Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde

Untitled

Can someone please explain why not taking hostages was deemed disrespectful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.213.234 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that that's what the text is actually saying (although I know it's what the "Did you know?" says). Both times it's mentioned, the two things (the lack of hostages and the disrespect) are separate; in other words, the fact that he entered without hostages and the fact that he was killed for being disrespectful are not necessarily related. He could have been disrespectful in other ways. It seems more like it's saying that they killed him for being disrespectful (or because they had chosen themselves a different king, Magnus the Strong) and that the assassination was accomplished more easily due to his lack of hostages.

Or perhaps something is lost in the translation to English? Kafziel ^Talk 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. IRL, he was probably murdered solely because the Geats wanted to be independent. However, according to the laws that were put to paper during the following 200 years, the King of Sweden was obliged to take hostages from the powerful clans when he entered a former petty kingdom to be accepted as their king as well. Moreover, the regnal list of the West Geats (Westrogoths) claims that his not taking hostages showed his arrogance. This is also the traditional Swedish interpretation of why he was killed. By not taking hostages he showed that he considered the Geats to be harmless.--Berig 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If I'm understanding this right, you're saying that according to Swedish tradition, the defeated would say something like "enslave us or we'll kill you"? --Kimon 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These were times when tribalism was still going strong. The Geats had two choices: either they accept the king of Sweden and his protection, or they take another king and risk being pillaged by the Swedes. This is speculation, but they probably would not have killed Ragnvald if they had not elected a Danish prince as king, a king who could have provided military protection from Denmark. Unfortunately, no sources on politics remain in Sweden from this time.--Berig 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The hostages where not taken by force but exchanged quite ritually at the border between two "lands". The realm was a federation of lands, each with their own legislative parliament/electorate. (Kings were formally elected then.) The new candidate for the crown had to travel to each thing in the realm in order to be elected (or rejected). The origin of the tradition of travelling with hostages, I imagine, must have started as a means of securing the safety of the candidate against rivalling clans during his election journey. ("eriksgata"). The hostages consisted of individuals from the most prominent clans and must gradually had become a most honourable duty, an acknowledgement of status (political influence and pure military power) of the clan in question. Why Ragvald refused this is obscure. Perhaps he wanted to abolish a tradition he felt was archaic and meaningless, or considered himself such a popular guy that it really shouldn't be necessary. Anyway, the West Geats (or clans thereof) didn't take this display of initiative well, rather as quite an insult, an insinuation that there were no prominent clans at all in West Geatland worthy to be hostage (huh!?), and/or that they all were so meak and weak that they couldn't harm him no matter how hard they tried (HUH!?). The nickname "knaphövde" should by the way rather translate to "short of heads" or "short-headed", either pertaining to the fact that poor Ragvald was promptly made one head short (or shorter) when having the damn gaul to arrive at the Thing of All Geats without a proper hostage; that he never had much of a head to begin with; or most likely, both. Still today, the monarch is obliged by tradition to do an "eriksgata" from time to time, particulary when being installed in office. The tradition of travelling with hostage has however gone out of fashion, and monarch-wannabees are also not decapitated very often nowadays. They are rather gunned down or stabbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.31.205 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is flawed, presenting the opinion of right wing provincialists. We do not know a lot about the events, more than that Ragnvald was slain. Saxo was not in a position to know about the events. He was not born at the time, and he had an agenda to criminalize Magnus. These facts about Saxo has been know for some hundred years among historians. No serious scholar would accept Saxo at face value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.198.80 (talk) 16:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

The worst king of Sweden

Ragnvald Knaphövde was voted the worst king of Sweden by historian Dick Harrison on the TV program "Veckans debatt" on Axess TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.101.65 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dick's opinions have no weight as far as I am concerned. He has been convicted in court for power abuse and is consequently of dubious integrity.--Berig 09:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As if your opinions are worth anything Berig :-) You hardly adhere to any of the rules here, not npov and not no original research. /mof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.198.80 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, even when you mask them with a smiley. / Fred-J 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Xref removed for no good reason

I see no reason to remove a helpful cross-reference of this kind from the top of an article:

Sources indicate that this may have been the same person as Ragnvald, son of King Inge.

Restored. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not what hatnotes are for. Removed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Third opinions are the wrong vehicle for this dispute, IMO. It's not as much a dispute as a question of what hatnotes typically are used for. I think the helpdesk probably is a better place to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that in fact it's a dispute on whether sources do indicate this or not. Since it's a controversial claim, the hatnote should not be there, although it reasonably could be mentioned in the text. So now you have a Third Opinion. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous exonyms

SergeWoodzing restored the exonym "Knobhead". This is just his own invention. He adds a reference, but that is misleading. It is a review of his self-published book, where the reviewer calls these inventions funny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

His self-published book? Please explain! The reviewer calls them entertaining and educational (based on the book's extensive etymological bibliography), not funny as in comical. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Coin design

One of the relevant pages from Brenner's acclaimed Thesaurus Nummorum Sueo-Gothoricorum 1731.

Elias Brenner drew coins minted by Ragnvald with a three crowns design. That's what was in the image caption. Brenner, very respected, has never been accused before of creating any "inventions" - but that's not even the issue here. Brenner attributes the coin design to Ragvald. That's a fact, and that's all there was in the caption. Reinstating. Please remove for reasons of fact, if any, not personal desire. If it can be shown that the design is not what Brenner published, then and only then, should the image be removed. If it can be shown as known that Brenner invented those images, the caption should be adjusted accordingly, but even then, there's no reason to remove the image. I now have access to the original drawing from 1705 and will scan it and add it to Commons shortly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Brenner might be very respected, but that does not mean that everything he ever wrote is noteable enough to include everywhere. If there had been a coin design with three crowns used by a Swedish king like the one presented, it would mean that the history of the swedish national heraldic symbol would have to be revised.

Andejons (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not factual, neutral or constructive to label Brenner's drawings as fantasies (see edit-warring summaries).

"does not mean that everything he ever wrote is noteable enough to include everywhere" is a sweeping dismissal that is irrevevant here.

The opinion of one non-expert editor (who simply seems to be surprised about not knowing about these drawings before) as to what else "would have to be revised" is not a relevant argument either.

No one in this discussion has claimed as a fact that there has or has not "been a coin design with three crowns used by a Swedish king like the one presented". That's twisting the issue here beyond relevance.

The issue is that one of Sweden' most reputable coin experts, in a famous book published as early as 1691 and as late as 2015, has attributed these coin designs to these kings. That's an indisputable fact, that's the whole issue, and that's relevant to these articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O was requested at this stage of the discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

They have seemingly no basis at all in reality. He either made them up himself, or if we want to be slightly more generous, he was fooled by someone else. The earliest possible use of three crowns as a symbol of Swedish monarchy is held to be those surrounding Magnus III:s arms; this is easy to verify [1] [2] (Riksarkivet is even more conservative and gives 1336 as earliest date [3]; you can also find those who claim king Albrecht was the first to use them, evern later).

I've never claimed to be an expert, but that is not relevant here (neither is your bluster about what is neutral in edit summaries, when it's far more important what is neutral in the articles). If there is any modern expert who has taken the coins seriously, please provide a quotation. 17th century numismatics, just as other 17th century history writing, is simply not reliably enough when it comes to the period in question to be quoted straight off. The image to the right is an excellent illustration of why to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Sweden's early medieval history, numismatics and/or heraldry.

Andejons (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You say you've "never claimed to be an expert" then, for all to see, you continue even more to act like one.

Yet your speculation and dismissive opinions have no basis whatsoever in fact regarding Brenner and these images - pure personal conjecture totally unsupported in Swedish literature, where Brenner has never been criticized - and your opinions about other matters are utterly irrelevant in this case.

The images illustrate three crowns used on ancient Swedish coins as drawn by a very highly respected expert. The date of his drawings, and whether or not it can be proven today that such coins actually have existed, are also irrelevant. The only thing that might be relevant about their first appearance in 1691 is that, as anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Sweden's early medieval history would acknowledge, that year was 6 years before the royal castle burned down and most of that history was lost to us.

When modern historians, to which you refer, in the 19th century (!) began to reconstruct things for ideological reasons, they settled for lots of guesswork, one such assumption being that Olaf was the first Swedish king to mint coins. That's been what the political elite has professed, albeit with dire uncertainty, as fact since then. We simply do not know, however, who was first.

What's the worst, is that your removal of images like these, based purely on your own personal desires, leads us to accept such a polcy where thousands of images like this and this and this and this and this and this can be removed by you, even though the captions clearly explain, or should explain, that they are the artists' interpretations of history as they saw it, and removed by you at will simply because we cannot provide evidence that "there is any modern expert" who has taken the renditions seriously as historically accurate. Lots of damage able to be done all over English Wikipedia, in other words.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Brenner's drawings provide unusually valuable information to Wikipedia. Your efforts to use personal censorship on them is a very slippery slope for us to allow. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The caption under the image you arbitrarily pulled out was "According to Elias Brenner King Ragnvald had this three crowns design on his coins in 1130" - that's factual, interesting, substantiated and relevant to the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care much for your continued attempts to derail the discussion. Provide a citation that the image has been taken seriously by modern experts if you want it included. Whether I act as an expert or not is irrelevant. Whether Brenner has been critized or not is irrelevant. Whether Brenner is held in high esteem generally is irrelevant. Whether the archives in Tre kronor were availible to him or not is totally irrelevant (it is not our job to try to determine were he got his material from). Whether we like how modern historians work is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you can find any modern sources that accepts Brenner's images as correct.

As for the other images: Yes, I would like at least the pictures from the Suecia to have at least a caption that notes how unreliable they are (it is in fact a well-established fact that they often includes planned expansions that in the end where not made, that they cheat with perspective by including smaller-than-actual people, and so forth). However, that is not what is being discussed here, but whether this exact image has any place in this article.

Finally, I will have to give it to Brenner that he was slightly less gullible in this case than I thought. It seems that he actually had a coin with roughly that design, but that he mistook the age by about 200 years. This page discuss a coin with almost that exact design, but it was minted for Magnus Eriksson, in the 14th century (a nice irony: the author does indeed use the coin to establish the age of the Three crowns symbol).

Andejons (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a coin used a few hundred years later had the same design as very well may have been available to that king from before says nothing about Brenner or his work. Or rather, in fact it makes it even more relevant.

The fact that you'd like most of those other images removed, to me is shocking.

Your demand that we include modern historians' opinions about all older images in order for them to be allowed to illustrate articles relevantly is destructive.

The caption under the image you arbitrarily pulled out here was "According to Elias Brenner King Ragnvald had this three crowns design on his coins in 1130" - that's factual, interesting, substantiated and relevant to the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Think of it this way: if its a stone-cold fact that reliable modern commentators have ignored the opinion of an eighteenth-century numismatist, should we be taking it upon ourselves to note this opinion? Probably not, because it would be giving undue weight to a long out-dated and clearly irrelevant point of view. It's not 'shocking' for an editor to insist upon modern reliable sources for information. What is shocking is when an editor maintains that a forgotten three-hundred year-old source is somehow relevant and reliable. Just keep your eyes peeled for a reliable and relevant reference to Brenner in modern literature, and if you ever find one you'll be all set because you'll have proved that his opinion is indeed relevant. Until then I think Andejons has it right.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: Brenner is hardly forgotten, but rather obscure. There is probably references to him in any overview of the history of Swedish numismatics, since he was one of the pioneers of the field. His work should certainly be mentioned in such an article, if we would have one, but any of his individual theories should not be presented unless modern sources confirm their relevance.

Andejons (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Caption makes image relevant

When an image caption clearly states that an image, according to a 17th century expert, represents that expert's view of the subject of the image, that makes the image relevant to an article dealing with the subject that the image, according to that 17th century expert, represents.

If the image caption misleads the reader to believe, without a substantiating source, that the 17th century expert's representation accurately depicts the item, that caption must be edited for clarity, while the image itself, with the first kind of caption, is still relevant to the article.

We have thousands of images illustrating thousands of articles over such captions, without the historical accuracy of those images being made relevant for discussion.

I am reinstating the coin image and caption because the caption content has not been discussed. Ignoring it isn't fair play. The only thing that has been commented on by the remover and one supporter (see above), irrelevantly in this case, is whether or not the image can be sourced as historically accurate.

This new section has been started to focus on the issue, i.e the caption as pertains to image relevance. I need to know if I should stop contributing images to Commons and using them in Wikipedia articles in a way which, to me for many years, has been absolutely normal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Not all theories are relevant, even if the manner in which they are presented is strictly factual. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Why do you ask for third opinions if you're going to ignore them anyway?

Andejons (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No third opinion was given by a neutral editor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Coin expert Elias Brenner published drawings in 1691 which included designs he alleged were used by King Ragnvald.

Also, I consider your removal of the image, without our having discussed this thoroughy, including the use of a caption to explain image authenticity, or a possible lack thereof (the essential element of the discussion which you are constantly ignoring), to be highhanded and disruptive. Please stop it!

Furthermore, there is no theory involved in this discussion so as to make guidelines on undue weight relevant to it at all. There is only the undisputed fact that a well respected artist drew something, and that the subject of his drawing is relevant to the subject of the article, because those two subjects are one and the same.

There is nothing in WP:IRELEV which contradicts that part of normal image usage on English Wikipedia, relevant to this discussion, which has us using thousands of images to illustrate thousands of articles where the historic authenticity of the image has never been substantiated by such modern sources as you claim to be absolutely necessary here - and consequently to thousands of other images, such as this one or this one or this one or this one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Must every image be historically accurate?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to use the images and caption in this article. The discussion centred around WP:UNDUE. Undue states that we should represent all viewpoints found in reliable sources and weight each viewpoint as it is found in its portion of the sources. The majority opinion is that the small image and caption are not undue weight. AlbinoFerret 17:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

This discussion is important on principle to all Wikipedia users who add images. Perhaps it's been had before, but I can't find anything on it.

Friends and associates of mine and I since 2008 have contributed thousands of images to Commons, about half om them historical, and added many of them, and others, to hundrerds of articles on English, French, German, Spanish and Swedish Wikipedia. In order for us to continue to do so, and so as not to feel we need to remove many images like this, I need clarity:

1. An image by a known artist is inappropriate if its historic authenticity cannot be proven, even if it's explained in the caption that it is the artist's rendition of the subject.

or

2. An image by a known artist is appropriate even though its historic authenticity cannot be proven, as long the question of historic authenticity is clarified in the caption.

Please, which is it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is primarily not whether it is an accurate depiction of some coin or not. The issue is that there is good reason to suppose that the very claim that Ragnvald minted coins is false, and that Brenner's attribution has no support in modern sources. If this is the case, even a short mention of Brenner's idea would give it WP:undue weight. If we had an article about the actual coin, or the history of Swedish numismatics, the image could reaonably be included, but here it is not even a noteworthy historical mistake.

Andejons (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If the idea that Ragnvold minted coins is itself of note (even if generally discredited) and thus not subject to WP:UNDUE, then and only then would the illustration be appropriate here. Otherwise, it would be fit only to illustrate articles on Brenner (if he is notable or on the history of Swedish numismatics, in which he presumably has a place of sorts if only as a sadly repudiated theorist. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Orange Mike | Talk, sincerely! Since you were wondering about Elias Brenner, I cordially suggest you read the English WP article on him and comment again after having gained more knowledge. In this case we have one editor who really wants this image not to be included. I have read everything offered as motivation for that want, but have come up with nothing substantial that fits normal WP policy. It seems to be just a matter of personal taste. Nobody, for example, has made any " claim that Ragnvald minted coins", just like nobody has claimed that the Shaka statue at Camden Market is an authentic likeness, etc etc etc etc etc etc. What I'd like you to address, if you please, is the enormous number of images we can start removing from an enormous amount of articles (see the examples I provided here and in the previous talk section, please!), if it becomes adequate to remove an image like this simply because of what one editor wants. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't this discussion be more appropriate at Commons so more experts will see it? I came here by coincidence, but not an expert in this field. On Commons you'll find dozens, perhaps hundreds of people with some or a lot knowledge regarding the subject. My €0.02,  Klaas `Z4␟` V 08:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was going to abstain from commenting more on this until more people had found the dicussion, but I in general agree with Orangemikes summary (Brenner is perhaps a bit more than a sadly repudiated theorist in general, but in this specific case it seems to be true). As for the guidlines that SergeWoodzing wants, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE has already been mentioned and have still not been adressed.

Now, for Klaas' comment, which is the reason I answer now: I don't think there are is any part of this question that has to do with copyright or the accuracy of the scan itself, which would be appropriate for Commons. I see no reason to doubt that the image is a scan from Brenner's work, and then there should be no copyright issues either. This is a matter of whether one should present 17th century scholarship on a topic as relevant to that topic, when there is very good reason to think that it has been discredited, and there are no modern sources that to show that it is notable.

Andejons (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. I would say I agree with Orangemike and would include these images with the appropriate disclaimer (as provided in the caption of the image above). The primary reason is that the images are a welcome adornment to an article without them, and apparently by a well known coin illustrator: with the appropriate caption they add interest and information for the reader. If there is strong evidence that these images are fanciful or misleading, but are from a well known illustrator, they are relevant even being wrong, and can be described accordingly. In this case however, having read a little bit of the talk page, I don't see any sources arguing for the irrelevance of the drawings, and since they purport to show coins of the period, they're obviously relevant. I don't know what the fuss is about. -Darouet (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The caption above is true, but inaccurate. To really present anything resembling the truth, it would have to say "Coins misatributed by Elias Brenner to Ragnvald Knaphövde; in reality minted for Magnus Eriksson", or something like that. (This is verifiable: I did some searching in google books, and found this snippet: "none of the bracteates that Brenner wants to attribute older regents ([a list of names, including Ragvald Knaphövde]) can thus belong to them). [4]). Should we really use a proven mistake as illustration just because there is nothing else?

Andejons (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Andejons and SergeWoodzing: I'm not able to access that source, but is there any more information available on why Brenner attributed these to Ragnvald Knaphövde? From technical error, personal interest, or national concern? It could be interesting if you wrote a small section on this subject - then, the coins could appear in that section, with the appropriate caption. If you all were sure these were minted for Magnus Eriksson, you could write, "Elias Brenner attributed these coins to Ragnvald in the 17th Century; modern scholarship has showed they were in fact minted for Magnus Eriksson." -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I could read from the snippet, he took the "R" on some of the coins to be an initial. I do not know what it actually was for. His methodology for such early coins is scathingly summed up here here: "inga spår av vetenskaplighet eller analytisk förmåga", "not a trace of scientific or analytical capability". It also explicitly says that the one of the coins were minted for Magnus Eriksson. Any such section would be appropriate for Elias Brenner, but would not really have anything to do with Ragnvald, or any other individual king.

And I still don't see the value of an image that we know is totally incorrect, and is not even very culturally significant. If other authors would treat the coins as significant for Ragnvald, that would be OK (like historical paintings), but here they would just serve to confuse the reader. I still say that they are WP:UNDUE. The only positive thing that we can say about Ragnvald and minting was that he did not mint anything (neither did his close predecessors or successors).

Andejons (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how it can be stated so definitely that Ragnvald did not mint coins. Seems to me that is user opinion only, since we do not know for a fact whether or not he minted coins. Because we have no such coins today, we can assume either that he did not mint any, that the few he did mint have been lost (for example when Stockholm Castle burned down in 1697 - post-Brenner) or that none have been found yet. It has never been established as fact anywhere in reliable Swedish literature that Ragnvald definitely did not mint coins, nor that Brenner ever was known to have falsified anything. That's the mystery with these drawings. One of the most respected coin experts ever drew coins minted by Ragnvald. We simply do not know why, but the images ar relevant, and unsubstantiated user opinion should not be professed in this discussion as fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Coins where minted in Sweden by Olof Skötkonung and his son Anund Jakob. Then there was no minting for over a hundred years until about 1040 (here is a short history of Swedish coins from Kungliga myntkabinettet; I can find more in-depth references if needed). There is absolutely no reason to suppose that Ragnvald, who was king for only a short time, started minting when none of his immediate predecessors had.

And we can be reasonably sure that there was no great unknown hoard of coins in the archives. If there were any that would be lost to us, Brenner would most likely have gotten permission to study them (the problem is not that he invents coins, or that he was bad at depicting them, but that he had close to no scientific method in dating them, but you still want to cite his dating as a creditable theory). This endless argumentation about the fire is pointless. Yes, we know that we lost a lot of knowledge there. This does not give us carte blanche to go around and invent whatever we'd like to about Swedish history, just because it tickles our fancy that Ragnvald should have minted coins.

Andejons (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! We should not invent things like "an image that we know is totally incorrect" or "about Ragnvald and minting ... he did not mint anything". Brenner was very highly respected in his time. A few writers centuries later have cast doubts on Brenner - perhaps even "scathing" ones (?) - but that does not prove as fact that Ragnvald did not mint coins. He probably didn't. That's all we know.

The word "theory" keeps popping up over and over, though, as I've said before, no one in this discussion has any theories about any actual coin minting. That's what the caption clearly showed - no theory. The relentless and false use of that word over and over and over ends up being accusatory and a bit insulting, aside from being irrelevant.

My opponent has repeatedly declared a number of opinions of his as if they were facts, including a purported occurrence of "theories" about the existence of coins. Clouds the issue and makes dicussion very cumbersome and tiresome.

As Darouet correctly points out above, none of that makes these 17th century drawings irrlevant here. In answer to Darouet's question, I can only assume from what I read here and here that the "fuss is about" one Swedish amateur history buff (that's all I know for years now about Andejons and his work at svWP), briefly and mistakenly supported by one more knowledgeable Swedish user, being absolutely determined to see to it that these coins are censured on English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If you do not believe that the coin were minted by Ragnvald, why do you want to have the image in the article? There are times when it's OK to present things like mistaken theories (like Brenner's idea that the coins in question were minted by Ragnvald). However, this generally recuires that these are actually notable in such a context (see WP:ONEWAY). I do not believe that any modern historian has discussed these coins when actually writing on the subject on Ragnvald. If you can find such a source, then it would be OK to add the image. Not before.

Andejons (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. If long out-dated ideas are indeed relevant to a particular topic these theories will certainly be documented in reliable modern accounts.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "R" of the coins

There was an edit comment I wanted to answer specifically: that about the "R" design. It would be much easier if people would actually read the given sources, as they would then not need to make the same mistake that Brenner did. Magnus did indeed mint coins with an "R", which is why Brenner misattributed them. The exact reason for this is unknown to me, but I would guess it had something to do with the fact that Magnus would every so often issue new coins, which would render the old currency obsolete. the old coins could be exchanged for new, at a rate which gave the king a tidy profit (an old form of property tax). The "R" could be simply a form of serial.

Andejons (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please try to be more careful and accurate! You are tendentiously interpreting the sources and using only 6 verifiable (i.e visible) lines from one single Finnish magazine article from 1916 to proclaim Brenner definitely "erroneous". Such editing does not reflect accuracy on English Wikipedia and can be considered disruptive. There is nothing in those 2 sources to support your continued afforts to stamp the caption with your personal POV. Things like "Magnus did indeed mint coins with an "R", which is why Brenner misattributed them." are once again your own assumptions and personal views, but not factual. I'm now going to edit the caption again, after having read those sources, and create an accurate wording, trying once again to be fair to your basic attitude and to my requirements ( = those of WP) when it comes to stating facts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You should read the sources in full. The report from Stockholm University even includes an image of the coin with the "R" and a clear attribution to Magnus. Ragnvald Knaphövde is from a period from which there are no known Swedish minted coins at all. Brenner was wrong. Unless you can present a source that throws any kind of doubt on this, any reference to these silly image should make it abundantly clear. Your attempts at captions continue to be inaccurate and misleading. The attributions were a mistake, as attributed two different modern sources. Please take your personal POV somewhere else.

Andejons (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of your Swenglish (you're welcome!) and - again - removed redundancies and toned down your overkill in wanting to condemn Brenner entirely. I will continue to change what you want in there as fact and will modify that to "considered" etc. as long as you continue to try to implement said overkill. Brenner apparently was not aware of such errors that a drawing and caption in the university's report - without full clarity - seems to suggest that he made. There is nothing in the university's numnistmatic report that specifically states that those coins as a matter of fact were minted for Magnus. There's an image, and a list of rather unclear purpose, that's all. The rest is left up the reader to interpret. The caption text in this article now reflects your opinion on the sources, as well as mine, and is neutrally accurate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Brenner knew that he was ascribing the coins to Ragnvald. He can't really be blamed for making this kind of mistake, any more than Carl von Linné can be blamed for the fact that his system of classification of plants weren't 1000 % correct. That does not mean that his theories should be presented as anything else than speculations without any basis in fact. As for the report, the caption says "Magnus Eriksson (1319-1363), penning 1340-1354. Av Brenner [förd] till ... Ragnvald Knaphövde (ca 1125)" ("Magnus Eriksson (1319-1363), coin 1340-1354. Attributed by Brenner to ... Ragnvald Knaphövde (ca 1125)"). I don't see what can be taken as unclear bout it; it seems about as explicit as you can get. As long as the caption does not make clear that Brenner in modern sources is said to have been wrong in his identification, it will be inaccurate, misleading, and false. Furthermore, it is not only these coins that he was unrealiable on, but all coins before 1350. Stating this is not "overkill", it is following the sources.

Andejons (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I know what you "don't see", and have known examples of it for many years now. Once you've made up your mind about such things, articles often get edited by you as if the edits were based on facts. That's not the way we're supposed to work though.

"Magnus Eriksson (1319-1363), coin 1340-1354. Attributed by Brenner to ... Ragnvald Knaphövde (ca 1125)" is interpreted by you as a statement that those coins earlier were attributed to Ragnvald but actually were minted for Magnus. But there is no definitive statement of fact in the university's report to support your interpretation, and we have never seen the actual coins (have we?), only drawings. The report is unclear enough on that particular detail to be questioned. Your interpretation, however, is reasonable, so I'll leave it the way it's all worded now, so we can move on. I hope you appreciate, in doing so, that both you and I have gone against consensus in the RfC as closed by a neutral editor, though neutrality is one of the very cornerstones of our work on Wikimedia projects. We cannot too often remind each other, all of us, of that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've found the rightmost coin as well. Seems to been a Gotlandic coin. The general type is depicted in this essay, and the variant with a ring of "R":s is mentioned. Not sure if this is a good enough source, but it should be mentioned in Lars O. Lagerqvists book if someone wants to dig further.

Andejons (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but irrelevant here, unless you think that too should be mentioned in the image caption under Brenner's work. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)