Talk:House of Munsö

message: I doubt that this is considered a "house" anywhere in the old Nordic literature. Someone has just tried to link together the "House of Ivar and Ragnar Lodbrok", the Old Dynasty and the "House of Uppsala", whatever they are. "Munsö" is a learned construction. There is no reason to assume that all these kings were simply related. This is either antiquated speculative scholarship or original research; WP:SYN. /Pieter Kuiper 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynasty? 

message: User:Berig is reverting all changes here. Whatever the "House of Munsö" is, Sweyn Forkbeard and a bunch of others that I had removed, do not belong to it. That is why I delete them, and it is a complete mystery why Berig puts them in. /Pieter Kuiper 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The maybe insecure family relationships between the Danish house of Sweyn Forkbeard and the House of Munsö are hardly in need of removal as "cleanup". They are rather in need of discussions in the article, and in need of references. Moreover, you also insist on removing a category in the process, and I'd rather you explain in what way this article does not deal with a royal family.--Berig 10:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have argued, the :category:Royal families or even :category:European royal families does not apply here, because these people were not related. All these family relations are just based on 13th-century infotainment to dress up kings' lists with juicy stories. If you want to this stuff back in, you must provide a verifiable scholarly source displaying a family tree of the house of Munsö with Sveyn Forkbeard in the place that you put him here. But I suspect that this is original research, WP:OR. /Pieter Kuiper 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with your notion that people like Eric the Victorious, Olof Skötkonung and Emund the Old were not related, since you remove :category: Royal families while keeping these related kings in the article. If you want a verfiable scholarly source that combines the families, you can consult the article Ulf jarl in Nordisk familjebok (1920) so the connection between the two royal families is hardly "OR", as you wish to call it.--Berig 13:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man. A credible scholarly source is required for Lodbrok being related to Eric the Victorious. User:Berig put Forkbeard back in the family tree without providing a source that links him to anything Munsö. I will revert. /Pieter Kuiper 14:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have problems with Forkbeard, why don't you remove only him instead? If you have problems with the name  of the article as in your edit summary, why don't you suggest a better name?--Berig 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am trying to do against uncomprehensible resistance is to weed and clean up this unwieldy, unstructured, unsourced article, so that maybe it will become clear what its subject is, if any. /Pieter Kuiper 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I doubt that you will succeed by removing sources and content. So far, I have not seen you trying to improve this article by adding either sources nor information, nor by doing any restructuring. Moreoever, the link to Gothicismus that you try to add under "see also" seems to be either irrelevant or some kind of strawman.--Berig 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: About "cleaning up here": It’s not the role of Wikipedia to "sanitize" history writing. People will have met this concept in different circumstances and it needs to be covered in a Wiki article where the use of the name is explained. Saying nothing about notable issues or concepts is never preferable to saying "what, who, why and when". (The "when" appears to be missing from the 3rd sentence of the article though). It's true that Sweden has a lot of baggage because of "Great era" expansionism, romantic nationalism history writing run amok in the early 20th century, a combination of Gustaf Kossinna's "same culture-same people" axiom and ethnic glorification and self-assertion based in Darwinism and in making pre-history and later eras of expansion confirm ideas of Swedes as the "crowning glory" in the Germanic race theories (as per the 1922 state supported race biology institute of Uppsala (see page 6-7 about  German-Swedish Networks In Race Biology: Hans F. K. Günther and the Swedish Race Biology Institute), etc, etc. These ideologies have, unfortunately, seeped into and charted the course in some Swedish history writing, making scholars part of the national legitimacy project, up until the 60s and 70s according to several recent PhD theses on this issue (such as Håkan Petersson's 2005 thesis Nationalstaten and arkeologin to pick one---mentioning that one here only because it's online, with an English summary, at ). But although the uncertainty about the pre-Christian period has been misused to create  nationalistic homogenization and cultural standardization in Sweden, I feel that it is total overkill and overreaction to want to erase all mentions of saga material from Wikipedia articles about historical or legendary persons or to have the articles incorporating them  declared "in-universe". Instead, either include and present the controversy about the interpretations and the criticism of the sagas as primary sources, or, if disinclined to do that sort of work, simply add fact tags to request that reliable secondary sources are introduced to support what's there. No need or reason to delete. Pia 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to clean up here 

message: This article states right at the beginning that House of Yngling is an alternative name for the dynasty House of Munsö. However, the article House of Yngling itself, which is prominently linked from the second sentence here, states with equal confidence that House of Munsö was merely one of three "clans" which together comprised the dynasty House of Yngling. I'm no historian, but at least one of the articles has to have it wrong. Right? Bishonen | talk 16:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to fix the intro of House of Yngling. I believe that the confusing naming is due to the fact that formerly Swedish historians wanted to trace the family of Eric the Victorious to the Yngling kings that the Ynglinga saga and Ynglingatal said lived at Uppsala.--Berig 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That was quick! :-) Bishonen | talk 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome, Bish :-).--Berig 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[House of Yngling]] contradicts this article

message: The parentage of Thorgils Sprakalägg is very disputed, instead the father of Ulf Thorgilsson, according to the Chronicon ex chronicis of Florence of Worcester/John of Worcester is "Spraclingi". More precisely, it is reported: comitis Ulfi, filii Spraclingi, filii Ursi, ac frater Suani Danorum Tegls. 
Source:
*.
Another sources are Knýtlinga saga and Gesta Danorum (two centuries later).
In any case, I've just deleted the dotted line between Styrbjörn and Thorgils Sprakalägg: the hypothesis of "Thorgil son of Styrbjörn" was proposed by Jakob Langebek and/or Peter Frederik Suhm only in the XVIII century. --Skyfall (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Parentage of Thorgils Sprakalägg

message: To give more detail on why I removed the mess of a family tree:
1. It was an unsourced mess of synthesis. The text claimed that it was based on the Hervarar saga (actually the genealogy appended to it), but there were also kings from the Vita Ansgari and Adam of Bremen. Such synthesis requires separate sources (the additional sources given where about the parentage of Thorgils Sprakalägg).
2. It had peculiar ideas of what is disputed or not. Historians would as a rule assign greater significance first to the account in Vita Ansgari, then to Adam of Bremen, and last to the Icelandic sources, but it was the Kings mentioned by Adam that were marked as "Disputed". (actually, almost the whole tree could be marked as "disputed").
3. It couldn't even get the kings that no one actually doubts right. Stenkil was not "King consort of Denmark"!  The name "Ingamoder Emundsdötter[sic!]" is a later placeholder name, and it is not even sure that she existed (she does come from Adam of Bremen, but he is not sure whether Stenkil was the stepson (privignus) or nephew or grandchild (nepos) of Emund). Sigrid the Haughty is seen as a less likely person than the polish princess Świętosława that is attested in contemporary sources as having roughly the same history.
For these reasons, I removed the tree. All of them should be addressed before an attempt is made to reinsert it.
Andejons (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The family tree 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on House of Munsö. 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/20060328125356/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/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) 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When using sources, please try to be as faithful to what they say as possible. I guess I will have to go through this article and verify everything eventually.--Berig (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Using sources