Talk:Ragnar Lodbrok

Infobox fact or fiction?
Is an infobox supposed to have facts? If so we are in big trouble here with offspring and children given according to old fantasy tales and new TV fiction, including a wife called Lady Gertha or someting like that (wide variety of her fictitios names apparently), who probably never existed at all. Anyone mind if I take an ax to some of that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed it now (see edit summary). If any infobox is used, it should be "infobox character" like the one used for Donald Duck. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Infobox royalty" is definitely inappropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The name of the infobox is irrelevant. We could use Infobox television for a movie, if it suited the article better. Much like we can use Infobox royalty for a historical character, if it suited the article better. If there is any fictitious material, then that should be removed, but all material supported by the article can and should remain. (I'll also reiterate this here: If your bold edit has been reverted, then you need to keep the status quo and gain a consensus on the talk page before reinstating any of the disputed content, else you may find yourself edit-warring.) --  Alex TW 00:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a historical character according to any reliable source. If that is known here, why reinstate Infobox royalty? I would not object to Infobox television, though this character of fiction has been known long before there was television. Infobox character would be better. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I opened this discussion January 12th. It was completely ignored until I removed an infobox which is inappropriate here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because I don't follow this page, and only just came across it. Despite anyone's personal beliefs, the article presents Ragnar Lodbrok as a historical person. The Infobox television suggestion was given only as an example in relation to a film, not for this article; sorry, I thought that was obvious. My point was that the infobox used is irrelevant - if this particular template presents the article better, then we use it; it does not in anyway claim that he actually was royalty. --  Alex TW 07:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Templates should be used for what they are intended to be. And if the article "presents Ragnar Lodbrok as a historical person" that's wrong. We do not know that he was. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The questions here are:
 * 1) should Infobox royalty be used for a fictional person, and
 * 2) should the infobox, if any is used at all, list children & wives as if those entries are facts? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I guess you could look at the infoboxes used in for example game of thrones characters. Infobox character and add them to the legendary Kings of the house of Munsö then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.34.13 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I support removing the infobox. The legend of Ragnarr loðbrók is made up of numerous stories that are many times incompatible. Some refer to a man named Ragnarr loðbrók (first specifically attested in the twelfth century), many merely refer to a person named Loðbrók. These accounts accord this figure different wives and different children. For example, although one source may assign RL/L a particular wife and child, another may assign him different family members (or may assign different mothers to some of the same children). Some sources state that RL/L died in East Anglia, some state that he died in Northumbria. Some state that he was killed by King Ella, some state that he was killed by Bjǫrn. Other sources state that Bjǫrn was one of RL/L's sons. Some sources have RL/L's sons invade Northumbria because of RL/L's death, others have the sons invade East Anglia because of their jealousy towards King Edmund, others have RL/L's sons invade Northumbria because of King Osbert's rape of Bjǫrn's wife. It goes on and on like this.


 * We shouldn't be cherry-picking names and relationships, and we shouldn't be combining these together and portraying them as historical. Instead, I think we should follow the example of the article on King Arthur, and just forget the infobox. It doesn't work for a topic like this. I think we should be more concerned with the presentation of the stories/sources that make up the legend.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed. This info box needs to go. Info boxes are great for car models, but not complex figures from the folklore record. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources and nonsense
a fringe opinion of one woman does not constitute a new precedent in academia. His children, for example, didn't sprout out of the ground.. their father isn't "supposed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truculentt (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ragnar is a legendary chracter who may have had those sons. Pls don't try to make him a person of history! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't. I've simply removed ambiguous references.Truculentt (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep WP:BRD in mind. When changing an article from a long-standing version, if you get reverted you should not restore your preferred version again but rather discuss, as is now happening, here on the talk page. I’m not sure where I stand on this editorially but I do know that edit warring is not how we resolve editorial disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Going through the page and talk history, it doesn't look like we resolve disputes at all. It looks like some mods and admins just hard-nose their unfounded bias because reasons. Only on Wikipedia does ambiguity exist about the person in question. Truculentt (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Muslim?
That's a hoax, right? Veery funny. However, I'm not sure what the sentence was before that (on mobile), so can pls someone undo that? Right in the introduction. Mike F2 Mike F (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  General Ization Talk  03:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In favor of "succession"
I posted this elsewhere but i will now post it here. SergeWoodzing has removed succession from all the prehistoric kings just with no real reasoning. He takes the highhorse position and says he has the authority to to do so and doesn't elaborate as to why, just that it "is silly".

By that logic literally all the other legendary kings of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would have to be edited as well as ALL legendary kings of Europe, good luck getting that done. Eysteinn Beli and so forth all have this form of succession. It's just to provide a easier understanding of the supposed timeline. Henceforth why it says "legendary title". Not normal kingship. This is incredibly petty and silly. There was kings in Scandinavia long before it there were united countries, it almost feels like you're trying to erase that fact.

SergeWoodzing's fixation on trying to remove the concept of succession from the protohistoric discussion just isn't right. I have stated that there is a difference between normal kingship and legendary such. The ones that are featured on the pages where we have collided are not as part of the normal Swedish monarch tradition of succession as it's clearly shown to be part of the "legendary" prehistoric discussion hence why it's called "legendary title" when it comes to succession. By your logic you would literally have to go to every single legendary monarch page in Europe and remove all forms of succession from the legendary discussion.

You cannot shape the narrative of history just because you don't like it, that has nothing to do with warring. Stating that it would be warring is just trying to prevent other people from getting their opinions as to yours into the discussion. There was always a form of succession to these pages before you came along and no offense I'm not sure what your motive is as you aren't exactly elaborating. I won't undo what you've done further since i know you'll just throw a fit and i don't hate time for that, life is too short and Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Next time try to raise the discussion to a bit higher level instead of just getting mad and crying about me "warring" when you don't get as you want. It's childish and immature. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To other users: This has been copied and pasted at 4 different discussions. See Talk:Sigurd Ring. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire?
There wasn't a Holy Roman Empire before the 12th century! Frederic I. Barbarossa was the first ruler, who named his empire to be 'holy' because he struggled for supremacy over the papal demands for worldly power. Ragnar raided parts of the Frankish realms (or western parts of the Frankish Empire).2A02:8071:2CD1:4200:952A:B642:60DC:6C94 (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Rollback
I just rolled back 2 new unsourced edits where Ragnar was portrayed in a definite manner. Writing to editor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * And I just restored the stable version, because such claims need strong sourcing. TylerBurden (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)