Talk:Dagobert I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-Class) Middle Ages Portal Dagobert I is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

This tomb may be over the tomb of Dagobert, but it is NOT the tomb of Dagobert but a much later addition. It therefore does not speak AT ALL to the history covered in the entry. Weird choice. And is this image copyright? - MichaelTinkler

Hmm... the "portrait" image isn't really an improvement, since it falsely gives the impression that there's any reason at all to believe that Dagobert looked like that. It's clearly not contemporary, it's just a picture someone painted more than a thousand years later and called Dagobert I. I think we should rethink including purported images of people if we can't find actual images. -- Someone else 02:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Idiot the picture is modified by the artist to make more relevant the pedigree of the king... the blood link with his Holy Ancestor... Understanding? and look at the strange position of the hand, thus normally in portraits we do not see often the hands...

The conspiracy theories outlined in Holy Grail, Holy Blood should not be stated as uncontroverted facts. Should they be included at all, they should be accompanied by a statement of whose theories they are, and how widely accepted they are. Yes, 213.*, this means you. Shimmin 17:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

I added the reference provided and made changes associated with it. Dthem 2000 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)