crucified and risen Saviour.: What are the sources? I have studied the Christianization of Denmark a lot and this "fact" is new to me.

Although baptized, Svend joined forces with Palnatoke, the most powerful chieftain on Funen, who lead the heathen party. The fortunes of war varied for a time, but finally Harald was slain on 1 November, 985 or 986: Whether or not there was a heathen uprising has been much disputed. There is no certaincy in this.

His father's invasion of Friesland in 934 involved him in war with the German Holy Roman Emperor, Henry I. Having been vanquished, he was forced to restore the churches which he had demolished as well as to grant toleration to his Christian subjects, and he died one year later, bequeathing his throne to Harald.: *The source is Adam of Bremen. He mentions a king named Chnuba. This king often mistaken for Gorm, the father of Harald. Gorm's grave in Jelling is dated to 958.

He died 1 November, 985 or 986. His remains were buried in the cathedral at Roskilde, where his bones are still preserved, walled up in one of the pillars of the choir 1) The Cathedral in Roskilde was build around 1175. 2) As shown by Niels Lund in "Harald Blåtands død" (The Death of Harald Bluetooth) Harald probably did not die before 987, he died in Jumne in modern day Poland and was presumably buried there. He was married to the daughter of Mistovoi, the king of the Obodrites.

In generel this article consists of two conflicting views. The blind trust in the writing of Adam of Bremen, who claims that Harald was king in 50 years, and the modern historical view, that hardly believe in Adam as a source for the reign of Harald, and states that Harald became king around 958. This view is build on Widukind and the archaeological sources. Much of this article should be rewritten!

SaxoX 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including this paragraph:
His father's invasion of Friesland in 934 involved him in war with the German Holy Roman Emperor, Henry I. Having been vanquished, he was forced to restore the churches which he had demolished as well as to grant toleration to his Christian subjects, and he died one year later, bequeathing his throne to Harald. Bishop Unni of Bremen, accompanied by Benedictine monks from the Abbey of Corvey, preached the gospel in Jylland (Jutland) and the Danish isles, and soon won the confidence of the young ruler, although he did not succeed in persuading him to receive baptism. Harald sought to shut the Germans out of his kingdom by strengthening the "Danawirk"–a series of ramparts and fortifications that existed until the latter half of the nineteenth century.
- which I removed because it is completely unfounded. --dllu 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. It is confusing and I think tha in general, most of the article needs an overhaul and restructuring. I added a 'more refrences' tag, but it really needs some rewriting, too. EaCalendula (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the text on the conversion of Harald Bluetooth to note Adam of Bremen's fictionalisation of this event. The rest of the article needs to be cleaned up to match actual historical research as well, but I am no expert on this. *jb (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gormson?[edit]

Are there any historical sources that uses the surname Gormson of Harald I? Mossig (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is several sources naming him Gormson, but I can not point them out at this moment. But naturally he would have been giving the name of his father as surname, as it was tradition in those days and still is in some countries; Iceland etc. SaxoX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaxoX (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really at that time? I know that there is at least one rune inscription where he is named "Gorms son", as in two separate words. I was under the impression that the use of surnames as in "Gormson" is of a later date. Mossig (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danes, like other Scandinavians, did not have family names, but used patronymics. Harald I is actually much more widely referred to by historians by his nickname "Bluetooth", just as his son would be called Svein Forkbeard. But his great-grandson, also Svein, is usually known as Svein Estridsson (after his mother, as hers was the royal line) or sometimes Svein Ulfsson. (You'll notice that spellings are all over the place - it depends on which variant you get. There is no "right" way to spell any of these names - just an English or a Danish or a Norwegian or an Old Norse...) But it's definitely correct to refer to Harald Bluetooth as Harald Gormson or Gormsson. It's his patronymic. But, of course, because it isn't a "surname" (more properly referred to as a family name for clarity), his son Svein Forkbeard would never be called Svein Gormsson, but Svein Haraldsson. *jb (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Gorm is blue in Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:193D:3E91:C30C:53CF (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism[edit]

It is said that a missionary receives permission to preach from Harald in 935. That was the year Harald was born -- and about 25 years before he was baptized. Quite a precocious little tyke.---12.187.142.66 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth?[edit]

Is there a possibility that harald Bluetooth came not from a dental disease or whatnot but from this :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0203_060203_viking_teeth.html

Since many "nobles" or members of fighting groups and merchants would file their teeth for a reason (aesthetical, victory marks, etc), it may point to the fact that he did have pigmented filed teeth instead of a disease... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.69.245 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles indicate that Vikings also painted their teeth, most often with red resin, but blue paint (possibly from copper sulfate) may have been unique and notable enough to give him his nickname.Landroo (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cnut family tree[edit]

Should {{Canute tree}} be added to the marriages and children section, or is it too tangential, referring to the descendants of only one of Bluetooth's progeny? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move[edit]

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 moved per discussion below. Nice use of "modus tollens", too. - GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Harald I of Denmark → Harald Bluetooth — It seems like this was what he was mainly known as and all Danish monarchs before Sweyn II, with the exception of Harald II of Denmark, seems to be under their nicknames: see Sweyn Forkbeard, Gorm the Old, and Cnut the Great.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : numerals are always the clearest way to name kings and lead to maximal identifiability and much less confusion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The most common name is still Harald Bluetooth and it would make the Danish kings prior to Sweyn II more consistent, under there nicknames instead of their regnal numbers. A search for scholarly sources on Google Books gets me 24 hits for "Harald I of Denmark", 5000 hits for "Harald Bluetooth", [3,110 hits] for "Harald Bluetooth" -I, and there is 9,570 hits for "Harald I" which some actually refer to Harald I of Norway.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He's usually (or more commonly) called "Harald Bluetooth" in reliable scholarly sources, and in the move appears, in this particular case, to be consistent with similar articles. The proposed target meets all 5 requirements of WP:AT. DrKiernan (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, common and most recognizable name, and entirely consistent with our monarch article naming practices.--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per QE2LS, DrK and Kotniski. Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it should remain consistant with the other Danish monarch articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not consistant with Sweyn Forkbeard, Gorm the Old, and Cnut the Great.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be RM's to Monarch # of country GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And "Cnut" should be Canute!SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem logical, if this move fails, and modus tollens if these moves are not to be proposed, then the arguments so far against this move become unsupportable. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Evidence above indicates that Harald Bluetooth is the common name, as one would expect - bynames and patronyms of this area and period are generally used rather than the more formal style, both at the time and presently, both commonly and academically. The argument for consistency cuts both ways: The articles on his immediate predecessor and successor both use their bynames as the article titles. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User:Andrewa puts it well. See also my comment to SergeWoodzing above. I'd like to add that the guideline is to help disambiguate when two subjects sovereigns share the same name, not an absolute policy set in stone to be obeyed no matter what. Thus, Queen Victoria. There is no other Harald Bluetooth, and therefore no need to apply a formal standard. walk victor falk talk 06:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

I have to write here, that new research has shown, who baptised Harald Bluetoth, and it was a guy from Cologne. Will be back with details a.s.a.p. Jan Eskildsen87.57.196.63 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Harald's nickname[edit]

It's quite possible that instead of from rotted teeth or a tooth disease, Haraldr may have been called bluetooth for body modifications he made to his teeth. Viking Age remains (including from this time period) occasionally turn up teeth with deep grooves carved into them -- these grooves may have also been stained with dye. 68.1.172.2 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mash up of Gunhild and Gyrid?[edit]

In his well thought of work at the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Charles Cawley offers that Harald had three wives, the first being Gunhild (unknown parents) and the third being Gyrid Olafsdottir. He also indicates that most - if not all - of the children were born of the FIRST wife. See:

Cawley, Charles, Profile of Harald Bluetooth, Medieval Lands database, Foundation for Medieval Genealogy

The current content of this page indicates Gyrid as the FIRST of two wives. Sort of looks like a mash-up of Gyrid and Gunhild. Any Norse scholars out there want to comment? --Jrm03063 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FMG is serving as web host for a project of broad scope that has undoubtedly involved the compilation of a whole lot of material, but it is still the product of one individual who has no claim to expertise (as Wikipedia defines it), and with no scholarly peer review or other editorial fact-checking by experts - his site is thus not a reliable source (again, as Wikipedia defines it), just a personal web site. The account in this article does follow the sagas a bit too closely for my taste, but a broad survey of the scholarly literature is necessary to determine the consensus among the experts, and that is what this article should reflect, not what amounts to just one man's opinion. Agricolae (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the call for Norse Scholars and appearance of the observation here and not on the page proper. Anyone interested in that information will find this objective discrepancy very important and disturbing. It should be run to ground. --75.67.43.221 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that FMG is not a reliable source. If you use the citations and sources he use, you'll see that history does refer to three wives. The order and dates he puts in brackets are his own original research base on these sources, but the fact is that the sources do refer to three different women. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is not FMG that is of questionable reliability - it is the Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database, which happens to be hosted on the FGM website even though FGM takes no position on the accuracy of the information. Second, it absolutely matters that the Medieval Lands database is not a reliable source. Three primary sources can be interpreted as referring to women married to Harald, but that is not the same as there being a consensus among modern historians that Harald married three women. An expert analysis of the relative reliability of the sources is necessary, and WP:NOR prevents us from making such a synthesis ourselves, so we must use secondary sources and the secondary sources we use should be reliable ones. Yes, it matters. Agricolae (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merely reiterating primary source is not original research, as long as you don't make any claims or opinions base on it. I don't see any problem in saying that "Adam of Bremen names Gunhild as wife of King Harald" or "Gyrid of Sweden is mentioned as the wife of Harald in Saxo Grammaticus" or "the Sønder Vissing Runestone names Tove of the Obotrites as another wife of Harald". Stating who the primary sources call the wives of Harald is okay, stating their order or dates or commonality is not okay. It is much worse to just simply exclude one of the three women and not even mention her at all. Finding a reliable secondary source to clear this all up is great, but unless someone finds one that accounts for all three women and the discrepancies between the different sources (ie. two of the names may be the same person, etc), it seems more appropriate to list them all. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." (see WP:PRIMARY). The problem is that there are primary sources that modern scholars consider to be inaccurate, and including them among those considered accurate without indicating the scholarly view is giving them undue weight. Specifically, Saxo is not considered as reliable as Adam, and to just give what the two say implies equivalence of accuracy. Likewise, no primary source states that Tove of the Obotrites was another wife of Harold. It says (if Cawley is to be believed) Tufa let gera kuml, Mistiuis do´tter,ept Mo´thur sina.Kona Haralds hins Goda,Gorms sonar (or actually not even that, as it is in runes). That is the primary source. To first translate it, then to decide what it must mean, and to whom it must refer, and then to summarize this self-generated understanding, that is interpretation, Original Research. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great - it matters - I commend Agricolae on his detailed knowledge of WP source requirements. However, the original and actual problem, and the reason it appears on the talk page, is because we have a serious content discrepancy that should give us pause. We need to find a way to either eliminate the discrepancy based on WP-accepted source material - or to at least find some acceptable sources that allow us to take formal note of potentially different interpretations. The Emperor's New Spy offers that we should be able to make direct use of Mr Cawley's factual findings. That would certainly satisfy me - but perhaps that is not necessary. I doubt that Mr Cawley's presentation is novel. My post was a solicitation for materials - that I expect exist - perhaps in a Scandinavian language - that allow us to present something a little more up to date than what was produced by the Vatican early in the last century. Only if we fail to find alternatives - will it be necessary for one of us to go examine translations of "Adam of Bremen" or whatever else Mr Cawley cites. Now - does someone have something actually relevant or helpful in this regard? --Jrm03063 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if it's a content discrepancy with an unreliable source, it's not an actual problem. Giving one more-reliable source for some of the article, the surroundings then look inferior, which brings the rest of the article forward. Being concerned with the current article quality makes you the best person to find that first source. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on - I can't read Swedish - but it looks like WP variant (section labeled "Giftermål och barn") has managed to indicate both Gyrid and Gunhild. Any Swedish speakers who can explain that section for us? --Jrm03063 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian WP has three wives in the infobox. I looked at Danish and it seemed like the content for Sweden. --Jrm03063 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be the devil's advocate here and said that the people on the Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish wikipedias probably just used the Medieval Land site and just didn't cite it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Still, it would be odd if Mr. Cawley's 3-spouse (or at least potentially 3) interpretation were strictly novel to his work. While the time period is remote, we're not talking about someone who was a relatively unimportant low-level noble. I have to believe that there's a published historical work - perhaps written in a scandinavian language only - that would support this. I want to think this is a case of finding someone with real subject matter knowledge - who will know the academically respected published works. --Jrm03063 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see less evidence for Gyritha, the mash up might be between Gunhild and Tove, as shown in
This one names Gunhild as the second wife of Harald which muddles thing much more.
The best thing would be for a knowledgable editor to get the articles on the wives of Harald Bluetototh and even Sweyn Forkbeard (since the same situation exist of their identity and who were the mother(s) of his sons Cnut and Harald) up to standard and discuss what modern scholars think on the issue. User:Thhist really knows a lot about this and write many good articles on the subject of Scandinavian history while distinguishing saga/primary sources and modern secondary sources, but his main focus seems to be Norway rather than Denmark. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most extensive discussion concerning Harald's wives that I found is this archived post on a genealogy site: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives. The post can obviously not be used as a reference or reliable source, but it seems acceptable for informal research (although it is extremely detailed; I had trouble reading through it). Otherwise, Dansk biografisk leksikon only gives to wives: "1. Gunhild c. 965", and "2. Tove c. 970, daugther of the Obodrite king Mistivoj" (Harald Blåtand). To sum up, it seems to be a very complicated issue that has potential for numerous interpretations (this Danish forum-post Harald Blåtands børn - Hvem er mor? give an example of how various amateur genealogy sites gives radically different answers to wives/children). Thhist (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Poppa" or "Poppo"[edit]

Was he converted by "Poppa" or "Poppo", or is this the same name written different in different sources? 82.212.59.114 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, different spellings. Agricolae (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latest source link from Bluetooth wireless spec story[edit]

https://www.bluetooth.com/about-us/bluetooth-origin/

The story behind how Bluetooth® technology got its name

We all recognize the “Bluetooth” brand, but we take for granted its significance and how much it impacts our lives. From smartphones to headphones and beyond, we rely on Bluetooth technology to free us from the tether of wired tech.

The Man Behind the Tooth

For how innovative the technology, the name doesn’t sound techie. It’s not an acronym and doesn’t stand for anything. So what does it mean?

Surprisingly, the name dates back more than a millennia to King Harald “Bluetooth” Gormsson who was well known for two things:

Uniting Denmark and Norway in 958. His dead tooth, which was a dark blue/grey color, and earned him the nickname Bluetooth.

Code for Collaboration

In 1996, three industry leaders, Intel, Ericsson, and Nokia, met to plan the standardization of this short-range radio technology to support connectivity and collaboration between different products and industries.

During this meeting, Jim Kardach from Intel suggested Bluetooth as a temporary code name. Kardach was later quoted as saying, “King Harald Bluetooth…was famous for uniting Scandinavia just as we intended to unite the PC and cellular industries with a short-range wireless link.”

Bluetooth was only intended as a placeholder until marketing could come up with something really cool.

The One and Only

Later, when it came time to select a serious name, Bluetooth was to be replaced with either RadioWire or PAN (Personal Area Networking). PAN was the front runner, but an exhaustive search discovered it already had tens of thousands of hits throughout the internet.

A full trademark search on RadioWire couldn’t be completed in time for launch, making Bluetooth the only choice. The name caught on fast and before it could be changed, it spread throughout the industry, becoming synonymous with short-range wireless technology.

The ‘initial’ Bluetooth Logo

The Bluetooth logo is a bind rune merging the Younger Futhark runes (Hagall) (ᚼ) and (Bjarkan) (ᛒ), Harald’s initials. Adam 19:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom888 (talk • contribs)

This connection is already established on the article. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harald_Bluetooth&oldid=1193944583"