![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 21, 2021 and October 21, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several questions:
-- Zoe — Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 6 December 2002 (UTC)
1. Havent the slighest these were old thing, which I didnt wrote. 2. Really have to check this up, thanks for noticing. She was married to Abel of denmark before, well see into this. 3. As above stated, Erik Knutsson was Ingeborgs father, not her brother.
So now Id be most interested to know
Glad for your interest in scandinavian genealogy. // :) Dan Koehl — Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 December 2002 (UTC)
Now noticing that someone has written that Birger married the daughter of Abel, with whom she was actually married with. It sure isnt easy to put this in order, when so many want to write so much, but wrong... Dan Koehl 23:47 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
It is better not to name the family that Birger jarl belonged to as "Folkunga", nowadays most historians namen it "Bjälbo-ätten" (Bjälbo-family) as Folkunga in their time was an opposition of Birger jarl and his sons. First in the 17th century, due to some confusion the historians started to name Bjälbo as Folkunga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.217.149 ( talk) 23:11, 14 July 2004 (UTC)
Today I added one source to the article and removed the templates from the top of the page (to add them to two sections needing attention). More sources and some copy-editing is still necessary though.
/
Mats Halldin (
talk)
09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The source I used for the article clearly say he must have been older than 50 (...han kan knappast ha varit född så sent som 1216. Fadern Magnus Minnesköld antas nämligen ha dött senast 1210. En hyfsad gissning är att Birger fötts något eller några år innan faderns bortgång.) I don't claim the Lindström brothers are the ideal NPOV reference, but preferably another source should be used before replacing the information in the article.
Thanks
/
Mats Halldin (
talk)
11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I lifted out the assertion that Birger Jarl's reforms laid the foundations for a Swedish kingdom [1]. I know there is a tendency among some Swedish historians to put everything as late as possible, and I guess they still have an axe to grind against gothicismus and national romanticism. A kind of antithesis to what they perceive as fusty old stuff. However, there are scholars who disagree with their way of presenting Swedish history, e.g. Mats G. Larsson who deals with Sweden's past as a Germanic kingdom. On WP we have to follow NPOV and we have to have a functional terminology in English. This means that we have to be very careful with what a particular Swedish historian means with "kungarike" in a specific context and with how this should be translated into English. IMHO, it is a trifle pathetic to have a statement that implies that there was still no Swedish kingdom in the early 13th century while we have a List of Swedish monarchs that begins with Eric the Victorious (10th century).-- Berig 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a side note: any information why almost all the Christian kings in the Svea rike seem to have been from Geatish clans, while the election of the king was still a privilege of the Svea nobles? -- Drieakko 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that we don't exactly know how kings were elected. For example, traditionally it has been said that Ragnvald Knaphövde was first chosen by people in Mälardalen, but we have no proof for that, and the only sources that actually says something about it, says that he was chosen in Östergötland. In short, it might well happen that people in Mälardalen had nothing to say in who was to become king around the year 1130. Further, labels of ethnicity are not so easy to work with, and very early on we find examples were words like Svía and Sveær should be translated as Swedes. See for example Håkon Håkonssons saga and äldre västgötalagen. In short, the premise is not defined, and therefore it is not a good question. Mats G. Larsson is a right wing provincialist, and does not represent main stream thoughts. Åke Hyenstrand and Carl Löfving are far better choices if one wants to learn about this time period. 85.224.196.136 ( talk) 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is right Mats. I just wanted to explain since Drieakko asked a question. Possibly I didn't phrase it very well. What I mean with "not a good question", is that the premises of the question are unproven or undefined. Yes, mainstream thoughts are those held by the majority of historians today. Simply put, the problem with many of the articles about Swedish history is that they lag some 20-30 years. Today, discontinuity is emphasized, also when medieval historians speak of Sweden they have to define it in some measurable way, or they are off into the land of myths. So when we talk of Sweden it has to be understood that we are talking of different kinds of Sweden :) It is often misunderstood since we use the same word all the time. Books can be written about this, but I'll try to be brief and explain. What present day research seems to tell us is that for some 100 years we have been having a myth of a dynamically growing Sweden from a base in Mälardalen, and that in reality this cannot be proven. Rather, there are very strong evidences saying that an eventual kingdom in Mälardalen was subjugated under Danish/Geatish power in the tenth century. We should not be surprised to find that this was the case. It is enough to understand that power was frail, and that the individual could create his own fortune. Add to this that we are talking about some 700 years of history, and that we actually have evidence of changing fortunes. Presently there is work on a new Swedish history, it will be published by Norstedts and there will be programs on tv4. Hopefully, with it, the provincial view will finally be buried. I hope this made some sense to you Mats. It is rather difficult to explain a very vast subject in a short article like this :) mvh, Marcus 85.224.197.20 ( talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Should this article be "Birger jarl" or "Birger Jarl"? Robert Greer ( talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. This move is not a statement for or against the suggestion at the bottom of the discussion regarding, for example, Birger, Duke of Sweden. That's probably a question for a separate move request; for now it's clear that Birger Jarl is an improvement over Birger jarl. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Birger jarl →
Birger Jarl — See section just above! Swedish language policy has been used, but does not apply here.
SergeWoodzing (
talk)
02:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Birger-jarl-2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Asking other neutral editors to comment on which of these two images, in the sizes shown in this article, is the clearest and best to portray Birger. Please refer to number 1 or number 2. My question has the condition that one does not enlarge the photo by clicking on it (as I think most readers won't) but views it as is (as I think most readers will). SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi guys, I'm from the 3O Board. I think both photos are good selections. But, between the two, I have to side with Number 2. Number 1 appears pixilated, even when not blown up. (Sorry, Serge, nothing personal!) — JoelWhy ( talk) 20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Here is a photo made from scaffolding high up in the church by Axel Forssén. It might be public domain (if published in Sweden before 1969). Maybe Woodzing knows a publication date. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In the broader sense of the word, as prince consort to a Princess of Sweden, and as regent, and as the father of 2 kings, Birger can be called a Swedish prince as far as catregories go. Much too definite statements (as if we knew!) about what he was or was not called during his lifetime don't enter into that. The fact that several scholars consider him the great-grandson of a Swedish king, additonally, invalidates any definite claim made by a Wikipedian in 2016, that he had no royal blood. Reinstating category. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
One can perhaps call the children of medieval and early modern Swedish royals for princes and princesses, but really, just being married to such a person did not necessarily confer extraordinary rank.
The following sentence is extremely difficult to parse.
"While Birger's direct involvement in the foundation of the city remains speculative, it probably was no accident it was founded on the location at this time, as there were alternative passages into Mälaren during the preceding Viking Era; as Crusades, a kind of Viking raids in a Christian disguise, had proven increasingly unsuccessful; and as taking control over the location, traditionally where men supposedly gathered before the ledung, meant old offensive military traditions could be replaced by more "modern" commercial efforts directed towards Lübeck."
I think it ought to be reformulated without the semicolons and with special attention to some of the prepositions, which are not exactly native English.
As it stands, I can not really understand its meaning.
62.119.246.6 ( talk) 00:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 21, 2021 and October 21, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Several questions:
-- Zoe — Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 6 December 2002 (UTC)
1. Havent the slighest these were old thing, which I didnt wrote. 2. Really have to check this up, thanks for noticing. She was married to Abel of denmark before, well see into this. 3. As above stated, Erik Knutsson was Ingeborgs father, not her brother.
So now Id be most interested to know
Glad for your interest in scandinavian genealogy. // :) Dan Koehl — Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 December 2002 (UTC)
Now noticing that someone has written that Birger married the daughter of Abel, with whom she was actually married with. It sure isnt easy to put this in order, when so many want to write so much, but wrong... Dan Koehl 23:47 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
It is better not to name the family that Birger jarl belonged to as "Folkunga", nowadays most historians namen it "Bjälbo-ätten" (Bjälbo-family) as Folkunga in their time was an opposition of Birger jarl and his sons. First in the 17th century, due to some confusion the historians started to name Bjälbo as Folkunga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.217.149 ( talk) 23:11, 14 July 2004 (UTC)
Today I added one source to the article and removed the templates from the top of the page (to add them to two sections needing attention). More sources and some copy-editing is still necessary though.
/
Mats Halldin (
talk)
09:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The source I used for the article clearly say he must have been older than 50 (...han kan knappast ha varit född så sent som 1216. Fadern Magnus Minnesköld antas nämligen ha dött senast 1210. En hyfsad gissning är att Birger fötts något eller några år innan faderns bortgång.) I don't claim the Lindström brothers are the ideal NPOV reference, but preferably another source should be used before replacing the information in the article.
Thanks
/
Mats Halldin (
talk)
11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I lifted out the assertion that Birger Jarl's reforms laid the foundations for a Swedish kingdom [1]. I know there is a tendency among some Swedish historians to put everything as late as possible, and I guess they still have an axe to grind against gothicismus and national romanticism. A kind of antithesis to what they perceive as fusty old stuff. However, there are scholars who disagree with their way of presenting Swedish history, e.g. Mats G. Larsson who deals with Sweden's past as a Germanic kingdom. On WP we have to follow NPOV and we have to have a functional terminology in English. This means that we have to be very careful with what a particular Swedish historian means with "kungarike" in a specific context and with how this should be translated into English. IMHO, it is a trifle pathetic to have a statement that implies that there was still no Swedish kingdom in the early 13th century while we have a List of Swedish monarchs that begins with Eric the Victorious (10th century).-- Berig 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a side note: any information why almost all the Christian kings in the Svea rike seem to have been from Geatish clans, while the election of the king was still a privilege of the Svea nobles? -- Drieakko 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that we don't exactly know how kings were elected. For example, traditionally it has been said that Ragnvald Knaphövde was first chosen by people in Mälardalen, but we have no proof for that, and the only sources that actually says something about it, says that he was chosen in Östergötland. In short, it might well happen that people in Mälardalen had nothing to say in who was to become king around the year 1130. Further, labels of ethnicity are not so easy to work with, and very early on we find examples were words like Svía and Sveær should be translated as Swedes. See for example Håkon Håkonssons saga and äldre västgötalagen. In short, the premise is not defined, and therefore it is not a good question. Mats G. Larsson is a right wing provincialist, and does not represent main stream thoughts. Åke Hyenstrand and Carl Löfving are far better choices if one wants to learn about this time period. 85.224.196.136 ( talk) 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is right Mats. I just wanted to explain since Drieakko asked a question. Possibly I didn't phrase it very well. What I mean with "not a good question", is that the premises of the question are unproven or undefined. Yes, mainstream thoughts are those held by the majority of historians today. Simply put, the problem with many of the articles about Swedish history is that they lag some 20-30 years. Today, discontinuity is emphasized, also when medieval historians speak of Sweden they have to define it in some measurable way, or they are off into the land of myths. So when we talk of Sweden it has to be understood that we are talking of different kinds of Sweden :) It is often misunderstood since we use the same word all the time. Books can be written about this, but I'll try to be brief and explain. What present day research seems to tell us is that for some 100 years we have been having a myth of a dynamically growing Sweden from a base in Mälardalen, and that in reality this cannot be proven. Rather, there are very strong evidences saying that an eventual kingdom in Mälardalen was subjugated under Danish/Geatish power in the tenth century. We should not be surprised to find that this was the case. It is enough to understand that power was frail, and that the individual could create his own fortune. Add to this that we are talking about some 700 years of history, and that we actually have evidence of changing fortunes. Presently there is work on a new Swedish history, it will be published by Norstedts and there will be programs on tv4. Hopefully, with it, the provincial view will finally be buried. I hope this made some sense to you Mats. It is rather difficult to explain a very vast subject in a short article like this :) mvh, Marcus 85.224.197.20 ( talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Should this article be "Birger jarl" or "Birger Jarl"? Robert Greer ( talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. This move is not a statement for or against the suggestion at the bottom of the discussion regarding, for example, Birger, Duke of Sweden. That's probably a question for a separate move request; for now it's clear that Birger Jarl is an improvement over Birger jarl. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Birger jarl →
Birger Jarl — See section just above! Swedish language policy has been used, but does not apply here.
SergeWoodzing (
talk)
02:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Birger-jarl-2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Asking other neutral editors to comment on which of these two images, in the sizes shown in this article, is the clearest and best to portray Birger. Please refer to number 1 or number 2. My question has the condition that one does not enlarge the photo by clicking on it (as I think most readers won't) but views it as is (as I think most readers will). SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi guys, I'm from the 3O Board. I think both photos are good selections. But, between the two, I have to side with Number 2. Number 1 appears pixilated, even when not blown up. (Sorry, Serge, nothing personal!) — JoelWhy ( talk) 20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Here is a photo made from scaffolding high up in the church by Axel Forssén. It might be public domain (if published in Sweden before 1969). Maybe Woodzing knows a publication date. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In the broader sense of the word, as prince consort to a Princess of Sweden, and as regent, and as the father of 2 kings, Birger can be called a Swedish prince as far as catregories go. Much too definite statements (as if we knew!) about what he was or was not called during his lifetime don't enter into that. The fact that several scholars consider him the great-grandson of a Swedish king, additonally, invalidates any definite claim made by a Wikipedian in 2016, that he had no royal blood. Reinstating category. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
One can perhaps call the children of medieval and early modern Swedish royals for princes and princesses, but really, just being married to such a person did not necessarily confer extraordinary rank.
The following sentence is extremely difficult to parse.
"While Birger's direct involvement in the foundation of the city remains speculative, it probably was no accident it was founded on the location at this time, as there were alternative passages into Mälaren during the preceding Viking Era; as Crusades, a kind of Viking raids in a Christian disguise, had proven increasingly unsuccessful; and as taking control over the location, traditionally where men supposedly gathered before the ledung, meant old offensive military traditions could be replaced by more "modern" commercial efforts directed towards Lübeck."
I think it ought to be reformulated without the semicolons and with special attention to some of the prepositions, which are not exactly native English.
As it stands, I can not really understand its meaning.
62.119.246.6 ( talk) 00:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)