Talk:Viking Age/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Peer Review invitation 2 Let's try a vote 3 Why changing Hrolf to Rollo 4 Sourcing 4.1 Acceptable/Unacceptable 5 Rollo in the Great Danish Encyclopedia 5.1 Further to the same point 6 Other articles 7 Reverting

Peer Review invitation

Greetings.

There is a peer review started on Wikipedia:Peer review/Viking/archive1 and any interested party is invited to take part in reviewing the article. If you know the history of scandinavia, then please stop by and help the peer review of the artile Viking

Thank you for your time. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try a vote

As a vote is one of the steps of wikipedias guide to resolve disputes let's try one. Add your four~ under the solution you support. Please also add a short reasoning after your name and (if you want) larger comments under the comments sections.

LOL, this is pathetic. Just keep to the facts. And don´t rename him. --Comanche cph 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Rollo was known as Rollo(later Robert) and not Hrolf! And its very very doubtful that Hrolf from the Icelandic saga writed 300 years later, is that Rollo. I don't believe it myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo_of_Normandy#Still_kicking_to_Rollo

But that´s not the issue here, because Rollo was NOT known as Hrolf.

So why a voting? And its pretty easy to make 20 acounts and vote on the same. What will be next from you? A voting about, the Norwegians conquered the hole world in 15 days? --Comanche cph 14:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why changing Hrolf to Rollo

Because he was not called Hrolf by any script, other to a saga from Iceland writed 300 years later.

If you look at those who has reverting it, its all Norwegians or Icelandics, who just properly just WANTS to keep claiming that the "Hrolf" (from the Icelandic saga) IS Rollo of Normandy.

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo_of_Normandy#Still_kicking_to_Rollo

When calling him "Rollo" as he WAS called in Normandy, France and England, -and not "HROLF". We have a neutral, and right view on him, that agres with BOTH Theory´s, about who Rollo is, -and NOT the only very doubtful Icelandic saga theory.

Rollo was not known as Hrolf

--Comanche cph 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

In order to quell this problem, I will put myself in the possition of mediator. Before an admin says I am not qualified, few people on Wiki can read scandinavian languages and I have a feeling the sources will be in either swedish, danish or norweigen. I also have no idea or opinion of which version it really is, so this will be new knowledge to me, so I can be neutral. I ask both sides to give me sources which I can find in a library. Please note, I am in Denmark, so the large library in Cph can send any book to my local library in Roskilde. Please include page number and line numbers which I must read. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud your good will in trying to mediate, and I would certainly welcome your opinion, I fail to see why it would carry more weight than anyone else's opinion. As for the sources, the norman sources would be written in latin, not danish or norwegian, and the danish or norwegian sources would be in old norse. Also, interpreting medieval sources is not necessarily a straight-forward business for a non-expert - including, I hasten to add, myself. Personally, I would give quite a lot of weight to what established authorities have to say on the matter. What do history works by respected experts say? What do other encyclopedias say? I haven't got time to go to the library myself at the moment, but maybe someone else could have, for instance, a quick look at Encyclopedia Britannica, Salomonsens leksikon, and Store Norske Leksikon, for instance?--Barend 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be neutral to either party to start with, plus I can read what a person of authority on the subject writes if it is in Danish, and, but not at the same level, Swedish and Norwegian; I can come back here and explain what I read in the given sources, plus since I know absolutely nothing about Rollo, I am not bias to either side of the story yet. I also am the only one who has stepped up to the plate to mediate. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If permitted here is the entry on Gange-Rolv in Store norske leksikon (one of the biggest Norwegian encyclopedias): "Gange-Rolv (norrønt Gongu-Hrólfr, "Rolv som går" (fordi ingen hest kan bære han)), ca. 900, ifølge sagaene sønn av Ragnvald Mørejarl. Ble i Harald Hårfagres styringstid lyst fredløs i Norge på grunn av strandhogg. Han er i følge norsk-islandsk tradisjon identisk med den Rollo som 911 grunnla Normandie i Frankrike og ble stamfar til den normanniske hertugslekt. Om hans avstamming har det hersket uenighet, i første rekke mellom danske og norske historikere. Den danske historiker Johannes Steenstrup hevdet i sitt store verk Normannerne (1876-82) at Rollo var dansk, under henvisning til den franske krønikeskriveren Dudo av St. Quentin (død før 1043). Dudos skildring både av Rollo og av Danmark er imidlertid høyst fantasifull og delvis uriktig. Spørsmålet om Rollos nasjonalitet er fortsatt uløst. Mens britiske, franske og norske forskere stort sett har tillit til den norsk-islandske overlevering, har danske, svenske og tyske historikere fulgt Dudo."

Included is also a picture of a statue given to the city of Ålesund in 1911 made by Arsène Letellier. There is no separate entry under the name Rollo.

This (attemtedly) translates: Rolf the walker (because no horse will carry him), ca 900, acording to the sagas son of Ragnvald Earl of Møre. Was during the reign of Harald Fairhair banned from Norway because of coastal raiding. He is acording to norwegian-icelandic tradition identical to the Rollo who in 911 founded Normandy in France and the Norman ducal line. His heritage is the subject of differences, foremost between Danish and Norwegian historians. The Danish historian Johannes Seenstrup claimed in his large work Normannerne (1867-82) that Rollo was Danish, siting the french chonicalist Dudo of St. Quentin (dead before 1043). Dudos account both of Rollo and of Denmark is however highly imaginative and partly wrong. The question of Rollos nationality remains unsolved. While British, French and Norwegian researchers/scholars mostly have faith in the norwegian-icelandic account, Danish, Swedish and German historians have followed Dudo. Inge 09:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

First. This saga is not from 900, but from the 1200-1300 ac.

But this is interesting. It does not says that, "Rolf the walker (Gange Hrolf)" WAS the Rollo of Normandy. But as it is writed;

acording to norwegian-icelandic tradition identical to the Rollo who in 911 founded Normandy

Gange Hrolf is only found identical with Rollo of Normandy, and does not say that he was the Rollo of Normandy.

____

While British, French and Norwegian researchers/scholars have faith in the norwegian-icelandic account

Where do you get this from? Because it´s not right. There are both British and French, who believe Dudo´s account is more trustable than the Icelandics saga. As i also qouted in the discussion in rollo of Normandy.

____

It, says here from a Danish history site. http://www.fortidensjelling.dk/jelling84.htm: Normandiets egen hjemlige overlevering peger på Danmark og gør vikingernes overanfører Rollo til en dansk kongesøn

Translated: The tradition in Normandy points at Rollo, as being from Denmark, and son of a Danish king.

____

Inge wrote: Dudos account both of Rollo and of Denmark is however highly imaginative and partly wrong

Why do you think that? So that means this all the work from Dudo´s is highly imaginative? :oD. Dudo from Normandy wroted the history of Rollo, only 60 years later as a request of Rollo´s grandson, and was alot closer the events. Don´t know about you, but i would say Dudo is more trustable.

I gues this problem will never be solved.

But then i must ask you Inge and Barend. Why are you keep claiming on other articles that Rollo IS the "Gange Rolf (Rolf the walker)". When it´s unsolved? --Comanche cph 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph, assuming you are Danish, if you want to be constructive: Why don't you look up what Salomonsens leksikon (I understand this to be the most commonly used Danish encyclopedia) has to say on the matter?--Barend 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the name "Salomonsens". Only Salomon bagpacks. The biggest Danish encyclopedia´s is either "Lademann" or "Gyldendal". I think it says in Danish encyclopedia that Rollo is Danish, because that is what Danish scholars learn.

But what does it matter? Some believe the version from Iceland, other believe the version from Normandy.

This article tells about both version. So let me ask you again.

What is your problem? --Comanche cph 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not passing judgement yet, but I do wish to let Comanche know, websites are not good primary sources of information. Although it does show you did research, anybodies research is only as good as the sources they have. Published books which are from credited publishers can be considered reliable sources though, so if you can find a book and the page which says what you are claiming, I will weigh that book against other books cited as sources here.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out again that the text I submitted above is not written by me, it is a direct write-off of the article in Store Norske Leksikon (one of the main Norwegian ecyclopedias, published by "Aschehoug og Gyldendal") I don't know what Comanche reads into the word identical, but I think the most common meaning is "the same as" or something like that. When you take the wording "identical to" as saying he was not Rollo (or not saying he was Rollo) you are mistaken. The text clearly states that Gange-Rolf and Rollo are believed to be the same person. The questions of where I have gotten the stuff in the encyclopedia-article from is better directed at the writers of the encyclopedia, but I think you will find they are all respectable and notable scholars in their field. I will however comment on Comanches comment towards that if some of Dudos text is wrong that doesn't make all of it wrong. You may be right, but this has been one of your primary arguments against the Icelandic account claiming Rollo was from Norway. I put more faith to it when the statement is made by a notable encyclopedia. Inge 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dudos account both of Rollo and of Denmark is however highly imaginative and partly wrong. The question of Rollos nationality remains unsolved. While British, French and Norwegian researchers/scholars mostly have faith in the norwegian-icelandic account, Danish, Swedish and German historians have followed Dudo."

If that is what that Norwegian encyclopedia says. It just shows ones again the ignorance of the Norwegians historians. There are both British and French researchers/historians, who believe Dudo´s work more than, the Icelandic saga -(wroted 300 years later and by a guy who probably never have been other places that in Iceland).

"Dudo work is highly imaginative and partly wrong"

This is pathetic, and there is no sources, and no explaining why it is so partly wrong. -Because he can´t.

But what there has been showed as imaginative (by researchers), is the Orkney saga/Snorre-Heimskringla. Just look at the discussion in Oslo etc. or here; http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/saga.htm. Or what about this with Hrolf Ganger, who was so fat that no horse could carry him. That´s why he got his name "Ganger" (the walker). This are way more imaginative i think. And Dudo also said that they were riding. (Rollo and Gurim was Riding). And on his grave, he doesn't looks big at all :D. http://www.the-orb.net/orb_done/dudo/chapter11.html

>>Remember folks. A Encyclopedia is not a source, it is always wroted by a anorther person.<<

But now you all talk about Gyldendal and Salmonsens. Then look at this.

1. http://peecee.dk/?id=45710
2. http://peecee.dk/?id=45711 from Salmonsens
3. http://peecee.dk/?id=45712 from Gyldendal

They points both theories, and keeping their opinion neutral, like a real encyclopedia does. (and call him Rollo(Robert) -not Hrolf ganger).

Who has wroted that "Rollo is a latinized name"? It´s not. Some also spell him like Roulo and other names. -cant remember where i readed that. I don´t even know how Dudo spell his name(i have only readed the translation). But i think that must be the "Rollo". Since the name Rollo is wroted on his grave. I will try to find out --Comanche cph 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable/Unacceptable

Sorry, but a website is NOT acceptable as a source of information. You must reference a book and page number. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What website do you talk about? And what do you mean? There is taken photos of the two biggest Danish Encyclopedia´s. And the text in the Gyldendal is identical with what user:valentinian writes. --Comanche cph 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rollo in the Great Danish Encyclopedia

I'm not going to read through this entire dispute, but here is the relevant article from Store Danske Encyklopædi (the Great Danish Encyclopedia), published in 1994-2002 (a new supplementary volume will be published soon.) On a side note: Salomonens Konversationsleksikon was a lexicon in more than 20 volumes (1st edition: 1891-1911 (19 volumes), 2nd edition: 1915-1930 (26 volumes). A third but less inclusive version was printed 1937.40. Store Danske Encyklopædi is the first Danish lexicon in more than 70 years to rival this work, especially the second edition.)

Anyway, here's the entry from Store Danske Encyklopædi (CD-rom version): "Rollo, Robert 1., d. 927, vikingehøvding, stamfader til det normanniske dynasti i Normandiet og England. Rollo anførte en vikingehær, som i begyndelsen af 900-t. opererede i Nordfrankrig. I 911 overlod Karl 3. den Enfoldige ham områderne omkring Seinens nedre løb mellem floderne Bresle, Epte og Risle, mod at han beskyttede riget mod andre vikinger; Rollo blev i denne forbindelse døbt. Han omtales herefter som greve af Rouen. 924 fik han også landet mellem Risle og Vire, det centrale Normandiet. Rollos nationalitet, norsk eller dansk, er omstridt."

(rough translation: "Rollo, Robert I, d. 927, Viking chief, founder of the Norman dynasty in Normandy and England. Rollo commanded a Viking army which operated in Northern France in the early 900s. In 911, Charles the Simple awarded him the areas near the lower stream of the Seine, between the rivers Bresle, Epte and Risle, on the condition that he protected the realm against other Vikings; Rollo was baptised in connection with these events. From then on, he was referred to as the Count of Rouen. In 924, he was also awarded the land between Risle and Vire; the central part of Normandy. Rollo's nationality, Norwegian or Danish, is disputed.")

From what I've read, it's pretty apparent that we must have (at least) two independent traditions about him. I wouldn't be surprised if Saxo had written about him as well.

The solution seems pretty simple to me: write that both theories exist and that his nationality is a matter of dispute. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, i agree, that is the issue here. But it seems like some users in here don´t wanna accept that.--Comanche cph 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been my solution all the way, but if Comanche agrees to that solution will he also stop trying to remove all connections between Rollo and Gange-Rolf? Inge 14:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the solution here. What I read at the Kings Library is what I read here (above). Both theories exist and both are worthy of note. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Both theories exist, and both should be mentioned - exactly as Inge says, this has been my solution all the way. --Barend 10:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And exactly what i said the hole time. And that's why his name is being changed to Rollo or Rollon. --Comanche cph 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to the same point

Excerpt from article on "Gange-Rolv Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (?)" in "Norsk Biografisk leksikon" (Norwegian biographical encyclopedia), article written by Claus Krag, 2001:

"Norwegian-Icelandic histories were in medieval times in agreement that Gange-Rolv and Rollo were the same person. The oldest written mention of this is in the latin Historia Norvegiæ (ca. 1180), which was written in Norway. Snorre, in his kings' sagas, relate that Gange-Rolv conquered Normandy after first having plundered in the area Hebrides-Irish Sea-France, and that many Norwegians settled in Normandy with him.

At the end of the 19th century, a lively debate arose about who Rollo was. The discussion, which partly followed national divisions (with danish and norwegian historians on opposite sides), gathered pace in the time leading up to the great millennial celebrations of Normandy in 1911. An important point in the debate was how one should understand terms like "Norwegians" and "Danes" in the medieval sources, and also how "Danish" or "Norwegian" the settlement in Normandy had been.

Danish historian Johannes Steenstrup started the debate. His main argument was clear statements from the French historian Dudo of Saint-Quentin, that Rollo was Danish. Since Dudo wrote his work on the Norman dukes around 1020, he seemed to stand closer to events than the saga writers, so that his version should be preferred. At the same time Steenstrup emphasized, with arguments similar to later saga criticism, how little one could build on the norse sagas.

Norwegian historians - foremost among them Gustav Storm, Alexander Bugge and Ebbe Hertzberg - doubted Dudo's value as a source, pointing at how totally unreliable his accounts are in the rest of what he writes about Rollo and Denmark, with historic and geographic information which are not at all correct. They also emphasised that Rollo was to have had a daughter, Gerloc (Geirlaug), whose name seemed to indicate a Norwegian connection, and that there also on French soil, in writings younger than Dudo's, existed a tradition that Rollo was Norwegian.

The question of who Rollo was can never be fully answered. But among Norwegian, as well as French and British historians, it is now commonly held that judged from the sources - choosing between the two extant possibilities - there is more to indicate a Norwegian connection."

Excerpt from article on "Rollo, also called Rolf, or Rou, French Rollon" from The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1998:

"Scandinavian rover who founded the duchy of Normandy. Making himself independent of King Harald I of Norway, Rollo sailed off to raid Scotland, England, Flanders, and France onpirating expeditions and, about 911, established himself in an area along the Seine River..."

--Barend 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you keep saying that English and Frence historicans are pointing on the icelandic saga. When i have copy pasted some stuff that rollo was from fakse writed by and English. ANd all the old Frence historicans, points on Dudo's account.

French soil? writings? younger than dudo's? Don't think so. You have to prove it mister. --Comanche cph 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to deliberately misunderstand what I am writing, that is your choice. I trust that everyone else understood that what I wrote was quotes from encyclopedias - nothing I'm in a position to either prove or disprove. Also, as one can see, the source for the claim that Rollo was Norwegian is NOT an Icelandic saga, as comanche keeps saying, but the latin Historia Norvegia, written in Norway in the 1180s.--Barend 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not right. The only source that tells Rollo=Hrolf is from the Orkneyinga saga. Dudo's book is the most trustable source.

His name is Rollo of Normandy. Not Hrolf of Normandy. End of discussion. --Hypster 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The theory was referenced to a trusted source, so it is a valid wiki entry. Also, wiki is NOT-

• a place of original research.
• the people who say what should and shouldn't.
• able to say who is right or wrong.

Wikipedia-

• references facts.
• references theories.
• quotes people.

Both theories are referenced, so they both stick.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree on that. Only mentioning one of them (nomatter which of them) is POV. Both theories have existed since the Middle Ages, and both should be mentioned. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and both theories are also well mentered in "Rollo of Normandy" ;o). The thing is that we don't know for sure who his was. But we know that he was called Rollo, and Rollon in French. --Comanche cph 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Other articles

Please Comanche! Do we really have to have this same discussion for every single article containing the names Gange-Rolf or Rollo? I thought we got you to agree that the Norwegian origin theory was notable. That makes it likely that Gange-Rolf was the founder of Normandy. Him being the likely founder of Normany is the reason for his inclution in Wikipedia lists.Inge

This was writed by user:Inge

___

He is being the possibly founder of Normandy ;o) --Comanche cph 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, anyone is possibly the founder of Normandy. A notable and credible theory many scholars/historians believe to be the correct one makes it more than likely. Inge 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that most scholars care about were he is from. But its known there is two theories, and two possibilities. --Comanche cph 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So if it matters so little why not agree that a notable, credible theory which many scholars believe to be the more likely of the two makes it likely that Gange-Rolf was the founder of Normany? At least for the purpose of short lists and short mentions of him. The link will take people to the two theories as you point out. (just a side note: I see you repeatedly say that Gange-Rolf was too fat for a horse to carry. I just want to point out that he was not described as fat, but as very tall) Inge 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok im sorry. He was to tall for his horse could carry him, since this not sounds more weird. And you know that people general was smaller that time, that we are today. I don't know what scholars you keep talking about. I have always known him as Rollo from Fakse. The link will take people to see two theories, and it still does. This should be nautral, as we have agreed on. --Comanche cph 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)--Comanche cph 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I know people were smaller at that time and so were the horses (take a look at Fjord horse wich might be a good example of a Viking horse:)). Anyway the nickname of a person is always an exageration.

Just to clarify: likely means sannsynlig, rimelig. It is not stating that he definately was the founder of Normandy, it leaves the reader to understand that it is not certain whether he was. This is neutral. Using possible would immediately diminish the theory. Could you (Comanche)please stop your edit warring and use reason? Inge 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Likely means- sandsynlig, rimelig, trolig. Witch not is neutral point of view.
2. Possibly means- muligvis, måske. Witch is neutral. --Comanche cph 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If the theory was only a possibility it would not be a notable theory. How can you say that possibly is neutral and likely is not? Possibly is clearly diminishing the theory. I could possibly be the decendant of Harald Fairhair, but that doesn't mean I should get a mention on Wikipedia. I know you have only heard of Rollo from Fakse, that seemed obvious from the start. The scholars I speak of have been referenced in the discussion above. If you want to dispute that scholars supporting this theory are plentiful then be my guest, but it seems we have been down that road before. And I seem to remember you accepted that the theory was a notable one. Inge 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofcouse both theories is very notable. I really can't see what's your problem with possibly. Likely means. This is what its like.

I mean. You can have 2 possibly, but only one likely. --Comanche cph 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not being rude, but could you try to refrase your last entry because I really didn't understand what you wanted to say. Do you think that likely means "this is what it's like"? Inge 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Herre, at være ærlig, du er ikke godt til engelsk, så måske du skulle ladevære at sige hvad 'likely' betyder, fordi du tager fejl. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Likely" is kind of the same as "probably". witch means sannsynlig. So it's not neutral.

Possibly is the word to use. --Comanche cph 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is something in the common usage of the word that makes you not want it? I don't know, but it really is the most neutral alternative. It is possible to have two likely theories and the word leaves the reader to believe that the information is not certain. Inge 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it easy. Possibly just means there is more possibilities. So does likely. But it says what should be most trustable. --Comanche cph 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase you are looking for is most likely, that means "what should be most trustable". Likely does not. Inge 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

gosh! you never give up. So you your likely in that 860 article. :o) --Comanche cph 07:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

I see you love to revert, Comanche. I just want to point out that simply reverting or removing text you don't agree with isn't good behaviour. You know that there is a dispute yet you constantly try to keep your side of the story the current one via reverts. When you see one of your edits being changed the second time around a bell should ring signaling it's time to go to the talk page. Then it is common procedure that the original text remain until the dispute is resolved. Inge 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok why should why put the name "Hrolf Ganger", when it's only supporting one theory? Just link to Rollo, and the name Hrolf Ganger is explained there and everybody is happy ;o)

And i trough we had a agreement --Comanche cph 23:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you still seeking a rewert war? Did you not understand what I tried to explain or do you not want to play nice? Inge 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You did't answar the question?

Why are you keep putting the name Hrolf Ganger back. Hrolf Ganger was his prename according what some historicans think about one theory. Witch tells about a man who sailed to Normandy.

So leave it, we had a agreement. --Comanche cph 07:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, revert-warring is a bad thing. I'm no expert on the Viking Age, but I've tried to patch up a compromise which I hope will be acceptable to both of you. Please see this in good faith. Btw, you might both be interested in this debate: Image talk:Vikings-Voyages.png. It almost looks like a user is trying to prove that no Vikings ever existed in Sweden. sv:Diskussion:Viking has more on the same discussion. Anyway, the map could probably need a few improvements, so any input on it would be very welcome. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attemts to negotiate a solution and I think you have good suggestions. I fear however that Comanche will continue his reverting tactics pushing unreasonable consessions until the Gange-Rolf theory is mostly discredited and hardly mentioned. I am sure you have noticed how more and more counterpoints have had to be added to every mention of the theory. The agrement we had was that there was two theories equally worthy of note in wikipedia. One of which was a prominent theory regarding Rollo being the same person as Gange-Rolf. Any other agreement must be between Comanche and himself. Comanche seems to want to remove all connections between the two, not even permitting the mention of Normany in texts mentioning Gange-Rolf. He has since allowed us to mention a possibility of a Normandy connection. I see now that he is taking these tactics and disruptive behaviour with him to other articles and I fear the consequenses. Behaving brutishly until you get your way is not the wikipedia way of doing things. Inge 12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Inge stop you attacking tactic on me. We have two equal theories, and both should be mentored as equal. The term "Gange hrolf" was not used in Normandy. And why will you have it changed to it??? --Comanche cph 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My last remarks regarding texts mentioning Gange-Rolf was referring to Rolf and 860. Inge 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What the heck "likely" or "possibly", i don't care :). --Comanche cph 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well congratulations to us, that's another problem solved :) Inge 13:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)