Talk:Sigurd Ring

Arigato1's and Huscarl's edits

The lead should only contain information that is not contradicted by the article itself. Some sources say that Sigurd Ring's father was born in Russia, while the Danish Gesta Danorum says that his father was the king of Sweden. This makes it peculiar to call him a "Danish king of Denmark" in the intro. Moreover it is equally unreasonable to call him the "paternal nephew" of Harald Hildetand (which he was in some sources) when Gesta Danorum says that Sigurd was Harald's maternal nephew.--Holger the Dane 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Most sources says he was the son of Randvar --Huskarl 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean that Sigurd was the "grand-son of Randver", I presume. Randver was born in Russia and he was the son of the king of Russia (in Sögubrot and the Lay of Hyndla). If you contemplate this you may understand how your "Danish king of the Danes" really sounds.--Holger the Dane 15:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted it back mister. I don't know were you get your Rusia and grandson from?

Saxo also write that Harald Hildetand gave the boy guardians, and put him over his father's kingdom (After Ingjald should had died).

It just seems weird that a boy should be king of Svealand. --Huskarl 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I don't know were you get your Rusia and grandson from". It appears that there no use discussing it with you since I told you where in my last post. If you want me to take you seriously you should ask a more established user to support you, e.g. User:Valentinian, User:Carewolf or User:Michael riber jorgensen.--Holger the Dane 15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, it also seems like you have your own pov in how to write this article when looking at your edits. And next time please use the function "Show preview" before posting your comments. --Huskarl 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You showed in your next to last post that you do not listen to facts. There was still the childish "Danish king of the Danes" as usual. You are just as dedicated to sprinkling "Danish" all over Wikipedia as the multi-blocked Arigato1 was.--Holger the Dane 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

House of Munsö

I had removed Category:House of Munsö. Lars O. Lagerquist wrote in Sveriges regenter (1996) that Björn Ironside (who Lagerquist does not accept as historical) was according to the sagas the först one of a new dynasty, and that according to 18th-century antiquarians Björn was buried in the Munsö mound. Sigurd is supposed to have been earlier than Björn Ironside. He was not a member of Björn's new dynasty. That is why I remove the category. Please do not put it back in unless you have a source at least as good as Lagerquist. /Pieter Kuiper 18:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just Ring?

From where do we get the spelling Hring? I doubt it's more frequent in standard English literature than Ring. Will move if not sourced. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

{{help}} I moved this, but only the talk page went through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the page. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Gesta Danorum

According to Saxo, Ring (simply Ring not Sigurd) of the Battle of Bravellir, nephew of Harald Wartooth, and Sigurd Ring, father of Ragnar Lodbrok are different persons. And there is more than 10 generations between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.154.162 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Norse lettering

We should use less, not more, Old Norse lettering. This is English Wikipedia which is supposed to be able to be read aloud, not just ocularly, so whenever possible, normal readers of English should be spared the encumberment of such wording that requires expertise. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding "succession"

In response to this revert, I will soon again be removing ficticious "succession" that makes these titles and positions look like factual history. Unless someone can give a very good reason to keep that silliness, and source reliably in the article that it has any legitimacy of any kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this "succession" box isn't realy helpfull in any way. To try to identify Sigurd Ring with the Ringo of Gesta Danorum seem rather strange, and as for the Siwardus Ring (also Gesta Danorum) there we can see a similarity in the name, but the similarity is either random or a mistake of some sort or as some writers of more recent time suggest, Siwardus Ring of Gesta Danorum is named after Sigurd Ring and therefore could/should be considered as Sigurd Ring II. I fully agree, that we remove this "succession box" for Sigurd Ring. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Olery, if you argue that there are errors in the succession, it can easily be fixed. If you are unfamiliar with coding these boxes, you can ask me and I can fix it.--Berig (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This looks like removal based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is nothing in the succession boxes that claim they were historical, and I don't see why we have to make the navigation of these articles harder than it already is. If you find that two saga sources contradict each other it is more constructive to divide the succession boxes into "succession in saga X" and "succession in saga Y".--Berig (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In favor of "succession"

I posted this elsewhere but i will now post it here.

I see your point but 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)

This new section is in reaction to the previous one about adding succession. It has been copied & pasted on 4-5 different pages so far.

WP:TPYES re: article talk pages: "Comment on content , not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The assumption that there is a "supposed timeline" is flawed. Historians in Sweden have generally drawn a line at Erik Segersäll, and given up on trying to write a coherent history before that. There are regnal lines according to different primary sources, that sometimes contradict eachother.

Andejons (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The succession box is not about historical characters, but about legendary characters that had a succession in the works of the saga authors. The succession boxes clearly say that it is about legendary succession.--Berig (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is marked that it is according to some specific tradition, the successionboxes are acceptable.

Andejons (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :-)--Berig (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This Swedish / Danish thing

I wonder why there is so much focus on Sigurd being a legendary Swedish king in the lead, when about 90% of the article is about him being king of Denmark or how he got to be a Danish king? People seems almost agitated when this is being questioned. Kisualk (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Uppland

Why bring in Uppland? Uppland is only attested from after the writing of the sagas, in 1296, when it is described as (j) þrim uplandæ folklandum meaning "in the three upland folklands" referring to Tiundaland, Attundaland and Fjädrundaland. And if someone is claiming that Sviþjóð meant "Uppland", he is free to point me to an Icelandic or Old Norse dictionary as reference. Our specialists on Old Norse at Uppsala University invariably translate the name as "Sweden" in the Scandinavian Runic-text Data Base.--Berig (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)