Talk:Styrbjörn the Strong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
Styrbjörn the Strong 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
[edit] UNreliable?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
