Talk:Culture of Sweden

Lede Now History section

I'm removing this from the lede again, but I will comment more in detail:

"Prehistoric Sweden was the source of Norse culture"

Untrue. The source of Norse culture is generally taken to be "southern scandinavia". It is of course impossible to pinpoint more exactly than that, since it was already spread over much of Scandinavia when we get useful sources.

"the Temple at Uppsala in Sweden was a site of pilgrimage"

Unattested. There is very little we know for sure about the temple. Adam of Bremen, who is the main source of information regarding the temple, does not mention any pilgrimage.

"Scandinavian peoples like the Aesir."

Is this some attempt at euhemerism? The Aesir were gods, not a historic people.

"Western culture mostly recalls Vikings of Norway and Denmark for invading France, England, Scotland and Ireland,"

Irrelevant. This article is about Sweden, not Denmark and Norway.

"Swedish Vikings influenced Byzantine culture"

Wastly exaggerated. Byzantium was the new Rome, the most civilized city of the world. Varangians were useful mercenaries, not a strong cultural influence.

"founding the Kievan state"

True, but it is questionable how much influence the norse had on the Kievan state. (Also, if we should talk about influence on other cultures, that of Finland should of course be at the top.)

"King Gustav III and Queen Christina, have been exceptionally important to its cultural development."

Gustav III is hard to argue away, but Christina? The one thing she could be credited for is asking her generals to send back books and art when they plundered Europe. Otherwise, not very much. One might add that she encouraged poets such as Stiernhielm, but he did not publish his most important work Hercules until after she had abdicated. Her father Gustav II Adolf probably did much more by furnishing Uppsala University with secure founding and founding the Swedish National Heritage Board. And if any king should be mentioned as having a lasting impact, it is surely Gustav Vasa, who secured Swedish independence, encouraged the reformation, shattered the medieval church culture and stood behind the translation of the Bible.

Andejons (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why remove it all when some of it is indisputable as well as well sourced? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I will now be reinstating what Dr. Arthur L. Herman has written about the early Swedes; will also be correcting numerous language errors in the recently rewritten lead as well as a bit of political slant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Can't we be rid of the bland, meaningless sentence of Sweden as a "source" of norse culture? Swedish culture is an offshoot of norse culture, not the other way around. The Temple at Uppsala is a topic of much discussion, and some scholars have questioned it's very existance (something that a general writer as Herman can be excused for not being aware of) - see for example Gro Steinsland, Fornnordisk religion, 326. A pilgrimage is a personal journey to a particular place. Adam describes a religious festival where attendance was mandatory, which is not the same thing.

And again, the idea that Swedish Vikings founded the Kievan state is not in dispute. But it's not relevant here. Swedish settlers also founded a colony in America, but that is not in the article. I don't see why the familial ties of the rulers of one particular state a thousand years are so important that it has to be included here. We can't covere everything that someone from Sweden has ever done.

Andejons (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We would be well off to trust Dr. Herman (2021) on the two three sentences now cited to him, rather than Steinsland (2005). I have read him extensively and very carefully. His expertise on those matters is heavily researched & unquestionable, but he has no clear political agenda, neither Stalinist nor Åkessonian nor anything in between. I will add culture to the sentence about Kievan Rus, as per cited source. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And you would do well to actually explain the relevance of the Kievan state to this article, instead of just restoring the sentence again and again. So far, you've said nothing about how and why Rurik's origin is of importance to Swedish culture. Do you think Charles XIV John's origin is of particular importance to French culture? If not, please explain the difference. As for trusting a general historian writing a book with a huge scope to be right over a particular aspect when actual specialists say otherwise - no thank you.

Andejons (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bernadotte is irrelevant. Write to Dr. Herman at The Hudson Institute if you want him to explain it to you. I am only using him as a source for what he's clearly written about. I've reworded quite a bit of this for a compromise solution. If you wish to add another academic source and what they believe " ..., though ... " or " ..., but ... ", feel free to, without removing anything cited to Dr. Herman. If you wish to challenge Arthur L. Herman's reliability, English Wikipedia provides this option: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This discussion should really address the issues without us addressing each other. There is no real need for me to mention you, and no need for you to mention me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If the Bernadotte family is not relevant, please explain how Rurikid family is. I have no interest in communication with Dr. Herman, I have an interest in an explanation of how the Rurikids are relevant to the culture of Sweden.

Furthermore, the the notion that the temple at Uppsala "was a [sic!] the main religious site of the Scandinavian peoples" is an exageration. Adam of Bremen speaks of it as a matter for the "sweones", and does not mention other peoples. And, again, the very existance of a temple has been questioned in the last few decades.

Andejons (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bernadottes have added no discernible French-cultural influence to Swedish culture. Dr. Herman, a well-cited source much more recent than Adam, writes after extensive modern research that Ruric and his family did leave substantial footprints on the areas mentioned.

Whether they are right or wrong, we are not here to further our personal opinions about article subjects, neither in article text nor on article talk pages. Any editor can add article text, even challenging items we do not agree with, but such additions must be then be supported by the citation of reliable sources, and article text which already is supported by such sources is not to be removed simply because an editor does not like it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've searched Herman's book on Google scholar. The snippets I get for "Uppsala" all speak of the site as "a major pagan cult centre", or a "temple complex"[1]. I've seen no claims about a single temple, nor that it was "the main religious site of the Scandinavian peoples". My conclusion from this is that you've been misrepresenting Herman's views. Thus, I can not assume that you've been representing him correctly on the topic of the Rurikids either. Even further, you still have not explained properly their importance to Swedish culture.

Andejons (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring as you have now been asked several times on your talk page. Your changes to article text, without consensus or compromise or a chance for other editors to join a discussion here are not the way we do thing on English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Uppsala Temple

On pages 121-122 of Herman's book (sorry I neglected to add those page numbers to the citation) we read about the "great pagan complex at Uppsala" as "the center of human sacrifice", where people joined in "the mass pagan rites". I suggest our article text quote him about that and then readers can interpret his words as they please. I cannot find the more precise wording right now where the old temple is specifically referred to as a place that drew people there and am willing to pass on that. "Mass" rights could hardly take place unless a lot more people came to Old Upsala than there were residing there then.

Uppsala as a pagan center is a small part of the historical overview. There is no need to go into detail, when the aim should be to present a broad-strokes history of Swedish culture. The right article for details and nuanced presentations of differing views is Uppsala temple. There is no direct contradiction between the current article and Herman, in contrast with unfounded claims about it being the "main religious site of the Scandinavian peoples" and "a site of pilgrimage" which you tried to insert.

Andejons (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK now. I didn't try to insert it, I did insert it & I still could find the exact source for it, but the current wording will do for now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Footprints in Kievan Rus area

On the cited pages (69, 106 & 407-408, now removed again by incessant edit warring) Herman clearly defines the Nordic influence on the area mentioned. Those wordings too can be quoted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Choirs Question

Someone deleted my edit for no reason whatsoever just because I used sources that is up to date. Melledelle (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You kind of contradict yourself there when you say "for no reason" and then allege a reason. Anyway, I reverted you because you used a source for one choir association to imply that they represent all choir singers in Sweden. Do you really think it has gone from 600,000 to 10,390 in less than 20 years? TylerBurden (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Images

I believe that a photo of Swedish folk dancing is relevant & will restore one unless there is any constructive objection here. It should, however, not be at the top in the info box. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)