Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia

message: The caption under the photo of the runestone U 136 says that it "stands in memory of an early convert who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem." However, on the page for the Broby bro runestones, U 136 is translated as "Ástríðr had these stones raised in memory of Eysteinn, her husbandman, who attacked Jerusalem and met his end up in Greece." Which one is correct? Sklero (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: An Inconsistency

message: The immaculate conception is a doctrine that wasn't developed until the 1800s. Surely whoever wrote this article is referring to the incarnation. Pinksisket 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page on the [Immaculate_Conception] states that there is record of a feast day to Mary's being conceived immaculately in the 5th Century. I think you're under a misapprehension. 2.101.125.161 (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Immaculate conception?!

message: I move two sentences here for discussion:
:By 2001,  the existence of this temple had not been confirmed by archaeological findings.Kaufhold 2001, 86 Whether the remains of several large wooden constructions, found by excavations under the present church, are from a pagan temple or from an earlier church build in the same place, is disputed.
The presence of this text is problematic because it does appear a bit off-topic and misleading in the context. No one disputes that the area was used for pagan sacrifices, and AFAIK extremely little of the area has even been excavated: a small area under the church, the foundation of the royal mead hall and the centre of two barrows. The text that I have removed makes it sound as if 1) the area has been thoroughly excavated and 2) the presence of pagan worship is disputed, none of which is true.--Berig (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably you don't remember it, but you already commented on the issue almost two years ago on my talkpage (diff). Back then I used a reliable source (a German introductory history textbook) to get a definite statement into this article - so now I don't see why you would want to remove that statement. There apparently is a debate whether the remains of several wooden constructions beneath the church are from an old temple or not, and, as far as I can tell, that debate would be notable. Of course, If you have better sources (like some in English) you could improve the coverage of the issue, but I can't see a warrant here to remove sourced information. Zara1709 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In a short internet search, I found this blog entry. The issue appears to be notable. Zara1709 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I don't think a blog indicates what is notable.--Berig (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As I wrote above, there are problems about how this information is presented in the text. If this particular information is so important, how do we avoid the problems I have pointed out?--Berig (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The blog entry says that there was something published on the question in a Swedish journal. What we would need is a paragraph that describes the Swedisch discussion (most likely based on Swedish sources). The reference to a German history book can only serve as place holder until there is something better - but until then we need to keep it. (Unless you could convince me that the issue is not important enough to be mentioned here at all.) Zara1709 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the only controversy that exists in this matter is whether Adam of Bremen was right in his description of a lavish building at the spot, and whether he also exaggerated the rites. Whether there were sacrifices at the spot is not an issue at all, and one of the pagan holidays even survive until today in the form of a fair, the Disting. I think the present version has to go, or be considerably re-written, since it implies that there is a debate that doesn't even exist, and that violates WP:NOR.--Berig (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can admit that the version needs to be rewritten; but why would you remove sourced information, then? Either you'd have to show the the issue is not notable, which I presume would be rather difficult, since there is a separate article for Temple at Uppsala and, unlike most other stuff "that hasn't been preserved", this temple was mentioned in historical sources - or you have to find better source than an German academic historian of Scandinavia. You can't simply remove that information.  Zara1709 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think misguiding information can and should be removed if it is not very relevant in an article. This article is on the christianization process, and not on Gamla Uppsala or its cult site. I certainly hope you are not suggesting that this is me.--Berig (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we want to rewrite it, we certainly don't start that be removing one of the few sentences that IS actually sourced. If the issue is important enough to be mentioned in the only (as of 2002) German introduction to mediaeval Scandinavia, why shouldn't we mention it here? Do you have any serious argument for that? Zara1709 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding sourced information to promote OR like you do here is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Moreover, you simply cannot defend your OR with referring to the generally poor quality of WP: "it is problematic, but so are 80% of Wikipedia...". Until you show evidence of respecting WP policy, I'll simply have to revert you.--Berig (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple at Uppsala

message: As a heads up, this article (and some parties who have recently edited it) is the subject of an ongoing discussion at the Fringe Theories notice board (conveniently unmentioned here by the poster, ). :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]]

message: The badly needed material on the establishment Swedish dioceses (central for the topic of Christianization) is now included, although one would still have to mention the "so-called Florence document", which lists Scara, Liuanga, Kaupinga, Tuna, Strigin, Sigtuna and Arosa as Swedish episcopal seats. (cp. Sanmark 2004: 108) But first we need to get the issue of what has been called popular science out of the way.
Actually it is not that unusual that works intended for a general audience differ from works aimed at an academic audience. I could quote one historian who explicitly complains about that. I knew that I would encounter that problem sooner or later at Wikipedia, but I didn't expect to encounter it quite so soon. If we stay with this case as example. It simply takes a lot of training at a University to be aware of the academic discourses that have evolved around such issues as the reliability of the accounts about Northern Europe from the 10th-14th century. And if you are writing about such topics even people with an academic training might not have the time to accurately summarise such debates - and it's easier to simply stick to the primary sources then attempting a balanced evaluation. I don't know if there is any guideline or essay specifically about this issue; But I have already quoted Wikipedia:Verifiability. There certainly is a reason why this policy lists "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" and "university-level textbooks" before "magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". If some popular historical works are not aware of the difficulties when using primary sources like Adam's account or the Hervarar saga, then I would guess that these works constitute a significant minority view, and we can find a way to work this into the article, like: [Suggestion] Whereas some popular historical works like XY take the accounts of the sagas verbatim, historians like A, B, C have only deemed them valuable in a few instances.
If you want a quote from Sanmark about the sagas: "In this thesis [i.e. Sanmark's book], this type of material  has on a few instances been deemed to be valuable, yet it only forms a small part of the overall evidence." (Sanmark 2004: 24) Since she discusses the Hervarar saga e.g. in detail, we can include it in this article, of course. But we need to find a NPOV solution, and certainly the popular history must not overrule the academic history.  Zara1709 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said previously, I think the present version is fine. The problem with discussing the Temple at Uppsala is that it is a big debate, and I have been very skeptical about bringing the whole issue up for treatment in this article when there is a better article for it. I'm frankly amazed at the kind of passion with which it has been discussed here.--Berig (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think the issue is at heart about how various types of sources are used and how various narratives are spun out of those sources.  As I mentioned previously I see a disturbing trend in how sources are used in entries like Temple at Uppsala, and to a lesser degree entries like this one.  A great example is the entry Dísablót which is entirely sourced from primary and tertiary sources (sagas on the one hand and encyclopedias on the other).  Various pseudo-historical claims become treated as fact in ways that would seem to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  For instance, in the a fore mentioned example not only does the narrative definitively present a "temple" at Uppsala but we are told as difinitively that the Swedish king had the role as "high priest" (Gothi) there.  The primary source used for this, as far as I can tell, does not mention an actual temple or define the king's role as "gothi"--though it does mention a pagan sacrifice and an important role for the king therein.  It is original research to claim the role of gothi, and or to imply that this must have happened at the "temple" without a good secondary source.  As I've mentioned, it is fine if scholars are willing to make these leaps, but we cannot do so ourselves.  But the existence of the temple (no matter the historical veracity) is certainly a romantic part of pagan history and the current use of the term gothi no doubt makes those with emotional ties to contemporary paganism happy to label any legendary figure who had an authoritative role in pagan sacrifice with it.  A larger problem creeps up when we realize the entire narrative is written as if it is simply history, sourced to historians, when it is actually sourced straight to a pseudo-historical genre of literature (and synthetically at that).  Where entries about figures in Norse mythology, like Fenrir carry the disclaimer, "In Norse mythology ..." entries like this carry no disclaimer.  I'd be happy with this for the most part, if there was one.  That is if they were clear about their sourcing in the same way.  This, in my view, sits at the heart of the various passionate debates about sourcing, like the one here.  I welcome corrections, by the way, since I am no expert in the sagas, but from my own breif research into the matter what I wrote above "seems" accurate enough.PelleSmith (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pelle, you seem to be quite passionate about this. Why don't you roll up your sleaves yourself?--Berig (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Anyone who has Temple of Uppsala on their watch list can see that I am currently in the process of rewriting it and sourcing it out (but I haven't been able to get to it again for about a day now). I agree that Dísablót needs to be rewritten and for exactly the reasons you state. I've been going through these articles systematically and rebuilding them from the ground up. See my user page for a list of those that are done enough to reach GA. Particularly, I suggest you take a look at valkyrie for how these issues need to be handled, which I recently wrote from scratch. Again, before these "tertiary" sources are complained about, I suggest you specifically state which ones you're referring to, as Orchard's, Simek's, and Lindow's do not fall into this category. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic history and popular history

message: Berig wrote that he thinks that "the present version is fine," and, concerning the 'temple at Uppsala' issue I tend to agree. Once the discussion about archaeological evidence at the site at Gamla Uppsala itself is well included at Temple at Uppsala, we should summarize it with one sentence in this article. When Sanmark writes: The "presumed cult buildings which have been excavated do not resemble Adam's description of a temple 'totally covered with gold.", she is referring to cult buildings that have been excavated at other places in Sweden.  
If this is agreed we can close the discussion about the temple, and mark the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Temple at Uppsala as resolved. Of course, I assume that there won't be another debate like this  about the "Archaeological record" section in the Temple at Uppsala. Discussions about due weight can be difficult, but wp:NPOV and wp:V clearly mandate the inclusion of the views of academic secondary sources - actually they grant the most weight to them. The reason this debate was conducted so passionately is that some comments here were perceived, not only from my side, as attacks on core policies of Wikipedia - but in the interest of working on these articles, I for my part, am not going to pursue those policy issues further, unless they should became apparent again.
Next to the issue of the 'temple at Uppsala', there are are several more issues with this article. The criticism that has been brought forward on this talk page, that some articles strongly appear to neglect secondary, academic sources, also applies to some articles I took a look at during the process of editing. Check out the biography articles of King Stenkil and Harald Klak; Both use the primary sources, quoted directly from online editions, but appear (at least in the first impression) to be very weak in the evaluation of the reliability of these primary sources. The Life of Ansgar says that Harald Klak returned home with missonaries, but, according to Sanmark, it is "unlikely that Harald returned home".(Sanmark 2004: 81) I will at least try to see that this articles gets such issues right, but here alone there must be more than a dozen of them. Actually it is kind of hard to even find out where to start... On the other hand I think that articles that are on the level of popular history and at least give the account according to the primary sources are better than no articles at all, although I personally would double check for academic secondary literature if I was to take part in a GA evaluation of these articles.     
Most likely we will have to discuss the reliability of some popular history books currently still used in this article, but I think the issue of the temple at Uppsala is resolved for now. Zara1709 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually forgot to remove the dubious sentence previously, but I've done it just now. diff. The current version mentions "that the resistance to Christianity in Uppland had now been defeated", which should be fine. The details of this can be sorted out in the article Temple at Uppsala. Zara1709 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cloosing the 'temple at Uppsala' issue

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christianization of Scandinavia. 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/20061027230807/http://www.thingvellir.is/english/history/christianity/ to http://thingvellir.is/english/history/christianity/
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) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified