This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The fact that there are two main possible reigns for Ragnar could be down there being two different people with that name. There is a possibility that the first was the great grandfather of the second, with the first being the son of Sigurd Ring and the second the father of Ivar the Boneless. This would explain the gap of about 100 years between the dates suggested in this article of 750-794 and 860-865.

Deaþe gecweald 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ragnar Lodbrok, dansk (nordisk) sagohjelte från vikingatiden, hvars historia sagopoesien helt och hållet ombildat. Den historiske E. var jarl hos danske konungen Hårek (814-854) och sändes af honom med en flotta på 120 skepp till Frankrike, seglade uppför Seine och härjade

Acording to: NORDISK FAMILJEBOK KONVERSATIONSLEXIKON OCH REALENCYKLOPEDI

INNEHÅLLANDE UPPLYSNINGAR OCH FÖRKLARINGAR OM MÄRKVÄRDIGA NAMN, FÖREMÅL OCH BEGREPP

Trettonde bandet Pontin - Ruete

Stockholm Expeditionen af Nordisk familjebok

Stockholm, Gernandts boktryckeri-aktiebolag, 1889 -- Arigato1 12:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia. Please post in English. DR. Martin Hesselius 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"After he was done with France, and after his supposed death in 845, he turned his attention to England." What does this mean?? Lily20 ( talk) 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The English name form is etymologically correct and used in some older (pre-Internet) literature and given in Throne of a Thousand Years by Jacob Truedson Demitz based on the extensive name research done for that book (see ref review). It is also found in a few Google entries. I am reinstating it in the lead but without bolding the type. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the work of Demitz, but I must say that I'm not convinced if this book is the only source for this version of the name. I've never seen the name in this form before, but I haven't read that much literature on this subject so I'm leaving to other to make the call here. Finn Rindahl ( talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you google the name? There aren't that many posts there, but certainly a few unrelated to Demitz's book. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Finnrind: the Demitz book is in category Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published sources (online and paper). / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 06:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pieter, then I really think this version of the name doesn't belong here. Serge: <10 hits on Google is hardly very convincing I'm afraid. Regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is much more to that book than Mr. Kuiper is letting you know. It's negative with him in a personal way, not neutral and constructive. Too much to go into here. He is on the warpath against Demitz and anyone he imagines is associated with Southerly Clubs and its representatives (I am not one). Here is one small example of many. There have even had to be special WP meetings about him and his antics, but he does not stop. Very depressing actually. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Finnrind, as an example of the Anglicised names in that book, see sv:Diskussion:Gustav#Godstowe. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! A good example of what I mean. This one error, for which the one user who made it has apologized there (don't miss the end), is used by physicist Kuiper over and over and over to start fights about history and linguistics. It's personal with him. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the name in question has now been removed twice by experienced editors who seem knowledgable about this field, neither of these have commented here nor (AFAIK) been involved in any discussions concerning mr Demitz previously. I suggest we leave it at that. Best regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to argue and am inclined to agree, though I would love to know how you find that Cavila and Haukurth are knowledgeable about English linguistics. I always check user pages when I am surprised at edits and thus tried to find out about any such qualifications they might have, but I failed. Cordially, SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I expressed myself wrongly. What I meant is that based on their extensive contributions here at Wikipedia they certainly seem knowledgeable about norse/anglo-saxon myth and history. Best regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted the exonym as per the 4th paragraph in the lead of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). SergeWoodzing ( talk) 04:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Serge, but then you'd need to find some better sources than Demitz that this Rayner-construction is an "exonym". This time around I'll remove this again - pleasse do not add this again without having got support at this talkpage. Regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 07:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How's your English? Not too great, eh? Shouldn't you them be a bit more humble about what is or is not an exonym? Source not really needed - if you read and comprehend the guideline. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 11:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to get personal. It is really quite simple: The source you used is not acceptable because it is self-published, so please find a reliable source. Only after that is the discussion about the scientific validity and notability of this information relevant. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 12:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lest we get too snide here (I and others), or be perceived thus, let me explain that poor English is a personal matter and there is no other way to deal with it than to get personal when people who use poor English (so many of them all over en.WP) want to make judgment calls and force their own opinions on us here about English. In articles like this, some of these users put totally unknown and irrelevant ancient Scandinavian names in bold font in the ledes, while they won't even have established English exonyms in Italics anywhere in an article. All that needs to be cleaned up. It's a kind of article ownership by unqualified users (language-wise) that cannot be a good idea. Personal indeed! And it makes these articles far more tedious, and far less valuable, to readers of English. Many of us find that all-too-prevalent behavior very very very tiresome, to say the least, disruptive at worst. The source I quoted last time has been reviewed in a reputable newspaper (according to the article about the author) as being particularly adept at English name forms. That review could hardly have been published if the critic had not noticed the extensive bibliography in the book, making it more distinguished as a source than would warrant writing it off here as just another so-called self-publication. National libraries would hardly have included it and would hardly still have it in their reference collections either. I doubt that Finnrind and other users of similarly obvious linguistic limitations have read that review or the book in question or its list of etymological bibliography, yet they wish to pass judgment on it, and on what is a legitimate exonym of the type that we are supposed to include. Furthermore, Google reveals that the Lothbroc name is used regardless of this one constantly (and less-than-knowledgeably) denounced source. Thus the exonym should be included as per guideline, just like I wrote this time when I tried to break through the article ownership again. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if my poor English has led to confusion here, or caused my comments to be perceived as "snide" or unpolite - that was certainly not my intention. My "obvious linguistic limitations" aside, I'm certainy not trying to force my own opinions on you here about English... I'm just pointing out that in order for Rayner to be included as what SW above calls an "established English exonym" there has be be a reliable source for just that. I'll be leaving comments now for the more experienced editors who first reverted this addition, asking them to explain their reverts here instead of just in edit-summaries, as this matter clearly hasn't been resolved yet - and the Rayner-thingy (for lack of a better word due to my limited vocabulary) has been added and subsequently removed four times now. Best regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of linguistic limitations, you are obviously a gentleperson. I try to be one too, believe it or not, even when frustrated. Thank you for this constructive entry! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I don't know if we have really had any "more experienced editors" comment on this at all yet. I'm hoping for some input by a native English user or two. That would be interesting and most helpful. Thanx again! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The supposed English form "Rayner Lothbroc" does not appear to be established enough to merit inclusion here. The Demitz book, where it evidently originates, isn't enough, especially by itself.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions two people: Charles the Fat and later, Charles the Bald.

His most notable raid was probably the raid upon Paris in 845 AD, which was spared from burning only by the payment of 7,000 lbs of silver as danegeld by Charles the Fat.

A certain Reginheri attacked Paris with a fleet of 120 ships. The warriors belonging to the army of Charles the Bald, were placed to guard the Abbey of St. Denis, but fled when the Danish Vikings executed their prisoners ferociously in front of their eyes.[citation needed]

After receiving a tribute of 7000 pounds of silver from Charles the Bald, Ragnar went back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.145.67 ( talk) 05:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a citation (of sorts...) in The article Ragnar Lodbrok in Nordisk familjebok (1915). for the Charles paying danegeld being Charles the Bald (In Swedish "karl den skallige"), I will change the line about Charles the Fat accordingly. Finn Rindahl ( talk) 11:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is a little repetitive and needs clearing. It mentions the Danegeld of Charles the Bald three times. John D. Croft ( talk) 09:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The portrait image in the infobox is not Ragnar. The caption clearly says "Radagasus, King of the Goths". I bet it's (supposed to be) Radagaisus. 178.2.255.72 ( talk) 16:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. The next image on the page is of Alaric, another King of the Goths. I've replaced the image with another. Hybrid2712 ( talk) 17:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could help! 178.2.251.0 ( talk) 07:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Lagertha is his wife, and notable enough to have her own article, and yet there's not a single mention of her in his biography article?!?! — Lowellian ( reply) 12:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There is, in the lead section. The article does need to be expanded with text about Ragnar's life according to the various sagas.  Sandstein  04:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's very strange indeed, that "Sweden" would have been involved at any level. "Swedish" Vikinger was divided in several people, such as Götar(Goths) and Svear. The first ever mentioning of "Sverige" (Sweden) is not known until the 12th or 13th century. Chistianity was enforced in Scandinavia by the end of the 10th century by Harald Bluetooth. I belive the first Vikinger discovered England around 790. Boeing720 ( talk) 20:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Suecia ( = Sweden) was a known kingdom as soon as the Vatican found the place, long before the 12th or 13th century, and anything else (such as manipulatively timing modern spellings like Sverige and Sweden) is more like Soviet-style desinformation than factually helpful. Back in the sixties, we were supposed to believe that Sweden did not exist until King Gustav I created the country in the 1520s!

And what on earth is "Vikinger"? I honestly do not know (and I'm not sure I want to). As far as I know its Vikings in easily readable English. Have I missed something compulsively trendy? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 04:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of sentences in the article that are terrible. This article needs to be edited by someone familiar with English AND the subject matter. Experience with one but not the other leads to nonsense like the following sentences highlighted below:

As a figure of legend whose life only partially took place in times and places covered by written sources, the extent of Ragnar's historicity is not quite clear.

First sentence of the historicity section. I started to rephrase it but realized I had no idea what the original author wanted to express. How does an event/lifespan "only partially" take place? The phrase "historicity is not quite clear" is a strange formulation of words. All of the google results for "historicity is not quite clear" are copies of this article. Surely wikipedia articles are not the best venue for coining new phrases?

While his sons are historical figures, it is uncertain whether Ragnar himself existed.

As another editor points out in the section above "No Ragnar" how can someone have three sons but never exist? Can someone verify the citation for that sentence? I cant believe it was published in such a logically inconsistent state. The same phrase appears in the introduction to the article without quote marks.

So far, attempts to firmly link the legendary Ragnar with one or several of those men have failed because of the difficulty in reconciling the various accounts and their chronology.

I imagine that it is always hard to reconcile the accounts/chronology of multiple people's lives who are supposed to be one person. This seems like an irreconcilable problem. DouglasCalvert ( talk) 05:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this. Here is what I meant:

• "only partially took place in times and places" - in the ninth century, only part of what happened in Europe is covered by written records, both topically and geographically. That's because the Christianized territories had churchmen who could write, while the pagan Norsemen didn't leave much in the way of written records.
• "While his sons are historical figures..." - that's what the source says. I understand it to mean that the men are confirmed as existing, but it is not confirmed that they were indeed (all) the sons of Ragnar.
• "So far, attempts to firmly link the legendary Ragnar ..." Also paraphrasing the sources. They basically say, there may or may not have been one Ragnar, and he may or may not have been one of the mentioned men, but we can't match his deeds per the sagas and the recorded deeds of these men and have it all fit together such that we can conclude that the legendary Ragnar was any one or all of them.

Evidently, all copyedits to bring this across better are welcome.  Sandstein  15:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ragnar Lodbrok is an old Norse historical figure, only regarded as mythological due to lingering chauvinism in modern scholarship, which tends to be Ango-centric. That is not to say that there are not mythological tales woven around the figure of Lodbrok and his father, Sigurd Ring (who figures in Germanic myth)

Lodbrok is clearly identified in many family trees, in Icelandic heritage. Such documentation may be more readily found in Iceland than in Denmark, for various reasons. There is apparently an effort to downplay him in his home country of Denmark, likely due to the fact that the current Royalty of Denmark is not descended from his line. He was clearly one of many kings, although not minor, since he was considered king of Sweden as well as Denmark for a time.

Lodbrok is also part of an Icelandic oral tradition, which has died out in modern days, but which my grand-parents and their parents brought with them from Iceland in the late 1800s. My mother heard from her grandmother, etc., the stories of battles in which members of Lodbrok's family died.

He is said to have occupied the Royal seat at Lethre or Lejre, a spot which I believe appears today as a mound on which a great timber hall has been excavated. Icelandic genealogy shows this as his birthplace.

The mythological aspect lies in the many fanciful stories told about Lodbrok, which I suspect were embellished from half-truths to amuse children and adults alike. Some may be partially true, such as the story about his Royal Treasury, a chest guarded by a poisonous snake, which was tended by a faithful servant. The snake grew to be so large that only the servant dared approach.

I suspect very strongly that the modern Ladbroke family, which controls much of British casino and betting trade, may be descended from the Lodbrok son who remained in England and accepted marriage and an earldom or dukedom as the price for peace.

Please sign your comments.

Regnar Lodbrog (Danish form) is not "played down" in Denmark. In fact, we are very proud of him and don't like it when people refer to him and his sons as "Swedish" (even if it is just an anachronism).

Like all mythological figures, Regnar is derived from a historical figure for sure, probably the Viking chieftain Ragnar who headed the siege of Paris in the 840s.

As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure if you're kidding, but it certainly is an interesting theory... ;o) -- dllu 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice theory but the Ladbroke family comes from the town of Ladbroke in Warwickshire first mentioned in the Domesday Book. John D. Croft ( talk) 10:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

don't forget that "lodbrok" was not a proper name, but an epithet like "ironside" or "boneless" attributed to his sons, and as such are not passed on. In those days (and for several hundred years thereafter), people only had given names, the idea of a "family" name didn't even exist. Also, it is impossible to label a legendary figure with uncertain origins and definitively "Danish". That is just absurd. The Danish have nothing to be proud of in that respect, it is just desperation for validation mixed with petty nationalism. it is ridiculous and pathetic of the Danish to try a "claim" this figure from the Norse Sagas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.149.4 ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the history of the town of Berwick in Scotland, written in 1888 by John Scott, entitled, "Berwick Upon Tweed: A History of the Town by John Scott," Ragnar Lothbrok was killed in his boat on the way to England by his huntsman, Berne. The English king Edmund, in order to punish Berne, since Berne was a foreigner, cast Berne off in a boat without oars, leaving him entirely to nature. Coincidentally, Berne drifted back to his home where he concocted the story about Lothbrok's murder by the English king, which triggered Lothbrok's sons to invade England to enact vengeance upon King Edmund. Here is the exact text of Scott's book: "Roger of Wendover relates an incident in the same century and about the same date—870 a.d.—in which Berwick is again mentioned. Regnar Lodbrog, sailing from Danemark in a small boat, was slain by his huntsman, Berne. Edmund of England investigated the case, since the murder happened on English soil, and punished the murderer by putting him to sea in the small boat in which Lodbrog had sailed, but without oars or any means of guiding the boat, to see if Providence would deliver him. The boat drifted to the coast of Danemark, and Berne was landed among the same people from whom Lodbrog had no long time previously sailed. Berne was at once treated as the murderer of the prince ; but invented a story to clear himself, in which he blamed Edmund, the English King, for the crime. The Danes, under the leadership of Inguar and Ubba, eager to revenge their chief's death, sailed for England towards the East Anglian coast. A violent storm drove them back, and turning northwards, they found no landing-place till they sighted Berwick. After setting foot on shore they turned southward, ravaging the country till they encountered Edmund, whom they slew" ^[1] Could it be that 870 is an approximation for 867 and Edmund is the Anglicized version of the name Aelle? This seems to add another angle to the fantastic death by snake pit story; and although drifting back directly to Denmark by chance seems unlikely, it could be a distortion of the more likely event that Berne did manage to land somewhere safely and then when he got home he made up the story. These things seem realistic enough to me. I wonder how feasible they are in light of other historical sources, and how reliable the Roger of Wendover source is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorWert ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several variations of that story (the murder of Ragnar whilst a guest of Edmund). I think Bern generally appears as an English huntsman though (see the last paragraph of in Ubba#Later_Lothbrok-lore). The character itself seems to represent one of the supposed sons of Ragnar (sometimes identified as Björn Ironside). Whatever the case, the story is constructed around Edmund. Ragnar's death is used as a way of explaining why the Vikings attacked the East Angles, the same way that the story of Ragnar's death at the hands of Aelle is used to explain why the the Vikings attacked the Northumbrians. Medieval chronicler's may have found it more convenient to imagine and portray such invasions as personal vendettas of crazed brothers rather than by campaigns of opportunistic and unrelated warlords.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 01:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

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, and 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)

While no date is mentioned in this article, it is stated in Horik I that Ragnar dies mysteriously in 845. In the article on one of his sons, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, it recounts the story of Ragnar's death by King Ælla, in a pit of snakes, in 865. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more conflicting details in other related articles. Is there a definitive source for this? (or is the problem that of conflicting sources?) I am brining this to the attention of any knowledgeable contributors who may care to address it. - ^theWOLFchild 13:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

These dates all appear questionable to me. As related in this article's "historicity" section, Ragnar can't be clearly identified in the historical record. Any death dates are likely conjectures or the death date of one of the men he has been identified with.  Sandstein  16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A quote from this article (quoting a book) has been the derisive subject of Michael Quinion's Worldwide Words April 4, 2015. • John Arthur was fascinated by the genealogical implications of a quotation from Katherine Holman’s Historical Dictionary of the Vikings which appeared in a Wikipedia article on the Old Norse hero Ragnar Lodbrok: “Although his sons are historical figures, there is no evidence that Ragnar himself ever lived.”
Maybe this quote should be explained or dropped, if it hasn't already. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that if one reads the article, it's clear what is meant. The men who are said to be his sons are historical figures, but we don't know whether Ragnar existed and therefore whether they are indeed Ragnar's sons.  Sandstein  13:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

- Would like to open um discussion if Hairy in Hairy Breeches is an accurate translation - would like to suggest an alternative i.e. Fur Breeches.

-- Comanche cph 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

--So there's no relation between his name and ragna, or gods such as in Ragnarok?

I asked this last question two years ago and was hoping someone would have an answer, but it turns out some idiot removed this section the next day. >:( 69.220.2.188 ( talk) 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ragnarok-regin (“gods”) + rǫk (“fate, judgment”).

Ragnarok-Old Norse Ragnarr, from regin, rǫgn (“counsel”) and herr (“army”); cognate to German Rainer.

So yes. Though what is the relevance here? The root word "regin" is fairly popular and used in a many places. rfkhw13 at gmail :: dot com 184.155.138.213 ( talk) 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither "hairy" nor "fur" breeches is the correct translation of "loð / loth". Correct is "woollen". In German, still today we use an old word for such special cloth: "Loden" - made of lamb's wool.

So see http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/loden:

Definition: a thick heavy waterproof woollen cloth with a short pile, used to make garments, esp coats.

Word origin: German, from Old High German lodo thick cloth, perhaps related to Old English lotha cloak.

So Ragnar wore thick woollen breeches. That's what his nickname meant.

And the Scandinavian given name Ragnar in German is Rainer / Reiner - in Old Frankish Reginar, in Old German Raginher / Reginher, in Dutch Reinier, in French Rainier. The name is composed of 'ragin' (advice) and 'heri' (army).

-- JFritsche ( talk) 22:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The dictionary quoted above states "cloth with a short pile", which would not therefore appear hairy, surely? What is the Norse word for leather? The German Lederhosen are trousers made of leather. This would translate as "leather trousers/hose", c.f. Curthose, possibly unusual enough to form the source of a nickname.( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 18:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

Question: I was told years ago by a Danish acquaintance whose field was medieval history that Ragnar's nickname was meant tongue-in-cheek and that it might be more colloquially rendered as "hairy ass." I don't speak any of the Scandinavian languages, however. Does this idea sound reasonable? Or likely? -- Michael K Smith ^Talk 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to change the article name to "Ragnar Lothbrok", as this is the more widely recognized version? (per wp:commonname) - ^theWOLFchild 06:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is indeed the most common name, yes. What leads you to believe it is?  Sandstein  08:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Because in old norse, the character ð (which may look like a d) is a th (as in the). To quote other examples of this.... /info/en/?search=H%C3%B6%C3%B0r /info/en/?search=Ger%C3%B0r Hasan Kheireddine ( talk) 20:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)