User talk:AudunNilsen

December 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Why, indeed. Let's go through the ropes.

The page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok

The rule in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The latest undos

Revision as of 08:24, 4 December 2014 (edit) AudunNilsen (talk | contribs) (You have failed to demonstrate why these two sources are not credible or shown how I am pushing irrelevant information. Give all the facts and let people form their own opinion!) ← Previous edit

Revision as of 11:33, 4 December 2014 (edit) (undo) Sandstein (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 636578626 by AudunNilsen (talk), original research because no source is provided to link this person to Ragnar Lodbrok) Next edit →

The text

History repeating?
−		 −	Another contender for originating the myth, is the older Ragnachar who died in 509, or Ragnarius, as he appears in the historical record of Gregory of Tours, 538-594, and Hincmar, 806-882. He was a Frankish king who lived in the very north of Francia. When the man who's line would later come to rule all of Francia, Clovis, converted to Christianity, half of his escort left to join with his relative, Ragnachar. Not much is known about him besides this, but there was placed an emphasis on his wantonness. Immediately following this, the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England began. Spuriously, he died in 509, only a decade or two after one historian places the famed Siege of Mount Badon, in which at least two, much later, sources claim king Arthur participated.

Accusation

Ragnachar = original research[edit]

An anonymous user (193.212.189.197) keeps inserting a subsection titled "History repeating?" in which (s)he claims that Ragnar Lodbrok could be the same person as the Merovingian era minor king Ragnachar, at the same time tying it with the Arthurian legend. However not a single source to backup this claim is ever given. This is clearly original research and personal opinion by the anonymous editor and thus violates WP:NOR. Either properly source it or desist. As long as no reputable source tying the two persons together is given, I'll keep reverting these changes. -- fdewaele, 27 November 2014, 11:50 CET.

Rebuttal

I'm afraid you're mistaken, fdeweale. I do not claim what you say that I claim. Please look below to find what I, now, claim.

the "No original research"-Policy, is frequently misinterpreted by Users on this Page and, as such, its Function is being used counter-intuitively to Mythological study

Three times now, my, decidedly, humble addition, concerning the man known as Ragnachar, described in two historical sources, has been deleted for no good reason, for no good reason has been provided, as far as I am able to discern. This last time, a reference offering a hollow explanation, was submitted, thankfully, and now, why don't we discuss it in plenum, in order that we may reach an acceptable compromise between censorship, a form of violence, I'm sure you can all agree, one which I find there should be high standards for accepting in any circumstance, and what has been perceived as, well, I don't know what exacly... Unfounded conjecture? Perjurious lies? Criminal behaviour ??? Please, come join me at the table and we'll talk about this like adults, shall we? No original research, it says, the policy cited. If A is so and B is such, do not say A and B is C. That much is all right. By any stretch of the imagination, I'm not stating in no uncertain terms that my view is the only view. I don't imply that these things that I write, must be believed - or else. Neither do I believe my words so terse that I unconscionably dictate my will upon the vulnerable, in any part of what I write; anywhere. No one who is proficient in the English language can conscientiously make the claim that I am making those claims. It is folly, to willfully misconstrue my words as such and I ache, let me tell you, every day to stay within the contraints of humility, that I not fail the standards of humility set and adhered to by those greatest of minds; Protagoras, Diogenes, Cicero.. Such is my self awareness, that I thereby seek to preserve my intellectual integrity, that it may last into old age, and create no more unnecessary confusion for the reader than is absolutely just and proper. Respect for due procedure is, of course, of the utmost importance, I think you will agree. As for the particular point of conflicting interests here, that we have stumbled upon on this our life's journey, let me be pithy:

If the reader chooses to misunderstand me willfully, I hold, that it is not through any fault of mine. I've not expressed my sincere, if I might add, doubts, that inevitably follows any historical inquiry, without adding the famed, tried and tested question mark to mark it proficiently. Then, even were the reader so young, so immature or so inebriated that he would not have the presence of mind required in order to protect oneself from shoddy handiwork, tendentious speculation and out right lies, well, he would still be in safe hands, because he would be in my hands. What is writ is not taken to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is part of a greater whole - a part which I think we ought not to keep from our fellow historians, for fear of their weakness to resist its ... syncretic properties. On the contrary, false idols serve to vitalize the brain by kindling fond memories of a childhood long past with its innocence, but gentlemen.. I do not presume to play upon your fancies to have justice seen to. I will appeal not to your mercy either, but to your honour as intellectuals. By what right do you keep this information from passerbys, blue-eyed children and fellow historians? I want to know. The reason provided, does not... I repeat; does not include this case.

I am no dogmatist. Never was, never will be. Dogmas are for the religious, to spin tales around the weak, that they may once more catch a glimmer of the sun, before the sun sets on their dreams. I deal with facts and the fact is that one of the legendary kings of Rome was called Numitor. That the relative of Clovis, man of the line that christened the Franks and conquered all of France, received half his royal guard upon his baptism, is more than interesting. It's a turning point in history. One which ought to catch your attention, gentlemen. If not for this reason alone, consider that he supposedly died only a few decades after Arthur fought at Mount Badon. Would that not be enough, I urge you to consider the response given to him by Clovis upon his death "Why did you shame our family by allowing yourself be bound?" To boot, they were both thought to live in the same area. Do you believe in coincidences in history, my newest friends? A cluster of coincidences suggests to me, there's something more to the story. To his story. Perhaps this man, who was so shameless, it effaced his closest relatives, was not very same man as this article engenders to tell of. Maybe the nickname Lodbrok has absolutely nothing to do with the Norse word for fuzzy fur and pants, which suggests to me a certain flair for the dramatic and not a little taste of hedonism. Perhaps the custom of Ragnarius' family, to not allow oneself bound under any circumstances whatsoever, was not just a prevalent feature of Ragnar Lothbrok's characteristic outlook on life, but one of royalty anywhere. Perhaps. It's definitely a tough call to make, when bereft of information to base your judgement upon. I submit to you also that the subject of mythology is so diffuse, that without having the oppurtunity of letting any and all information that might serve to shed light on a subject, do so, then we would end up with poor material for discussion, indeed. Like I said, the syncreticism of names alone, has and will be of great importance in this intersection between psychology and sociology we call mysticism.

For these reasons and more, please take heed of the import of my words, that we may, together, make this Wikipedia an encyclopedia that can boast sinuous strength as well as well trimmed cerebellums.

Ave — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudunNilsen (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 November 2014‎ (UTC)

I stand by my point. Wikipedia is a proper encyclopedia and according to its policy articles need t be properly sourced. These edits were/are pure original research and your diatribe doesn't change that. NOT A SINGLE SOURCE is ever given, not even now, which ties the person Ragnachar to Lodbrok. Nobody disputes Ragnachar lived. But there is no proof or even proper claim he was the legendary 8th century Viking. Even those ancient sources don't do that. And adding the Arthurian legend/Mount Badon to the mix is just fanciful. -- fdewaele, 27 November 2014, 18:26 CET.

Your point is dull as dishwater, fdwaele. Is that why you turn it on yourself? No source for the supposed legendary character.. Do you hear yourself? Do you not see that I have dissected your grounding in good order that you now should stand naked before us, trembling in your bloodlust? There is no need for all caps, as I can well understand your frustration without the explicit emphasis. Again, I appeal to your faculties for language and beg you decide to finally couple them with that aptitude for knowledge, understanding and reasoning I am convinced rests inside you, so you may recognize the gravity, extent and import of the accusation raised. I have not broken the policy referenced as I have not made an absolute claim. This is the letter of the law. I embellished my defence by further stating that I, in no certain terms, claim to be the arbitor of the most indisputably virtuous aim. To make the situation clear, I reiterated that I've made no false statements, linked to any disreputable source or resorted to sophism. I've need of none of those things because all I want to do is spread a piece of information.

Yes, there is a connection between them. Why do you lie about that when I just told you them? The name, their regal position, the choice of religion, the location, the relative place in time... There are several connections between him and Lothbrok and when you go by the associations made to them, the connection becomes more and more intimate still. It's vague, but so what? Even if you can't appreciate the syncretism, maybe others can. Ever thought of that? Where does crime enter the picture, I don't understand?

Wikipedia is a proper encyclopedia, he says. Well, my friend, your definition of proper is yours to rightly keep, but since your choice taste so severely differs from that of my own, allow me to enlighten you on the single, most important difference between what could be called a proper encyclopedia and Wikipedia. In the first, you've got one publisher and a handful of researchers doing the work. In the second, you've got hundreds of thousands people doing both the publishing and researching. What is your role in all of this, it's poignant to ask? It's pretty miniscule, really. Think of yourself as a worker ant and just imagine how magnificient that ant hill could become, if people like you didn't ruin it for everybody. How anyone could conceive of calling an encyclopedia proper, let alone one written by hoards of anynomous firebrands... I say, if we must err, let's err on the right side of right. Oxford does proper. The commons don't do proper. It's beside the point. We all strive towards noble goals of piety and, as such, let's take a moment to reassure ourselves that none here have shown the colours of a fullblown traitor, only those of a vanguard fallen astray. That's all right. It happens. Completely understandable you'd want to keep a close watch on "Islam" and "terrorist", but, hey, here I'm just adding a piece of information about a historical/legendary character. You need to get real, please. You are breaking the very rules you apply to me when you say it is not proper to reference historical documents and it doesn't look good. When you think that citing those other historical sources is OK and this citing is not, then I seriously wonder where things rails off for you. Is it that the name is slightly different and now he's a Frank and not a Northerner? These things are very fleeting, you must understand, in mythology. If there are any similarities whatsoever, they're worth listing and in mythology there's a cardinal rule that says - follow the money. If the name is practically identical, that's a tell. Very few kings are named by accident. Look at any article about any old god and you will see page upon page with references on just this. Just that this myth is clsoer to history doesn't make it any less filologic, which, I'd might remind you, history overwhelmingly is, being the brother to philosophy. It's appropriate to keep in mind that the histories in a scriptless society are put together under a process of many years and it might even take a century for a story to have done a full revolution in a culture. We just can't say. Robbed of evidence, we don't stand a chance. Even the hint of a red thread, is better than none at all, in my book, but my personal views are besides the point. As long as a post cannot be considered vandalism it should never be subject to outright censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudunNilsen (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 December 2014‎ (UTC)

@AudunNilsen: What you are adding is unsourced. To be added to this article, it needs to have at least one reference to some reputable scholar making the connection between Ragnar and Ragnachar. It's not the historical existence of Ragnachar that's being disputed here, it's the validity of the point. We are an encyclopedia: we seek to include only what reliable sources have said on the topic. Please don't add it again without citing such a source, and since it's been removed multiple times, it would be better to bring that source here first. I'll stick a welcome template on your user talk page with links to our policies: this falls under verifiability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir is right. This is original research, as described at WP:OR, and not permitted. Wikipedia reproduces only published knowledge, not editors' own ideas. Sandstein 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You all make this claim, but fail to account for it. In which universe is this statement true? Can I be said to have done research, even? I am merely citing a reference to a legendary figure who shares similar characteristics and I have now repeated my appeal for countenance several times and so grow weary of repeating myself to so little avail. You will find the corresponding reply to your stunted arguments in its proper arrangement. I implore you to seek them out and provide me with an honourable recitation of your will, to accord for your malfeasance. Now, at this juncture, I feel obliged to urge you to consider: What is the very fabric of history if not the life's blood of poets? Who were allowed to drip drops of truth on the gilted frame around butchers' bills? Who, indeed. Extraordinary times we live in. Let's not make life any harder for the young squabbling over trivialities, eh? If you must, please - be clear about it, lest you succumb to the greater greed that lives in denial.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudunNilsen (talk • contribs)

09:26, 4 December 2014‎ (UTC) @Fdewaele, Yngvadottir, Sandstein: In view of the renewed edit-warring by AudunNielsen and the above diatribe, I have blocked him indefinitely as he doesn't appear to be here to build and encyclopedia. If you consider my action too harsh, I'm open to negotiation. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't object, I think this has passed the stage in which his edits could be considered to be made in good faith. It's become more a case of "mauvais foi". He has repeatedly been challenged to provide sources for his claims. He never provides them but only (rambling) accuses the editors to be small minded. He seems intent to keep pushing his personal opinion regardless of what the consensus, other editors or WP rules say, and has dropped any pretense of wanting to be constructive. -- fdewaele, 4 December 2014, 18:27 CET.

Yep, good idea. Disruptive single-purpose account. Sandstein 19:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, haha, that's funny. No, it's not. It's sad and depressing that that's the only recourse left to me when nobody serious deigns to look into this. You leave me alone, Yngvadottir and Kuru. As I see it, you have failed in your responsibilities. Your response, Yngvadottir, was NOT a clarification of my accusation. This "this" you refer to has not been made clear! There are several points in that paragraph and I can't make myself believe any of them applies! Furthermore, why do you discriminate against me by interpreting it in the worst possible light when I see the same and worse on half the historical pages I visit? You can't be this insane. The policy you keep hiding behind, says that applying it must be coupled with verifiability and a neutral point of view. I lack none of those qualities and I have not been doing original research, as it is stated in the policy. If I had, I would be claiming exactly that, but I'm not doing that - I'm not even making a claim! All I'm doing is citing from the historical record and writing what I read there in the way that feels most natural, most honest, most clean. If you can't deal with that addition to a body of knowledge open for anyone to write in, then... It's not the same as claiming things left and right, talking out of experience or mashing together a mock piece. You prove me wrong or declare intellectual bankruptcy yet again! ( Did you laugh just now? Think this is a game? A test of power? You're censoring people for having a mind of their own! For thinking people can't block extraordinary information on their own. That's so criminal, I'm at a lack for words. If you can't control yourself, just leave me be and let someone else take a look for once. All right? Not everyone's like you and it's time to come terms with that.)


 * We don't take kindly to folks being called "catamites" in these parts, mister. Your talk page access has been revoked per WP:NPA and for being generally tiresome. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)