Two Ragnar Lothbroks?

+8 votes
139 views

So, we have two Ragnar Lothbroks and no merge pending?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Volsungsson-1#

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sigurdsson-4#

Jes wonderin’.

in Genealogy Help by Pip Sheppard G2G Astronaut (2.2m points)
recategorized by Jillaine Smith

2 Answers

+8 votes
 
Best answer
Thanks Pip, you may not be able to complete a merge like that if you are not pre-1500 certified, but I am sure you can still propose them.

So if you come across two profiles you think should be merged by all means suggest the merge.
by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (479k points)
selected by Pip Sheppard
Dunno. I got the message of the rejection about an hour or so ago.
Shall I go look at the profiles for you?
No, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just came across it while browsing through Euroaristo profiles. I do this occasionally.

I still think WikiTree has a problem with the copyrighted image on one of the profiles, the pic from the TV series.
Dog?

Fight?

I just offered to visit the profiles and see if the second proposed merge was still there. It was.

Also, I have no idea why the first merge was rejected, after Maggie made it an unmerged match, in order to be able to work on it at a slower pace.

Eva, 'I have no dog in this fight' is idiom for 'I am a disinterested neutral party with no stake in this dispute.'  laugh

Tardy, Herbert, Tardy Dictionary of American Idioms (Singapore: WikiTree Publishing Co., 2018) Vol. XXII, p. 628.

Well done, Pip!  yes

ETA:  My original title was "Idioms for Idiots," but the publisher 86ed that idea.

[Nota bene - That was just a joke.  I am not calling anyone an idiot.]

Given they have totally incompatible dates and relatives, merging them is only going to make a mess.

I'd say they're two different fictitious people with the same name.  Like Blind Harry's William Wallace and Mel Gibson's William Wallace.  Or the old Sherlock Holmes and the new one.
Not sure why there is universal apprehension to close fiction on this site...

SJ, does that mean I can create a Mitch Rapp profile and just cite Vince Flynn Novels?  smiley

Really though, I kinda get what you mean. While we are big on paper sources, sometimes the oral history still has a kernel of truth, if it can just be dug out from the surrounding myths.

+3 votes
Isn't Ragnar Lothbrook one of those people in old stories (and modern TV) who historians doubt the existence of, or even think he might be a mixture of snippets about several people, together with a lot of fantasy? If so then any attempt to create a real Ragnar might logically end up requiring several, because historians don't think he was one person? (But I am not even sure we have enough good evidence to have one profile.)
by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (107k points)

Andrew, when does lack of evidence constitute a reason not to have a profile on WikiTree? smiley

Hi Pip, not sure if you are being sarcastic? (So difficult to do that well on internet chats!) Obviously if there is no evidence AT ALL for someone, then we should not have a profile for them. HOWEVER, in this particular case I was just saying that maybe there is a type of evidence for the existence of "a" Ragnar Lothbrook, but not good evidence for all of the genealogical connections proposed for him belonging to the SAME person.

So I understood the question to be about whether there should be ONE profile, not ANY profile. If there were a question about whether there should be ANY profile, then I'd need to look into it differently. I suppose there are reasonable arguments for having no profile.

As to the question of using Wikitree's past norms as a standard I think we should not do that. The reason is simply that everyone seems to agree that Wikitree wants to improve the quality beyond what it had in the past. This implies disconnecting and removing people sometimes. We should be open to such proposals.

One of the counter arguments to removing such people who exist in many genealogies entirely is that they keep getting re-inserted, and therefore that it makes sense to leave in an article for a dubious person as a sort of place holder and note concerning research. I'd say this argument is rightfully controversial but tends to win the day often in cases where there is only one myth which fills a gap in the family tree, and no conflicting theories. I'm not 100% comfortable with that, but I think the reasons for concern are so obvious that I'll keep the post from getting longer and stop here.

Andrew, sorry it’s tsken so long to reply. Just got home from work.

I was only being slightly sarcastic, as I have seen several posts on G2G complaining about “so-and-so has a profile and there are no sources for him/her.” 

I agree about a place-holder with a note that states the issue with the profile. I also agree that even myths (maybe most?) have kernels of truth in them, and the inherent difficulty is sifting the chaff from the seed. 

I have no problem with mythic figures having profiles. My initial complaint was that there were two profiles for one mythic subject, and a merger not being possible as the parents didn’t match up and the dates were not close.

I should never use sarcasm here as it is difficult to understand when not face to face and without knowledge of the person speaking. My sincerest apologies.

Related questions

+7 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
2 answers
+12 votes
1 answer
126 views asked Jul 25, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Anonymous Horace G2G6 Pilot (568k points)
+6 votes
4 answers
+7 votes
1 answer
84 views asked Mar 18, 2020 in Policy and Style by Helmut Jungschaffer G2G6 Pilot (544k points)
+3 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...