What is going on?

Anette, I understand your concerns but you and Dimitri both are so wildly distorting every comment I make that I can no longer think it is a simple misunderstanding.

Further, you have not addressed any of the issues I've raised.

I hope you will pull back from the attack mode you're in and make some effort to hear what I'm really saying.

Wow, this is all totally not in my department, Private User, but I have not realised that this is an underlying sentiment. Emotional stuff, but I do hope we all can stick to exchanging points of view instead of making an argument out of it. We should learn from eachother, right?

It is so interesting to hear about these cultural differences. I am learning something here :) But He...I read all the Asterix and Obelix comics, so what do you expect from me LOL

Remi, I think you already know I agree with most of what you say. Where we disagree is a few cases where I don't believe a line can be broken arbitrarily without a real analysis of the source.

More importantly, though, I don't think it will be possible to make the necessary changes without a groundswell of user support. I don't see that happening.

Ragnar Lodbrok is a good example of what happens.

No serious scholar believes he was real but users want to keep him and all the cool connections they get through him. A respectable minority of scholars believe he could have been built around an unrecoverable original.

You won't catch me giving my own opinion very often, but I'll make an exception here -- I think Ragnar is all bunk. He's just a good story built out of all the things that make a good saga story.

But I also think other people can honestly and reasonably disagree. It's not worth arguing about.

And because a lot of people think the same way, there's no massive support for real scholarship. We have the institutional expertise for it but not the institutional willpower.

What we expect is historical facts and not fairytales, which I thinks Anette and Dimitri agree with.

I'm not even going to comment Private User comment of "political correct socialist indoctrinated people claiming that everything before the 1600's are only a fairy tale" because it's so much non-genalogical as it can be. If we cannot use genealogical arguments to make our points, then please refrain some saying anything, you are just making a fool out of your selves.

Private User if you think genealogy is about "no one are better than anybody else and our own history are not worth remembering" you should be re-examining your attitude.

Genealogy is about getting our correct ancestry and family history, and if anything is in doubt we should verify it by as many sources as possible, preferably with primary sources. And if we are not able to find sources that make our claims verifiable and true, we should not say that these links are true but only an unverifiable theory and keep it out of our linlage between people and only mention them in the About me.

So, please, keep you political beliefs to your self, we don't care about anything else than provable genealogy.

Personally I have provable genealogy back to ca. 1280, so your comment about before 1600 is invalid. But you need to do the work finding the primary sources and not relaying on what other people say without adding their own primary sources. Most of us want to know what our true and provable ancestry is, not bragging about being a descendant of Harald Haarfagre, Erik Segersäll, Gorm den gamle or Ragnar Lodbrok.

Please try to make our common tree more correct instead of trying to make a connection to famous poeple.

What I'm seeing is why it's so important a project like this be hosted on Geni - so we can all learn & contribute from our perspectives.

What i am seeing is the Discussion about the Project getting side tracked into a discussion about Ragnar :)

The oldest revision history of the Project page is date stamped 1/9/2015 at 22:25, interestingly this edit is credited to Dimitri which implies he was the first user to create text for the Project even though it was Anette that created the Project, the text in the first edit reads-

“This is the story of the saga behind the truly existed Ragnar Lodbrog' if it is even possible to find Ragnar behind the adventures told about him!======”

Very keen observers will note that this is not exactly the same text as what Remi told us yesterday he deleted, to quote Remi, he deleted-

“This is the story of the saga behind Ragnar Lodbrog who undeniably existed and is very possible to find the real Ragnar behind the adventures told about him!======”

It is on the 15/10/2015 at 17:02 that the text is changed by Peppa the next day, 16/10/2015, at 1:00 Remi deletes the entire sentence and three days later, 19/10/2015, at 21:06 Dimitri deletes ½ the project text and replaces it with a link to an external website.

Just to clarify, apart from word order, the differences between the original text and the last version are “truly” -> “undeniably” and “even” -> “very”.
Both sentences state the opinion that Ragnar did exist.
The original sentence questions whether it is possible to determine the true story while the final version implies that it is likely the true story can be determined, so the difference is regarding the _likelihood_ of determining the true story NOT the existence of Ragnar.

So the “horrible vandalism” that led to ½ the Project being deleted was that the wording of a sentence was changed to alter the _likelihood_ of determining the true facts.

This leaves me with one question, did Dimitri copy the original text from another website or did he get it privately from Anette?
Justin has told us that in his opinion Ragnar never existed, Remi’s position seems to be that without proof of Ragnar’s existence the question is irrelevant and Anette has stated previously that she is of the opinion that Ragnar did exist but has been distorted. So our three experts cannot agree.

I would suggest that rather than just deleting the sentence Remi should have replaced it with a comment similar to the one he has made in this discussion and perhaps a link to Baldwin’s paper on the subject which is attached as a Source to Ragnar’s profile - http://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000023216898633&

Either way the response to delete and move to another server is what really upsets me, as does this claim of “ownership” by the so called Triple-A gang. Geni is a collaborative site and as a Collaborator on this Project I have just as much ownership as the other 48 Collaborators, Triple-A have no defensible status as the guardians of the “facts” of Ragnar. As I have shown above we have three experts actively involved in this Discussion who have three different positions, what gives Triple-A the right to delete half the project just because they aren’t happy with the other two opinions? Triple-A can complain that Peppa did not discuss with them her change and they can complain that Remi did not discuss his change but the fact is that Triple-A made a much bigger change without discussing it with anyone either! Actually they must have discussed it privately among themselves, which in my opinion is even worse. An insult to the other 48 “Collaborators” of this Project.

Sorry but I am very angry about this, I have tried to present the facts dispassionately but obviously my final paragraphs are statements of opinion.

Alex

Excellent post, thank you

http://www.geni.com/discussions/150665?msg=1049075

As a Geni member who expected to see the possibilities & opinions presented in summary in this project, with the source links so I could form my own opinion of the questions, I am disappointed that the "best wording" not been given the chance to evolve.

My hope is others also agree with Alex; the project be reverted to where it needed work (I believe the Oct 15 edit); and let the work continue - by the Geni members, for the Geni members.

Thank you Erica, I think I have done enough complaining and would prefer to focus on something productive so In an attempt to instill some sort of Collaborative effort to this Project i am posting here to indicate that i plan to revert all the changes made since 15/10/2015 at 17:02 This means the project will go back to how it was immediately prior to Remi's change (i'm not blaming Remi for any of this just using that as a starting point).

This will restore all the text that has been deleted and also remove the banner add to the external website.

I will then replace the sentence that Remi deleted with a sentence directing people to the paper that i linked above. If you think my text is confusing or badly worded please let me know and we can discuss it and change to something better. (actually you don't need my permission to change it, if you think you can do better please do so and if i disagree then i will start a dialogue)

I am also going to delete the Triple-A banner as i find it offensive, if it's removal offend's Triple-A then they are free to lodge a complaint with Geni management and we can let them choose.

I am unlikely to do any of this prior to Monday so if anyone one else wants to take the lead by all means feel free.

Alex, I'd be happy to work with you to develop a balanced presentation.

This project has gotten caught up in politics, and (as you say) the text presents a very biased view. A mortal sin, I think.

As I said above, there are only two respectable positions with respect to Ragnar. The majority opinion that he is fake, and the minority opinion that legends have gathered around an unknown original (whose identity and relationships are unknown). It wouldn't kill anyone if we presented the third option as "something some people believe".

I strongly support salvaging this project if possible, but if not I will develop a new Ragnar project that is truly collaborative.

I made 3 small changes (easily revertible) just to make a start :)

Dimitri Gazan wrote:
"Wow, this is all totally not in my department, Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson, but I have not realised that this is an underlying sentiment. Emotional stuff, but I do hope we all can stick to exchanging points of view instead of making an argument out of it. We should learn from eachother, right?

It is so interesting to hear about these cultural differences. I am learning something here :) But He...I read all the Asterix and Obelix comics, so what do you expect from me LOL"

Yes, I'm sorry to say that there actually exist a severe denial of history and our culture among many people and scholars here in the North, you have some Finnish people denying the importance of the Swedes when it come to building their land, you have Norwegian declaring their legends as pure fiction, Danish academics denying the very structural ground about the historic development of how people with power ruled and how the power were distributed within the rulers families, and finally the swedes claiming that nothing is real at all before the king Erik Segersäll and that everything before 1600s must be taken with a ton of salt. In sweden we did go one step further by saying that there are no descendants to Svear and Geats at all because they were all extinct.

For political reason as an example, this two identical profiles can not be merged, Fulk IV "The Surly", count of Anjou Folke "Filbyter"
For similar reason, a cleanup among a lot of other lines are being done by cutting of every path that doesn't fit their new agenda.

We ordinary people know that chieftains and kings often put their children in key positions within their dominion and domain, but the state mind controlled scholar denies this, that's the main reason why certain disputes arise.

Private User a fairly well-attested French noble and a figure out of Swedish legend? Identical?

Please take your theories somewhere else.

So the text of the project has been deleted and I am removed as a collaborator. meanwhile the preson doing all the deleting has quit the project as has the person complaining about the lack of collaboration.

Actually yesterday there were 48 collaborators now there are 42

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: "a fairly well-attested French noble and a figure out of Swedish legend? Identical?

Please take your theories somewhere else."

To where? Could you also explain how this Folke Filbyter is a legend and why His child and grandchild's were called svart huvud = foreigner?

You have zero credibility Harald, you just prove me right, just as Remi when it come to my points in this debate, Remi is a true denier of every older path, no matter sources which he in various topics previously has demonstrated, and you mix up genealogy with this political agenda that has one single purpose, to create mistrust in order to deny our roots.

Maybe you and Remi should take your agenda and theories elsewhere?

Private wrote:And your attitude also! I don't like the hatred towards a country talk.

This one I had some problem to understand if it were direct toward me.
I do not agree with these mentioned people spewing out hatred, and I do not agree with those people constantly dissemble the history or and concealing our roots in a way that no one of us can claim to be a descendant to any old king or viking chieftain without a BIG disclaimer!

When I e.g. pointed out one contemporary source to link the people behind Rurik, it was not accepted, instead it was ridiculed and when I said that this was the way they put their family at top position within their realms I was told that's a good theory... Well, I guess you all know better than me how a clan or tribe works, or any chieftainship or monarchy.

Ulf, we're getting off-topic again but I think it's worth pointing out that the problem with your theories is that they're just theories. I don't remember anyone ridiculing your theory about Rurik's ancestry. Instead, over and over again people pointed out that there are other theories too, and no evidence for any of them.

It's the same with Fulk of Anjou and Folke Filbyter. It was someone's theory a generation ago that they might have been the same person. It didn't work out very well. There were too many conflicts.

These kinds of theories are a lot like religion. Fine to believe them yourself, but it becomes a problem if you try to be a missionary.

(No Name) this is https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna_i_Badelundas_gravf%C3%A4lt ?

I guess a few people know about them.... but not everyone.
Why astonished?

here is the path between them http://www.geni.com/path/Folke-Filbyter+is+related+to+Fulk-IV-The-S...

; )

(No Name) what do you mean with "Go away"?

I find your comment rude and I'm wondering about why you have this attitude?

As Harald states, not everyone knows about Tuna in Badelundas gravfält and I'm one of them. Because of Harald's link I got some more knowledge that I didn't have before.

So, again, why the attitude and why did you write "go away"?

Good work on the new text.

I think that the summary of wives/children from prior to all the deletions should be reinstated, it wasnt perfect but i think it was a god start. The current list only shows Aslaug and her list of kids actually changes depending on the source so isnt definitive either. The old text was:

==Ragnar’s wives and children==
It is somewhat unclear which wife’s was the mother of the various sons. Svanloga or Svanløg as mentioned in Saxo, might even be the same person as Aslauga. Hvidsærk at least has been mentioned as son of both women!

====The saga of Ragnar====
Wives and children as mentioned in the saga of Ragnar

1. [Thora "borgarhjörtr" Herraudsdatter '''Þóra/Thora "borgarhjörtr" Herraudsdatter''']: There is not mentioned any specific children here, but in reference to the tale of Auslaug Kraka and her sons with Ragnar two brothers are named, Erik and Agnar.

2. [Åslaug Sigurdsdatter, {Ragnars Saga} '''Auslaug "Kraka" Sigurdsdatter''']. According to this saga they had four sons.
Ivar, Bjørn, HVitserk and Rognvald.

====Saga of Ragnars sons====
Wives and children as mentioned in the saga of Ragnars sons.

1. Thora. Here again the sons are mentioned as Stepchildren of Aslaug "Kraka", but since Thora was Ragnas wife before Aslaug. Erik and Agnar of this tale must be her sons.

[Thora "borgarhjörtr" Herraudsdatter '''Þóra/Thora "borgarhjörtr" Herraudsdatter''']

2. Aslaug "Kraka" Sigurdsdatter: Here four sons. Sigurd "Worm in Eye", Bjørn "Ironside", Hvitserk and Ivar "Boneless"
[Åslaug Sigurdsdatter, {Ragnars Saga} '''Aslaug Kraka Sigurdsdatter''']

3. Unknown mother? Besides from these sons. Two brothers was mentioned as Ivars brothers born out of Wedlock!, Yngvar and Husto/Ubba

====Saxos Gesta Danorum====
Wives and children as mentioned in Gesta Danorum:

1. [Lagertha '''Lagertha / Ladgerd / Hlaðgerðr''']: two daughters of unknown name, one son Fridleif.

2. [Thora "borgarhjörtr" Herraudsdatter '''Þóra/Thora "borgarhjörtr" Herraudsdatter''']: six sons Radbard, Dunvat, Sivard, Bjørn, Agnar and Ivar.

3. [Swanloga, {Gesta Danorum} '''Svanløg / Svanloga ''']: three sons Ragnald, Hvitserk and Erik.

4. Unnamed mother of Ubbe: Ragnar father’s Ubbe with a unnamed female. However the father of this woman is later mentioned as Ubbas grandfather Esbern, who tries to go for the throne himself.

Yep, I agree. I have a copy of the old text but haven't gone through it yet. Since you have and have already gone through it, why don't you go ahead and add it?

Anette reminded me today that we need to also add the sources. I'll get to that tomorrow, unless you beat me to it ;)

I don't like the first paragraph. It sounds to much like he was a historical person.

"is a famous viking"
"He led many raids"
"until he was shipwrecked"

I think you need to rework this part so that it is shown, beyond any doubt, that what we are talking about are uncertainties and sagas, and not historical facts.

I know the next paragraph talks about wether he was real or not, but the first part makes him to much like a historical fact.

Cant you guys agree on anything with out sounding a lot like a congressional senate debate?

Tsk tsk

Private were you thinking of the Italian senate, where fistfights are a regular occurence? Or the British, where catcalls are a part of daily procedure?

I think we're better than that :-)

Remi Trygve Pedersen I think we should make it clear that the page tries to represent what the sources say about Ragnar. We shouldn't try to convince anyone whether "he" is real or not.

So I'd flip it around, and start off with "A number of sources, including several sagas, describe a Viking chieftain called Ragnar." (Gesta Danorum is, to my mind, not a saga - it belongs to a different brand of semidocumentary literature...)

Private I haven't attended any senate or congressional debates, nor have I watched any on TV. But if your senate or congression aren't able to distuingish between sagas and historical facts, than I really think you citizens need to do something about it. I know I wouldn't like to be governed by someone that didn't know the difference between what is history and what is uncertainties and sagas.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand Gesta Danorum is written in the late 12th century and as such can hardly be called a secondary source since it is written 300 years after the events of Ragnar. Maybe not a saga, but not contemporary either and should be treated as such.

Yes, I think quite a bit of what is written could be better expressed. Let's keep the ideas coming. The important points -- I think -- are that (a) this is what the sagas say, and (b) these are the conclusions people draw.