Jump to content

Talk:Björn Ironside

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 8 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Untitled

Bjorn pillaged Italy 859-62 ie 9th c??

"Old Norse"?

What is the relevance of this as compared to adherering to WP:MOS here- Who knows, reads or cares about speculatively spelled "Old Norse" in English text? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It hasen't anything to do with the language being "Old Norse" it has to do with the fact, that it's the oldest and therefore most original version of the name we know of, and therefore all modern versions of the name, regardless language, refers to the original form of the name in one way or another.Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no consistent spelling of such names in our alphabet, thus no genuine and reliable name form exists. In other words, as per WP:MOS such inventions or technical terms should not introduced on WP as if they had been established in English literature as basic to the English name. They have not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point. To my knowledge Wikipedia is an encyklopedia in several hundred different languages - not in English alone, so I don't follow your reference to "English literature". Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we add Björns name as it is spelled in the "several hundred different languages" you brought up? Is there an "Old Norse" Wikipedia?
Speculatively spelled names in "Old Norse" or any other obsolete "language" with speculative spelling, which also are not names used anywhere in English literature, do not belong in articles on English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to miss the point, and I must therefore refer to my first comment once more. What particular language it is and wheter it's obsolete or not isn't likely to be relevant as far as I see. Any etymologically dictionary will always offer you the oldest and most original known form of a given word, and I can't see why it should be any different in an internet based encyklopedia like Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep repeating the term speculative spelling but you keep ignoring it. Also this is not at all a case of "the oldest and most original known form of a given word". There is nothing whatsoever official or established about the name I removed and you reinstated. If there were, you'd be able to source it as such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep refering to "Manual of Style" paragraph "Technical language" apparently as some form of explanation or legitimation for why you chose to do these edits. Having read this paragraph I fail to see, why you are refering to that. This paragraph is about the use of technical language in English and has nothing to do with etymological explanations of words and names.
The matter of foregin names in an English text is dealt with in the sub-paragraph "No common usage in English":
Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English
That is, pardon the expression, miles away from what you are trying to do.
As for spellings. It's my impression, that most written languages from the time before 1750 didn't operate with our modern concept of a standard spelling for given words and names. There were probably dozens of varying spellings for some words and names. That's why scollars often have to operate with a 'normalized' or 'standardized' form of a given word or name in order to deal with the language in a scientific manner.
As for Bjǫrn Járnsíða have a look at The Prose Contexts of Eddic Poetry - Primarily in the Fornaldarsǫgur by Helen F. Leslie or Den ældste Skaldedigtnings Historie by Sophus Bugge, 1894. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." Thank you for admitting that the so called "Old Norse" spellings are speculative at best, complete inventions at worst. It's quite simple: if you have a reliable source that confirms one of your desired spellings as well established in English literature, add it to the name I removed. If not, please remove the name or I'll be doing it again soon, because it does not belong in an encyclopedia written in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting carried away now?

Is it because of a current TV series that we are having a bit of a back-and-forth battle about who his mother was? As a matter of fact, we do not know that. We hardly know anything at all about any of these people, so let's not get carried away by a TV series and start editing as if we do. Please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Björn Ironside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big addition questionable

This huge addition seems to lack sources, and some of the stuff added to the Saga of Ragnars Sons looks like they are no longer considered sagas. Poorly sourced. Needs a lot of removal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry chart appropriate?

I was asked about this on my talk page and have referred the user here. I recommend that we do not have ancestry charts for fictional and semi-fitional characters. If we ever do, it must be clarified that the chart is a matter of legend, not of fact. Very clearly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name Bjorn, Björn, Bjørn or Bjoern

I would say name should be changed to “Bjorn” since ö not is in English alphabet. Björn is a modern day Swedish spelling with The German ö. --Betabobby (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but the English exonym is actually Beorn, not Bjorn. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To other users: This has been copied and pasted at 4 different discussions. See Talk:Sigurd Ring#In favor of "succession". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing troll edits of birthplace

Björn is regarded a Swedish viking ruler and even has the Swedish "Ö" and doesn't use the danish "Ø". All the credible sagas and runes refer to him in this way. Since we do not have a birth certificate there is no use to try and name him "Danish" or "Swedish" when it comes to birth, refer to him and all other vikings from this time unless sources say otherwise as "Norse". Björn is a "Norse" viking chief and legendary king of Sweden and according to the sagas the founder of the Swedish dynasty of Munsö where he is most likely buried. Gaudi9223 (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic information for references

@Gaudi9223: in this edit you added references to Magnusson (2008) and Harrison (1993), but not the corresponding bibliographic information, so that the references are broken. Could you either add bibliographic information for these two references into the article, or put it here so that I can add it? Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no reply I have removed the references from the article. Wham2001 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation?

The runestone picture is labelled "This runestone, crowns the barrow of Björn Ironside in Uppland, Sweden. The stone is a fragment; broken pieces of the stone bear false witnesses next to it." I have to think "bear false witness" is a bad translation for "lie", as it really doesn't make sense as is. 2601:140:C000:2700:A11C:9F73:96E8:4C56 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The change from "lie" to "bear false witness" was a piece of vandalism that had been missed. I've changed it back. Thanks for the spot, and feel free to fix this sort of problem directly yourself in the future. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I rolled back 3 edits intended to define Björn as a person definitely known to history. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Björn_Ironside&oldid=1205114099"