Talk:Vikings season 3

Ruthless ?

" , the ruthless king of Wessex (2 episodes) "

As far as all characters on this TV show, on a ruthless scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is a bunny, and 10 is Jack the Ripper, the King of Wessex is maybe 5.

He is certainly no more ruthless than any other leader, and seems more reasonable and civilized than many.

Maybe it should be Machiavellian as he is even more manipulative than Ragnar was in the second season.

When was King Charles promoted to Emperor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.103.229 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy

I have, at least temporarily, removed a newly-added Historical inaccuracy section. My concern is that the section gave a rather fine-grained critique of one specific event in one storyline in the series, thereby giving the impression that the rest of the series is reasonably accurate. This is not the case. Rollo was not brother of Ragnar Lothbrok. Rollo was not an ally of Ragnar Lothbrok. Rollo did not have any known children by his French wife (if she even existed). Judith was not daughter of Ælla. Neither parent given Alfred is historically accurate. Lagertha is legendary. None of these people ruled Hedeby. Ragnar is at best pseudo-historical and may be a chimera of numerous different vikings. I could go on. I think it misleading and out of proportion to only focus on the portrayal of the French actions at the siege of Paris for a historical critique of the series when there is so much wrong. Agricolae (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the best thing is to deal with historical inaccuracy with a broad brush on the series's main page, rather than try and list out every small point on each season page. Especially as the series has become more and more ludicrously far fetched as it has progressed. MapReader (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

And there’s a section on historical accuracy in the parent article; further details should go there, not here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my ‘historical inaccuracies’ in vikings (season 3). I saw the same section in vikings (season 5). I see no reason why such a double standard is prevailing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berserk Kerberos (talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

'There are other pages that are flawed so why shouldn't this one be flawed too?' See how that doesn't really work as an argument. I removed the content for the reason given above, that it gave completely disproportionate attention to niggling qualms about one subplot of the season, when the whole thing is a historical trainwreck. If this article is to have a section on historical inaccuracy, it needs to appropriately cover the topic for the entire season, rather than focusing on that the one little bit you care about and thus giving the false impression of overall accuracy. That it doesn't depict the political dynamic on the French side during the Siege of Paris the way you think it should is the absolute least of its problems, and shouldn't be the only problem mentioned. Agricolae (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that it really shouldn't be a Wikipedia editor in the role of fact-checker, deciding what the inaccuracies are, and equally important, deciding which inaccuracies are of sufficient import to merit clarification on the Wikipedia page, vs. which ones are incidental and not worth mentioning. Do you have a reliable source that the show Vikings did not depict the Siege of Paris accurately? (and I don't mean a source with the authentic information, I mean a source where a published critic points out that the show has made this historical distortion)? That is the real standard for inclusion, not whether an individual Wikipedia editor thinks something is wrong, even if they are right. Agricolae (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)