Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia

An Inconsistency

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)

Immaculate conception?!

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)

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)

Temple at Uppsala

I move two sentences here for discussion:

By 2001, the existence of this temple had not been confirmed by archaeological findings. 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)

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)

In a short internet search, I found this blog entry. The issue appears to be notable. Zara1709 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think a blog indicates what is notable.--Berig (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

More sources

Since using Google is not actually the best option to find more sources, here are the results of a library catalogue search for Christianization Scandinavia‎:

• Sanmark, Alexandra (*1970-* ):Power and conversion : a comparative study of Christianization in Scandinavia;´ Uppsala : Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 2004, 322 p., Occasional papers in archaeology ; 34 Also: Ph. D. Thesis, 2002 London, University College, ISBN: 91-506-1739-7

• Sawyer, Birgit et al. [Ed.]: The Christianization of Scandinavia : report of a symposium ... Congress: Conversion of Scandinavia ; (Kungälv) : 1985.08.04-09; Alings°as : Viktoria Bokförlag, 1987; 130 P.; ISBN: 91-86708-04-X

Especially the first one looks promising. However, I would need a few days at least to read the literature, and the question is: Berig, do you want to continue the edit war in the meantime? Zara1709 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, edit warring? I moved the text to talk[1], whereas you started the reverting[2] and you did not use this talkpage until I had expressly requested you to do so. You are perfectly welcome to use the sources above to expand this article as long as you avoid undue synthesis of the kind I have removed.--Berig (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus flowchart

Of course, what you are doing here is edit warring. Read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus. You made one bold change, to which I objected. Now we need to discuss the issue, until we find a consensus - and until then, we should stick to previous version. There are several ways in which a consensus can be reached. What I am doing is trying to find some more sources, what wp:NPOV suggests as "good research". I have reason to assume the there is a 'notable' debate about the existence of the Temple at Uppsala in Sweden. If the Ph.D. dissertation of Alexandra Sanmark on the Christianization in Scandinavia includes some information on the Temple at Uppsala and the debate among archaeologists about it, then the case is solved. We're going by wp:verifiability: If the academic literature considers the issue important enough to mention it, Wikipedia should mention it, too. But obviously we can't discuss this before we know what the academic literature has to say: So I am asking you to stop reverting until I am able to read it (the library was closed today, btw, but tomorrow I should be able to get that book.) Zara1709 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources are not a gray area. If there is a problem with the source, it needs to go. If the source isn't properly attributed (____ theorizes this... _____ argues this...), it needs to go until it is. State who said exactly what and reference where or don't bother. Misinformation is far worse than no information at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Kaufhold's book is a highly reputable source on Northern Europe during the Middle Ages - it is the German standard textbook on the area. He writes:

"Allerdings sind diese schwedischen Anfänge etwas undeutlich. Adam von Bremen, der Historiker der Hamburger Kirche und im Hinblick auf den Norden unsere umfangreichste Quelle, berichtet aus der frühen Zeit dieser schwedischen Christianisierung von einem großen heidnischen Tempel in Uppsala. Die Anhänger dieses Kultes hätten mit König Olaf ("Schoßkönig" , gest. 1020) ein gegenseitiges Duldungsabkommen geschlossen: Um den König davon abzubringen, ihren Tempel zu zerstören, hätten die Heiden ihm das Recht eingeräumt, in einer Region seiner Wahl ein Zentrum des Glaubens zu errichten, allerdings dürfe er niemanden zum christlichen Glauben zwingen. Der König habe sich daraufhin für die Stadt Skara in Westergotenland entschieden. Es ist dies einer der seltenen schriftlichen Belege für eine größere heidnische Kultstätte im Norden. Leider haben sich Adams Angaben nicht durch archäeologische Funde bestätigen lassen."

The only problem with this source is, that it is in German. So I have to translate it (I used http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com/ , but it still needed a lot of tweaking.)

However these Swedish beginnings [of Christianity] are somewhat indistinct. Adam of Bremen, the historian of the Hamburg church and regarding the north our most extensive source, reports from the early time of this Swedish Christianization of a large pagan temple in Uppsala. The supporters of this cult drew a mutual tolerance agreement with Olof Skötkonung (d. 1020): In order to divert the king from destroying their temple the pagans granted him right to it to establish a center of the [Christian] faith in a region of his choice, but he mustn't force anybody to to convert to the Christian faith. The king decided himselfthe city Skara in Västergötland. It is this one of the rare written proofs for a larger pagan cult place in the north. Unfortunately Adam's data could not be confirmed by archaeological finds."

Adam from Bremen is the best primary source on the topic available. The Temple at Uppsala, that he mentions, is one of the most interesting things reported about Sweden from the time of the Christianization. And unfortunately, as Kaufhold points out, the existence of this temple could not be confirmed by archaeological findings. Can you give me any good reason why we should not follow academic history that considers this issue one of the most interesting aspects in the Christianization of Sweden and include this information? Zara1709 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether the findings under the church at Gamla Uppsala were the remains of the pagan temple, or not, has been contested ever since they were excavated. Some say it was the temple, others that it was a stave church. Claiming that there is no evidence is in violation of WP:NPOV and it is also playing games with a logic fallacy known as argument from ignorance by not accepting evidence accepted by others. This article is not the place for an extensive discussion on whether the findings under the church are "evidence for a temple" or not. We already have an article for that.--Berig (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pagan Temples: What Happened to Them? I tend to agree with Berig that the issue is best handled elsewhere. Haukur (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is you problem, Bering? If you have sources that say that archaeological remains have been found, just bring them forward. I acknowledge that there might be problems with NPOV if there are other sources that say that archaeological remains do exist, but then you need to mention these sources. What I did, when I noticed the issue, was to search more sources; And those I found affirmed what I knew from my first source:

"The reliability of Adam's description of of the cult site at Gamla Uppsala has been seriously questioned. This concerns his rendering of the idols, the temple, the sacrificial well, as well as the surrounding landscape. [...] It was demonstrated in Chapter 3 that archaological excavations at Gamla Uppsala have not found anything that resembled the 'temple' in Adam's Gesta." (Sanmark, Alexandra:Power and conversion : a comparative study of Christianization in Scandinavia; p. 163)

This is from a Ph.D. thesis from London University College. Sources don't come much more reliable than that. And Sanmark mentiones this temple several times, among other reasons because the account by Adam of Bremen suggests that a pagan opposition could hold themselves in the Uppsala area until the 12th century, which leads to the assumption that that area was Christianized later than other parts of Sweden. I was actually thinking of how to bring this into the article last night... Zara1709 (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood this issue Zara and you show it in your reading above. It only says that Adam's description of the temple and the rites are questioned. The site's role as a pre-Christian cult centre isn't questioned by anyone.--Berig (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why even mention the temple?

I came here from the Fringe theories noticeboard. The dispute over the temple's physical existence is not necessary to discuss in this entry because there is no reason to mention the temple in the first place. If there is an RS for the assertion that pagans in Uppsala "drew a mutual agreement of toleration with Olof Skötkonung the first Christian king of Sweden," then this is clearly worthy of inclusion in the article. Presenting these pagans as "adherents of the pagan temple" is clunky, unnecessary and courting controversy. Also, a German language history text book of this scope is clearly a source to be avoided here as a reference. If this is a uncontroversial piece of Swedish religious history then it should be easy to find a much better source.PelleSmith (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is fine.--Berig (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See the elaborate comments above. The reason I made a comment at the noticeboard was that the material was removed with the rationale "wp:NPOV" which would be discussable, only the now sources are being brought forward to substantiate the contrary claim. The simpliest reason to include the information about the temple here is that the academic literature includes this information, too. More complex reasons are:

1. The temple was highly significant during the process of Christanization, according to what we know from the sources. Although the Christian king would have liked to destroy it, the pagan opposition was strong enough to prevent that. "adherents of the pagan temple" is taken almost verbatim from a German standard history book on the topic ( you would one have the option to translate a word differently.)
2. Christianization is not only the process of converting whole nations to Christianity, but also denotes the re-use of non Christian places etc. for Christianity. One could suspect that this also happened at Uppsala, but there is no clear archaeological evidence for.
3. Adam of Bremen's account is the best primary source available on the topic - therefore the literature discusses his reliability, which isn't all that good, since a temple as he has described it, couldn't be found.
4. If you look at the template on the right top of the article, you will see that this is not only the article about the Christianization of Scandinavia, but also about Scandinavia during the time of the Christianization. And the cult centre at Uppsala is, when it comes to the religion during this time, one of the most interesting aspects.

So I think there are quite a few reasons to include information about the temple here. And from an editorial perspective I honestly don't see a reason why we should argue about one sentence that says that the existence of this temple could not be confirmed by archaeological findings. Zara1709 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the entry is included in the template does not change its subject matter. If this were an entry about Scandinavia in general during a defined period of history then religion would be of only minor scope--and not the only subject matter of the entry. As we know from the title the entry is about a process of religious change. As I suggested above a general history text book is a very poor choice of sources to use here, especially when dealing with a subject matter that encompasses details under dispute (the fact that it is written in a language that is neither English nor a Scandinavian language does not do it any service either). In regards to "the re-use of non-Christian places, etc.", we should not be reporting on what "one could suspect" but on what reliable secondary sources tell us--WP:NOR. As to the primary sources, outside of Bremen's possibly unreliable account there is not a great deal of support for something like a physical "temple". On the other hand, as you point out yourself, it is undisputed that Uppsala was a cultic center during this time, and this seems well sourced in the primary literature. So why would anyone want to open this can of worms, especially when the narrative here does not suggest the importance of the physical temple at all? The physical temple would be important if, for instance, we had reliable secondary sources discussing its destruction, and the significance of such an event to the Christianization of Sweden. As it is nothing in the text of the entry establishes this importance. I think the main problem here relates to sourcing. Someone needs to dig through the secondary sources. Anyone who does that could then also give Temple of Uppsala some much needed references from something other than primary sources.PelleSmith (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that when I say nothing in the current narrative establishes the importance of a physical temple I do not include conjectural associative statements like this: "Inge's return to power is generally held to be the time of the destruction of the Temple at Uppsala,[16] and in 1164, the Swedish archdiocese was established at the location.[17]". Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote: We "should not be reporting on what "one could suspect" but on what reliable secondary sources tell us--WP:NOR." YES, exactly. This is why I started to look for "more sources". And the sources I found says this:

"Other missionary methods employed in Scandinavia will now be taken into consideration. The destruction of non-Christian shrines will first be discussed.

Written evidence suggest that missionaries took part in such activities. Adam of Bremen provides some examples from Sweden- [..] AS was pointed out above, Adam also stated that King Stenkil advised Bishops Adalvard and Egino against trying to destroy the 'temple' at Gamla, Uppsala. The bishops are reported to instead have destroyed idols in Götaland, which was under the control of the king. [..}

There is no evidence to prove that missionaries in Scandinavia destroyed non-Christian cult buildings. Only a small number of possible cult buildings have been found, and scholars have therefore argued that the early Scandinavians often performed their rituals in the open air. Moreover, the presumed cult buildings which have been excavated, do not resemble Adam's description of a temple 'totally covered with gold'." (Sanmark 2004: 100)

The Swedish author called Lagerquist apparently misinterpreted the sources. It is only clear that there wasn't any pagan opposition that could prevent the instalment of Christian archdiocese in 1164. There is no evidence that temples were destroyed. Thus, why "would anyone want to open this can of worms"? Because it is relevant: How violent was the Christianization of Sweden? Were there pagan temples destroyed? No, there isn't any proof that! This is what the reputable sources say. We will have to sort to the issue out, and we certainly don't start that by removing referred sentences. Zara1709 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm utterly confused. By what you write the case for not mentioning the "temple" grows stronger. I've made my suggestion. Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the version I had initially written, the part about the end of pagan worship was correct: "When a Swedish archdiocese was establish at Uppsala in 1164, (Kaufhold 2001, 117) pagan worship must have ceased." diff Zara1709 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

adherent of the temple

Can someone explain what exactly an "adherent of the temple" is? The "temple" refers to a building that may or may not have existed, and not more generally to a pagan cultus or any other pagan institution.PelleSmith (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I you would have the courtesy to read the literature I have provided, you would learn that the temple at Uppsala was central for 'paganism' in Sweden. According to Adam from Bremen, all 9 years a celebration of all Swedish tribes would take place there. Therefore the secondary literature speaks of a conflict between Olaf Ericsson and the "opposition originating from the pagan cultic centre at old Uppsala". (vom heidnischen Kultzentrum Altuppsala ausgehenden Opposition) (Lutz E. von Padberg, 1998, Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter (in German), Reclam, p. 123) "adherents of the temple" is translated from the other German history textbook I've mentioned and I could check that again, if necessary. Zara1709 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing that "adherent of the pagan temple" makes grammatical sense in English based upon your own translation of the phrase from German? "Adherent of the temple cult" would be fine if one can agree that there was a "temple cult". Again I simply find it unnecessary courting of controversy to discuss the temple cult with the qualification that archeologists have found no evidence of a temple. It is entirely uncontroversial to make mention of a pagan cultus more generally. Let me try another approach. Mention the temple but then discuss pagans more generally since your own language puts the temple's existence in doubt.PelleSmith (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are happy with the last edits I made, but I wanted to mention a continued uneasiness on my part with the final mention of the destruction of the temple.PelleSmith (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Break

I intend to rewrite the Temple at Uppsala article here soon and bring it up to GA standard to avoid situations like we're seeing now. This temple is hardly a unique circumstance; there is some evidence of a structure that may have been the a temple in the area. For example, the one stave church that is known to have existed in Denmark is known solely due to post holes and a single piece of decorated wood. It's widely considered that the stave churches display many characteristics of the hofs of the pagan period, and so on and so on. This isn't a simple issue, and mentioning "archaeological evidence has not supported the existence of the temple" reeks of POV-pushing. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing? The actual quote you deleted was not what you have presented above: "While the existence of the physical temple described by Adam has not been confirmed by archaeological findings, Uppsala's status as a pre-Christian cultic center is well documented." It is indeed not a "simple issue" so why court controversy? The dissertation mentioned by Zara above puts "temple" in scare quotes when discussing it for that very reason. Here's what the Nora Barend source I mentioned below has to say:

• "One position, classically argued in Olson 1966, is that there were no dedicated cult buildings or full time priests in Scandinavian paganism and that Adam's account was fictitious - and some would add disproved by archeological findings. Here Olson and others echo Tacitus on the ancient Germans - 'they do not judge it right to constrain the gods with walls.'

The author goes on to characterize the debate over the existence of dedicated cultic buildings and associated ritual experts in pagan Europe as one about the fundamental nature of pre-Christian religion. It isn't a simple matter for a variety of reasons but it seems that definitively going one way or another, above and beyond simply recognizing Uppsala as a cultic center, is actually what amounts to POV-pushing. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't for discussing whether the temple existed or not (or in what form). That is, in fact, a completely pointless discussion here, and, as we agree, complex. What needs to be done here is to state what sources say what and be done with it at that (as anywhere else on Wikipedia handling these subjects). Example: "An important temple is attested in [ATTESTATIONS HERE] as having existed in what is now Gamla Uppsala Sweden. According to [ATTESTATION HERE], [INFORMATION]." and so on. With the questions that arise around some of the attestations themselves, this is the only neutral way of handling these things. When someone says something, say who said it. It's very simple. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article should reflect current scholarship. This article does not. A second (third, fourth) hand source like Adam of Bremen is not simple, and sources are rarely neutral. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is my view as well. I'm not sure I understand why an 11th century source should simply be attested to while overlooking contemporary scholarship or dismissing it as irrelevant. I was attempting to phrase the matter in a way which did not disqualify Bremen's description out of hand while at the same time stressing the uncontroversial claim about Uppsala as a cultic center. It also seems antithetical to our policies about sourcing and original research to dismiss contemporary secondary sources while simply recounting 11th century accounts. Of course I also agree that whatever manner of controversy surrounds the veracity of Adam's account is not what this entry is about, but that is why the very idea of a physical temple of his description should be avoided for the uncontroversial claim about Uppsala's status as a cultic center.PelleSmith (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources first. Theory after. This is called neutrality. Obviously, contemporary scholarship is extremely relevant and vital. It is, however, in constant flux whereas the primary source is not. It's extremely important to draw the line between theory and primary source. Look at the 36 GA articles I have produced for Wikipedia and you will see what I mean by keeping theory apart from attestation. My own personal take on this issue is irrelevant (obviously, there are serious issues with Adam's account—surprise, surprise) but this is hardly the place to bust out discussion about post holes, hof development, mound-talk and archaeological commentary. It's far better to break down the theories surrounding the Temple at Uppsala article proper at the Temple at Uppsala article. I agree that this article sucks in its current state, but it's not going to help anything to go on tangents about theories surrounding what exactly the "temple" was here. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not "tangents" and if you are relying mostly on "primary sources" to write entries then you may want to revisit some of our most basic policies like WP:NOR and WP:RS.PelleSmith (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Spare me. I'm very well versed on these policies and I challenge you or anyone else to find an example of my violation of them in my contributions. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is actually highly pertinent to the issue at hand. I'm still not understanding why the sources we supposedly value most here at Wikipedia are the ones getting the axe here.PelleSmith (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying anyone should ever do any personal analysis of primary sources here on Wikipedia, and if you look at my contributions you'll see that's about as obvious as it could possibly be as they're extremely neutral. I'm saying that these primary sources need to be displayed first when they're the subject of debate, then the various theories surrounding them brought out after the fact—but what on earth does that have to do with the apparent desire you suddenly have to bring out the debate about what exactly was the Temple at Uppsala on the Christianization of Scandinavia article? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This just leads to long excerpts of Snorri and of Saxo and of Jordanes first in these nordic and gothic articles, followed by historians from the 1800's. Modern scholarship is discarded as "in constant flux" is moved to the end. These articles are illustrated by nationalistic PD art and by original-research maps. That is why Zara put this on the notice board. The Nordic gang here is constantly suppressing modern literature. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm. It appears that you are an outright troll after all. On the other hand, you don't seem to be a good one; you've attempted to troll with entirely blatantly false claims in that last message that are just too obviously wrong for you to get away with. First of all, all of the articles I've written contain modern scholarship, and there's always room for more to be added (and it constantly is). If you've got some "modern scholarship" that is being ignored, why don't you state some specifics? Who? Where? Do tell. In the mean time, I banish you to your troll den with my powers of pointing out the obvious! :bloodofox: (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to imaginary cabals will hardly move this discussion forward, Pieter.--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the most neutral way to do it is mentioning the claims in the primary sources, then following up with the modern historians/archaeologists who supports this and then writing that there is controversy amongst some modern scholars as to the verification of its existence and then mentioning these historians/archaeologists and going over their theories. Excluding one or the other side in this debate as long as it is not fringe theories (which they hardly seem to be) would be POV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stepping back

Bloodofox please familiarize yourself with this discussion. I do not "suddenly have to bring out the debate about what exactly was the Temple at Uppsala". I came here from the FTN precisely because I think there is no need to mention the debate here. However, what this means is also not referring to a "temple" at all but to a cultic site more generally. There is no dispute about the latter, none at all. As long as you want to discuss Adam's "temple" as if it were simply factual there will be a controversy. Leaving reference to the temple in the entry but very neutrally mentioning that it has not been "confirmed" by archeologists was a compromise because of the ire I drew from some quarters due to my initial suggestion. People also have to realize that this entry is part of a series on history and not mythology, legend or a variety of other non-historical genres of literature. When creating entries on mythological figures or characters from sagas it may be appropriate to use primary source(s) first and then listing various notable scholarly interpretations, especially when most of such an entry involves recounting references from one source. But what we have here is not in this genre of entries. We need to rely on secondary sources. I see a disturbing trend in a number of the entries about pre-Christian Scandinavian religions (especially those describing practices) of relying on primary sources like Snorri and tertiary sources like encyclopedias instead of secondary sources. This is not in line with WP:PSTS. Again, it is one thing when an entry is about something that has been clearly defined as part of "mythology" or another genre of literature, but when the entry presents itself as historical we have a problem.PelleSmith (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, these handbooks that get cited regularly here (Simek, Orchard, Lindow) are a mix of both secondary and tertiary sources. Practically all of the entries are not just summaries of the scholarship surrounding the subject but are often the opinions and theories of Simek, Orchard, and Lindow—noted and contemporary scholars in their field. I suggest you become more familiar with these handbooks before attempting to dismiss them. Third, unless you have some specifics about this "disturbing trend", I can't help you. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how many GA articles Bloodfox has produced, the interpretation of wp:NPOV he is pushing here is not acceptable. Quote: "Primary sources first. Theory after. This is called neutrality." Actually, what wp:NPOV says is:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

And if you look at Wikipedia:Verifiability you will see what is meant by reliable sources:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers

We have here 2 books "published in university presses" and one "university-level textbook" that say that "Adam's account could not been confirmed by archaeological findings." Adam's Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum on the other hand is a partisan [Christian] source from the 11th century, i.e. from a time when there where neither university presses nor universities. Of course, we would have to include Adam's account as a significant minority view at least, but we were including it anyway, since the academic discussion evolved from his account. But if we would not include the contemporary academic view, then we would actually be violating wp:NPOV. And bloofox' allegation that "contemporary scholarship is in constant flux" is currently unsubstantiated. If this is so, then find out which scholars claims that the existence of a temple as described by Adam is 'proved'. THEN we can discuss due weight and NPOV. And honestly, I don't care if you find a source for this from the 1930s. That would at least illustrate what certain kind of 'scholarship' is extolling the achievements of 'Germanic pagans'. Zara1709 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, all theories surrounding Adam of Bremen's writings hinge on exactly that: Adam of Bremen's writings. Commentary and theories surrounding his writings are another subject altogether. It is completely irrelevant as to what education Adam had for our purposes here and, furthermore, my description above is completely in line with NPOV: state the primary source being discussed, then state the discussions and theories surrounding the primary. Obviously, this does not, at any point, attempt to pass the primary source off as fact, as I would also have a serious problem with that. This is very simple stuff. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These theories do not in any way "hinge" on his writings, they try to explain his writings within the context of the historical subject matter he him self claims to be describing. Also Adam of Bremen's writings are not the subject matter of this entry either. Please see Adam of Bremen, and Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum for that. The subject matter of this entry is the Christianization of Scandinavia. Historical interpretations of primary sources (e.g. secondary historical sources) are precicely what we use to write such an entry. Adam of Bremen, an 11th Century source, does not get taken at face value. That is itself original research. It is the job of historians to interpret his writings and our job to use their presentations of history. If they take him at face value then so be it, but this end run around WP:PSTS has got to stop. You claim others are trolling when they point out that you don't abide by this policy in your "system" of writing entries. Well, I am no expert in how you actually write, but it isn't hard to see where people get this idea when you yourself claim to go to the primary sources first. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Theories treating Adam of Bremen's account most certainly do hinge on the fact that Adam of Bremen wrote it in the first place. Therefore Adam of Bremen's account is brought out in full and treated exactly as what it is; Adam of Bremen's account and then theories are presented in response to it. There's no original research presented here. Scholars disagree and contradict one another. There's no great mystery here and none of my own research presented (again, I challenge you to find some). That is exactly what I am saying: state the primary source first (Adam of Bremen records that ____) and then the theories after (SCHOLAR theorizes that THEORY [...].) This is elementary. Right now we're actually following this system to some extent "Adam says.. [in response] scholars say..." although we're hardly handling it neutrally. I suggest you take a look at "how I write" and see for yourself. There is the issue of the postholes and the unidentified structure. Frankly, I still don't see why we're even going into the whether the structure existed or not here. As for trolls, I state outright that editors are trolls when they begin trolling (claiming cabals and presenting outright falsities), which is exactly what is exactly what occurred above; Mr. Kuiper appears to be exactly that. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the system Bloodofox uses to write mythology articles is a good one. The summary of primary sources is in accordance with what WP:PSTS says: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Do you see any problems in the way the primary sources are summarized in, say, Fenrir? Would you organize the article in some different way? I mean, I'm sure there are other valid ways to do it but the present organization seems pretty good to me. A look at the sources used there will certainly reveal no dislike of modern scholarship. Many of the illustrations are from the 19th century but that's not for some weird ideological reason but merely because that's what is out of copyright and thus available to us to use. Haukur (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this is why I wrote the following above: When creating entries on mythological figures or characters from sagas it may be appropriate to use primary source(s) first and then listing various notable scholarly interpretations, especially when most of such an entry involves recounting references from one [primary] source. But what we have here is not in this genre of entries. My point is that he applied this system in discussion of this entry, which is not about a piece of literature or a figure from a genre of literature but a historical topic. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that Christianization of Scandinavia doesn't lend itself to this approach and it wasn't the approach I took when I wrote the initial version of it. Haukur (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just have taken Barend, Nora. (ed.) 2007. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900 - 1200. Cambridge University Press, to be supporting the sentence: "Adam's account could not been confirmed by archaeological findings." If you look at the book as it is presented in google books: Page 59 this might not be entirely clear. There Olaf Olsen's 1966 article is mentioned as the classic for the argument "that there were no dedicated cult buildings [..] in Scandinavian paganism". But then page 59 ends with the word "The debate.." and page 60 is not included in the preview on Google books. (At least not for me.) Now, I could get this book from the library. There are three libraries in Germany that have it, and I could have it sent to me for 2 €, which could take up to two weeks. But since I've already made the effort of obtaining one book published in an university press that would not be necessary for writing the article. SO do we really need some more literature, or are the university level textbooks that we currently have sufficient? Zara1709 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

UTC: You mean of course Berend, Nora ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.193.66 (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I've moved this since the discussion which emerged below it had very little to do with sources. More secondary sources are needed here. These are just suggestions.

Here is an English language source of interest, in general and specifically in regards to the temple issue.

• Barend, Nora. (ed.) 2007. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900 - 1200. Cambridge University Press.

Pages 58-60 (available through google books) specifically discuss the problem of "temples" with reference to Bremen and Uppsala.PelleSmith (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another source of interest to the entry in general.

• DuBois, Thomas A. 1999. Nordic Religions in the Viking Age. University of Pennsylvania Press.

DuBois takes a synthetic approach in his use of available sources (textual, archeological, etc.), though his background is in folklore. See chapter 7, "The Coming of the Cross."PelleSmith (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Birgit Sawyer and Peter Sawyer (2003). "Scandinavia enters Christian Europe". The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. ISBN 0521472997. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |sid= ignored (help) Our library has a paper copy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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, Zara1709 (talk · contribs)). :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I've flagged one reference as dubious. The sentence: "Inge's return to power is generally held to be the time of the destruction of the Temple at Uppsala.", can't be true. It is not even generally held that there was a "temple" at Uppsala (now that we are aware of the differences between 'temple' and 'cultic centre') The only thing that is clear is that there was a pagan cultic centre in Uppland and that therefore the area was a sort of stronghold for 'paganism' in Sweden. However, the opposition dwindled and must have ceased by the time the archdiocese was establish at Uppsala. The next task would to be to list when exactly episcopal sees where established in Sweden, but I can't do this right now.

Sanmark discusses the various sagas, which are apparently the source for the accounts of violence. For example, the Hervarar saga:

"The only record of a non-Christian rebellion is that of Blotsven described in the Hervarar saga. [...] The Hervarar saga was presumably not written down until the fourteenth century, and scholars have question the reliability of the account cited above. Through independent sources it can be verified that Inge was kin in Sweden c. 1075-1110. It is also clear that Inge had connections with Västergötland. However, neither the existence of Blotsven, nor that Inge had to flee from Uplland because of a non-Christian rebellion can be confirmed by other sources. [...]

The rebellion as described in the Hervarar saga could thus be a reflection of an authentic conflict between Christian royal power and non-Christians around Uppsala. Such a conflict is however unlikely to have turned as violent as is claimed by the saga." (Sanmark 2004: 113)

If one saga gives an account of a violent conflict between Christians and 'Pagans', then we would have to include this. However, since we don't want the article to be stuck on the level of discussion from the 13th (or 14th) century, we certainly DO have to say what contemporary scholarship has to say about these accounts. Zara1709 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind the difference between scholarly doubt and scholarly rejection, as they are not the same thing. Harrison & Svensson (Vikingaliv, 2007) write:

En annan möjlighet är emellertid att nuvarande Gamla Uppsala faktiskt fungerade som en miniatyrkopia av Asgård. Enligt Adam av Bremen innehöll tempelhuset avbildningar av Tor, Oden och Frej sittande på troner. [...] Norr om Gamla Uppsala kyrka, bland annat på platåer, har arkeologerna påträffat spår efter flera sådana hallar. Vid en av dem finns till och med en ramp, precis som i Hyppinge. Stolphål under själva kyrkan vittnar om det har stått en byggnad även där. Är kanske någon av dessa hallbyggnader lämningar efter Adams triclinium, "hednatemplet"? (p.142)

Translation:

Another possibility is, however, that Old Uppsala really worked as a miniature version of Asgard. According to Adam of Bremen, the temple building contained representations of Thor, Odin and Freyr sitting on thrones. [...] North of Old Uppsala church, e.g. on terraces, archaeologists have found traces of several such hall buildings. At one of them there is even a ramp, just like at [the pagan temple at] Hyppinge. Post holes under the very church testify that there was a building there as well. Perhaps some of these these hall buildings are the remains of Adams's triniclum, the "Temple at Uppsala"?

The section you flagged has a recent source, and please don't misrepresent scholarly doubt about the temple as some kind rejection of its existence. In popular culture science, it is still presented as a factual building, and scholars will keep discussing its factual basis and whether the post holes are evidence or not.--Berig (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

True enough but we don't take our cues from popular culture which may, for a variety of reasons, hold dear to various legends that are without much factual basis. I mean we might as well be promoting the view that vikings looked like this. Of course that widely believed piece of misinformation also came to us through the distorting lens of medieval Christianity. All of this may be anecdotal but it relates to what sources we find the most reliable here and which the least -- and I'm tired of posting the links. Yes doubt and rejection are not one and the same, but in this case we have a very well established debate and it seems most scholars have some manner of "doubt" about Adam of Bremen's account even if this doubt has not gone all the way to flat out rejection. This means, once again, that it is rather obviously ridiculous to speak of Adam's temple as if it simply existed.PelleSmith (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never said that we should "take our cues from popular culture", if you believe so you have misunderstood me. I have changed to popular science to make my intention more clear. But don't worry, I'm quite happy with the text as it is now--Berig (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't exactly clarify matters to me. Please explain what "popular science" is in the context of history? Historical non-fiction published by a non-academic press? Also please clarify where "popular (historical) science" fits into the various sourcing conventions at Wikipedia. I'm going to reiterate my problem here one more time. The fact that there is some manner of controversy and disagreement about how to interpret Adam's description of a temple, not to mention a relative dearth of evidence supporting its existence and an e disagreement about the very nature of pre-Christian Germanic paganism in regards to existence and/or importance of dedicated cultic buildings why should we present the view of an 11th century source as if its simply correct? I know that you and I were actually in agreement initially on simply staying clear of the "temple" word, but I hope you can see where I am coming from to some degree. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, as for popular science/culture, I'm thinking of Lagerquist's Sveriges Regenter, från forntid till nutid (1997) from which the citation is taken, if I recall the source correctly. I am also thinking of a book written by Sonja Hulth intended to teach kids about Uppsala's history that I have in my bookshelf, and which was published in 2003 by Riksantikvarieämbetet. They are mainly intended for the general public. My main point is that I don't think we should cast more doubt about the existence of a building than for instance Harrison and Svensson (2007).--Berig (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Academic history and popular history

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cloosing the 'temple at Uppsala' issue

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)

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)

Correction: You write: "Initially, Harald had remained pagan, although he had allowed public preaching by Christian missionaries as early as 935. Around 960, Bluetooth (Danish: Blåtand) converted to Christianity,[14] reportedly when the Frisian monk Poppo held a fire-heated lump of iron in his hand without injury." The editors of this page must got to newer sources. Harald was baptized by a Poppo, who was the Monk Folkmar (Volkmar) from Køln. It is old news. See Berend, Nora (ed.): Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monnarchy. Cambridge 2007. To clean out most of the words about a not-existing temple in Uppsala, you should turn to the dissertation Templum Nobilissimum by Henrik Janson. Jan Eskildsen87.57.193.66 (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Biased Language and Lack of Sources

Under the Denmark section: "Christian missionaries recognized early on that the Danes did not worship stone or wooden idols as the north Germans or some Swedes did. They could not simply destroy an image to prove that Christ was a superior god."

Unless this is intended to represent the beliefs of the missionaries? Furthermore, this section is nearly absent of citations.

"Missionaries simply asked to build chapels" - Who did they ask? How did they ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.255.54 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot on this Talk page about the "religious aspects" of this article; I don't want to get into all of that, but it may be that these comments (mine and the unsigned one above) are somewhat related to the other discussions. Perhaps it all comes from the original authoring of the article. Anyway, I haven't even read the entire article, as I just came here to get a very general idea of something tangentially related, but, I found a couple phrases under the Denmark section questionable. Specifically:

• In a few instances conversion was brought about…in the presence of the king or other great men of the time.
• Christian missionaries recognized early on that the Danes did not worship stone or wooden idols….
• They could not simply destroy an image to prove that Christ was a superior god.
• Missionaries simply asked to build chapels in those places.
• Over time the religious significance of the place transferred itself to the chapel.
• Even after becoming Christian, Danes blended the two belief systems together. Families who lived close to the earth did not want to offend the local spirits…and life went on much as it had before.
• Christian missionaries were able to help the process along by locating churches on or near sacred places, in some cases actually using wood from the sacred groves for church construction.
• Thor's hammer sign was easily absorbed by the cross.
• …others gave their lives and efforts to the task of making the Danes Christian.
• In the center of the octagonal ridge there is a Latin cross which may indicate that Harald Bluetooth was Christian.
• One consequence of his conversion is that Danish kings abandoned the old royal enclosure at Jelling…
• Sweyn Forkbeard tried to wrest control of the church in Denmark away from the Holy Roman Empire and…was slandered by German historians…He has been accused of relapsing from his Christian beliefs and persecuting Christians in England.

Really, I could go on and on, since, as noted above, there are almost NO citations in this section. From where did all this information come?

What really jumped out at me were the following:

• In a few instances…conversion was brought about by…saintly Christians… [this is, of course, unsourced, which makes the use of the adjective "saintly" especially questionable]
• Christian missionaries recognized early on that the Danes did not worship stone or wooden idols… [how? is this even true? (either part of it.) source?]
• They could not simply destroy an image to prove that Christ was a superior god. ["simply" "superior" "image" - all questionable words as used. and is this even true? (the actual act, and its desired consequence/s?)]
• Missionaries simply asked to build chapels in those places. [seriously? as the above person noted--WHO was asked, and HOW?]
• Over time the religious significance of the place transferred itself to the chapel. [proof? source?]
• Christian missionaries were able to help the process… [the word "help" as used here is HIGHLY questionable]

Again, as alluded to by the above person, this writing is significantly biased, especially since there are NO SOURCES given to back up the claims made. It's been awhile since the previous commenter noted this problem. Perhaps it could be addressed?Colbey84 (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Christianization of Scandinavia → Christianisation of Scandinavia – WP:CONSISTENCY with - as subtopic of - Christianisation of the Germanic peoples. PPEMES (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR, consistency with Christianization, Christianization of Bohemia, Christianization of Bulgaria, Christianization of Iberia, Christianization of Poland, Christianization of the Slavs, Christianization of Lithuania, Christianization of Moravia, Christianization of Pomerania, Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate, Christianization of the Franks. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 'Christianization' is the most common spelling in titles overall (17 to 3). Also, Christianisation of the Germanic peoples uses the "Christianization" spelling throughout the body, so if you think it's important to be consistent on this across articles (I don't, but whatever), renaming Christianisation of the Germanic peoples is a much simpler path to achieving that. Colin M (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above rationale. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.