Talk:Styrbjörn the Strong

message: A Saga is s semi mythical tale, and they are actually quite studded with legitimate historical details.  Is it necessary to condemn them as unreliable in one fell stroke?  Let's let the reader read about the Sagas and decide for themselves.Sukiari 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. Opinions have diverged greatly on the historic reliability of the sagas, and it is not for a WP article to take a stance in the issue. When Old Norse sources are concerned, Nationalencyklopedin is not an NPOV source which is shown by its article Ynglingatal (it represents a hypercritical and generally rejected hypothesis from the 90s). Stating that the information comes from sagas should be enough.--Berig 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole lead of this article is extreme. The dates and Styrbjörns family relationship with Eric the Victorious are treated as facts of history. Where Old Nordic stuff is concerned, English wikipedia is a mess, and it is ludicrous when its main defender here condemns Nationalencyklopedin. I am putting its judgment on the unreliability of this sagastuff back - it is in the reference. /Pieter Kuiper 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't condemn it, I only I gave a clear and relevant example where it cannot count as NPOV by Wikipedia standards. Why don't you take this source criticism to the article saga instead?--Berig 08:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the fact that right there in the beginning it says 'according to the sagas' and links to the article, it is unnecessary to force a judgement on the reader as to their historical validity.  Of course, many if not most historical dates from ancient sources are considered to be a bit hazy until corroborated otherwise.  Do you intend to edit the article about Jesus or Buddha because we can't prove the exact dates that he did stuff?  It's up to the reader to make a decision about the validity of historical dates present in or decipherable from all ancient writing. Sukiari 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Sukiari. Saying 'according to' is enough to show that sagaic evidence for history is considered somewhat dubious. It's up to the reader to make their own decisions regarding historicity of sources, anything else is POV especially as academic concensus is very mixed regarding just how reliable the sagas are. Also, if we discard the sagas out of hand we may as well delete most of the articles on Viking Age Scandinavian history. BodvarBjarki (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNreliable? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Styrbjörn the Strong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306132844/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11116 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11116
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227085107/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified