Talk:Iremfrid, son of Ricfrid

Requested move 16 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by page mover) Bradv 01:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Ehrenfried, Count of Toxandria → Count Ehrenfried, son of Ricfrid – There are several Count Ehrenfrieds, but regional ownerships are not simple in this period Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• That does not sound like an improved title. Is this page about a person identifiable as anything other than "son of Ricfrid"? How do we know rector Yrimfredus was a count? I think this page should probably be deleted. I suspect a better way to handle these 9th–11th-century noblemen from the Low Countries, whose relationships are the subject of lots of speculation and disputing, is to make articles on the counties. I tried to do this with County of Huy and County of Moha. —Srnec (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a common idea for a solution on the internet, for example on MEDLANDS, but the problem is that the counties are often just as mysterious in this period as the family connections, or in fact even worse. So you are effectively asserting something to be true which is not known. In this period, reliable sources for not even speak of counties in the same way. There are counts "in" certain areas, not counts "of". Families were still building up their territories, and often held a jigsaw puzzle. People are referred to in documents by whichever lands are relevant to the documents, meaning they can be referred to in a different way in every example. And in answer to your question, everything asserted by Ehrenfried son of Ricfried, every document which might be him, is debatable because there were several Ehrenfrieds at the same time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Well, I think we need to ignore the box above and consider the discussion still open. Clearly this discussion needs more time. I see no-one disagreeing that the current name is wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done. No 'count', because we don't know that. "-frid" to match Ricfrid. Srnec (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Because WP just never stops, I am daring to wonder if he should really be Irimfrid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Article name and structure

Notes for this article. Because such articles don't have many watchers, I intend to start working eventually on my own if there is no feedback. So I'll note my ideas here. Feedback requested.

1. There seems to be no consensus in the literature concerning how many Ehremfrids there were in this period, or in other words, which documentary evidence refers to the same person. If we are to avoid having an article for each document, which would mean all those articles over-lapped (not good) then I think this article has to be explicitly about one or more counts, without taking a position in the various debates?
2. Whether we do that or not it also seems strange to name the article based on a countship of Toxandria, which seems to have no special status as a good anchor point for the article, compared to various other thins we can say about this person or persons based on the secondary literature.
3. Even if we do make this article about "one or more people" (leaving it open how many there are), which seems inevitable, there is nothing wrong with starting with just one of those people as an anchor point. How the article is currently written, it begins with the son of Ricfried, and then all other records about this person should be left as provisionally but not certainly the same person.
4. What should we call this article? If the son of Ricfried is the anchor point, then the one clear reference to him calls him Rector Ehremfried. On the other hand one of the most recent attempts to parse all the Ehremfrieds takes "listige Immo", in other words the Count Immo (short for Ehremfried) who was described by Widukind of Corvey, as the anchor point. Should we be guided by this recent publication and do the same?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
5. While I think we can have a combined article for "several" Ehremfrieds who are quickly likely to be one person, I think the theory equating him to Ansfrid can be mentioned but does not stop us from needing a separate article for Ansfried, given that Ansfried is also a name with a whole literature around it in this period.