Talk:Styrbjörn the Strong

UNreliable?

A Saga is s semi mythical tale, and they are actually quite studded with legitimate historical details. Is it necessary to condemn them as unreliable in one fell stroke? Let's let the reader read about the Sagas and decide for themselves.Sukiari 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Opinions have diverged greatly on the historic reliability of the sagas, and it is not for a WP article to take a stance in the issue. When Old Norse sources are concerned, Nationalencyklopedin is not an NPOV source which is shown by its article Ynglingatal (it represents a hypercritical and generally rejected hypothesis from the 90s). Stating that the information comes from sagas should be enough.--Berig 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole lead of this article is extreme. The dates and Styrbjörns family relationship with Eric the Victorious are treated as facts of history. Where Old Nordic stuff is concerned, English wikipedia is a mess, and it is ludicrous when its main defender here condemns Nationalencyklopedin. I am putting its judgment on the unreliability of this sagastuff back - it is in the reference. /Pieter Kuiper 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't condemn it, I only I gave a clear and relevant example where it cannot count as NPOV by Wikipedia standards. Why don't you take this source criticism to the article saga instead?--Berig 08:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fact that right there in the beginning it says 'according to the sagas' and links to the article, it is unnecessary to force a judgement on the reader as to their historical validity. Of course, many if not most historical dates from ancient sources are considered to be a bit hazy until corroborated otherwise. Do you intend to edit the article about Jesus or Buddha because we can't prove the exact dates that he did stuff? It's up to the reader to make a decision about the validity of historical dates present in or decipherable from all ancient writing. Sukiari 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sukiari. Saying 'according to' is enough to show that sagaic evidence for history is considered somewhat dubious. It's up to the reader to make their own decisions regarding historicity of sources, anything else is POV especially as academic concensus is very mixed regarding just how reliable the sagas are. Also, if we discard the sagas out of hand we may as well delete most of the articles on Viking Age Scandinavian history. BodvarBjarki (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Double epithet interpreted

A Dutch-Swedish user has now removed the interpretation of this man's name - Björn the Strident and Strong - given by a respected 19th-century Swedish historian, and also removed the reliable reference I gave with a page number, when I added that interpretation yesterday. The removal has this edit summary:

• "styr" means roughly "uproar", http://www.ne.se/styrbj%C3%B6rn.

Perhaps the Dutch-Swede does not know that in English the main characteristic of one who makes "uproar" can be considered quite equivalent to strident, just as the respected 19th century historian wrote. I see no need for such nitpicking, especially when it goes against an expert's interpretation and when the removal was done arbitrarily by a person who is not a historian of any kind.

I have hade past (almost wholly unpleasant) dealings with the editor in question and am particularly unimpressed by his posting on his user page that his very occasional work here rises to a "near native level of English" (something which cannot be considered accurate by any normal reader of English in his case, to put it politely).

Since the article on the whole is somewhat questionable as to reliable historical information, it could hardly be appropriate to engage in a major dispute over semantics regarding the correct interpretation of the double epithet (Styr- and Strong) of a prince who may or may not actually have existed. I am restoring the respected historian's interpretation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: The same author of history went out of his way in his cited book to clarify that the personal name of this man was Björn and that the prefix Styr- is an epithet (as was done then in the local language), not a part of his personal name. My addition yesterday is the only clarification of that in the entire article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to not imply that I'm Pieter Kuiper? Such unfounded accusations are far more impolite than your fixation on my English skills.

As for "strident", Merriam-Webster gives it's meaning as "characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound <a strident voice>; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality <strident slogans>"[1]. It's not a total misfit, but far from a good translation. Seeing as it is also a translation (yours?) of a work originally in Swedish I doubt whether it's meaningful to try to translate it into something of the style of an epithet instead of giving a definition.

Andejons (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you too were Dutch-Swedish! If that's wrong I apologize. You and Kuiper have teamed up so often on things like this, I must have gotten confused by that.

You are the one, in any case, who rates your English skills as "near-native level", which, as you know, I find objectionable, as much as I have had to correct you language here on English WP. A little realistic humility goes a long way. I have many faults, not a good idea to overrate oneself. And no fun to help people who do.

As to the matter at hand, C. George Starbäck wrote extensively about this, as I have mentioned above, and I do not find it meaningful to disregard the writings of a professional historian in favor of the POV of someone who is not. My personal opinions are not important here. Starbäck wrote (of course in Swedish) that Styr- means stridbar in this case = strident in English. Why nitpick like this? And why disregard the fact that this legendary man's actual personal name seems to have been Beorn (Swedish: Björn), not Styrbjörn? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we perhaps try to discuss the matter at hand instead of your assessment of my English? Especially as your English seems to be the one at fault here; "stridbar" ('capable in battle' or 'belligerent') should not be translated into "strident" ('characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound'). Further, Starbäcks interpretation seems to have been superseded: NE says that "styr" in "Styrbjörn" means "'stoj', 'tumult'"[2] (of course, there is the off chance that this particular "styr" was meant to mean something else – but most likely not that he was a very loud person).

Andejons (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not going to teach me any English, so you can stop trying. I have taught English and it is my first language; you are a Swedish physics student, accordning to your own information. Once a 3O has been requested it is respectful to await it before taking any further action. You didn't, so I have reverted again to give a 3O editor a chance here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I've taken a look through both your arguments, and bear with me since I am not familiar with the article topic or the Swedish language, but I've made the best of tools available to me. I've searched two online translators for 'stridbar', with one returning 'militant', and the other returning 'full of fighting spirit'. Whilst I agree it is perhaps possible to stretch the definition of militant to include someone who is 'strident', that isn't necessarily what is meant - they can be very different. I've tried to access the NE source but it requires a login and it's in Swedish by the looks of things, so I'm not much help there. Does the source describe the man as 'Strident and strong'? Or just translate 'styr' into 'uproar'? If the former, I would suggest tweaking your wording slightly to indicate that it can be translated as such, and then cite it - this would be acceptable. If the latter is the case, I think we're into the realms of WP:OR and as such, the translation should be avoided. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page for any further clarification or to provide me with any more information, if I appear to have misinterpreted something.—ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 11:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

NE says that "Styrbjörn, mansnamn av nordiskt ursprung, sammansatt av ett ord motsvarande fornvästnordiska styrr 'stoj', 'tumult' samt 'björn'." The formulation is a bit vague though. Here is a different source that gives something closer to Starbäck: "ostyrig, stridig", 'unruly', 'aggressive, quarrelsome' (not quite "feisty").

Andejons (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Perspeculum fore trying to help us! The other editor does as he pleases (as he ís used to doing at Swedish WP where I have given up) and has removed the entire thing again, notwithstanding our ongoing discussion. I am not going to make any more changes until you and we are OK with a solution (I really try very hard to be a gentleman when editing WP).

The source unquestionably describes the man as feisty and strong, as I changed the wording to yesterday.

I especially appreciate your account of what you find in the works of professional translators. It is a great idea to let them, in line with the professional historian, lead the way here. It seems to me then, if we can agree that "feisty" (my new adjective), and the full of fighting spirit that you found, are reasonably synonymous, it would be warranted to reinstate the sentence, since the other editor and we seem to agree that stridbar is accepted in Swedish.

No one has addressed the benefit as yet of disclosing, somewhere in this article, that the man's actual personal name was Björn, which we also seem to agree on, and that this explanation of his double epithet enlightens the reader in that regard in a beneficial manner. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it appears the main issue here is a translation one. Am I correct in saying that at a basic level, the main disagreement essentially concerns the translation of 'styr' into English? Is there a consensus on what the Swedish word is for this? Then we can look at translating that to English. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I start to wonder if there should be a translation given at all. Starbäck seems to be alone in claiming that he was originally named "Björn", at least in the sources I have found (then again, he does go into more detail than most of them). If he was thus renamed, I do agree that there is a point in explaining the name, but otherwise, it seems out of place here. I would like to see what primary source the claim is based on, though, as I do not trust that this is not some 19th century speculation.

As for the meaning, two of the sources seems to mostly agree (I dug up an exact quote from Starbäck: "Af sitt oroliga, våldsamma och stridslystna lynne, äfvensom af sin ovanlig styrka, fick Björn namnet Styrbjörn Starke."). NE is a bit vague, but suggests a somewhat different meaning. Anyhow, if the name should be translated, I think it's better to give an explanation than trying to fit it into an epithet, which seems more like what you would do when writing fiction than a dictionary.

Andejons (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Perspeculum's constructive attitude.

"Actually, I start to wonder if there should be..." ? We can't even know what that is supposed to mean in English here (unless we recognize it as a bad transtation word for word from Swedish - just a bit better that "Actually, start I to wonder if there should be..."). And here we are, discussing the English language with such a writer!

The exact quote I cited from page 231 of the respected academic educator's book, after Starbäck referred to this man as "Björn" 8 times in his previous text (not once as "Styrbjörn"), reads: "Av detta sitt oroliga, våldsamma och stridslystna lynne, ävensom av sin ovanliga styrka, fick Björn sitt tillnamn." (spelled here in modern Swedish to allow for others to use translation programs to check on it). The difference (besides 19th century spelling), as to the quote above by my adversary, is that any mention of an epithet has been excluded there. I don't know why. The quoted passage I have in front of me in the original book translates to English as: "From this, his restless, violent and pugnacious disposition, as well as from his unusual strength, Beorn got his epithet". Synonyms for pugnacious, according to The Doubleday Roget's Thesaurus are feisty, combative, quarrelsome, argumentative, bellicose, etc. Those of us who are native speakers of English often know instinctively what words are the best for what situations.

Could Perspeculum, using that reference, please try to put a sentence together that will stick, now that there seems to be some common ground for compromise? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the tiresome barbs about who writes better English aside, it seems that Styrbjarnar þáttr Svíakappa does say that he was originally named "Björn". Here is a translation into Swedish, which says that he was called Styrbjörn by King Erik due to his "vildsinthet och stridslust" ("savage nature and lust for battle"). I also found sv:Elof Hellquist's etymology for the name "Styrbjörn". He translates "styr-" as "bråkig", 'troublesome, unruly'.

Andejons (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What is extremely tiresome, and happens much too often, is discussing the English language with stubborn, headstrong and over-confident users who aren't very good at the English language but, as in your case, promote themselves as on a "near native level" to justify their behavior.

Your Swedish comments here, however, are now beginning to be construcive.

Why then did you just now remove the only reference to his actual name Björn from the Swedish article, where it has been an accepted fact for a long time??? Here, you are finally contributing constructive facts about the name (without 19th century Swedish spelling), there, you zapped it. Compensation? Irritation? Increased want of influence? Your behavior is extremely confusing to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss the Swedish article, you're welcome to do it on its talk page, but then I would advise you to look at what was changed again, before you come with more groundless accusations.

Andejons (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My main accusation if you want to call it that, is that your recent behavior there does not jive with what you are doing here (or did I miss something here that you put back in about the name Björn?). I apologize sincerely for what I wrote last here, about you and the name Björn. Now I am even more confused though, about your inconsistent behavior. But it's not the first time I've seen you pick an unnecessary fight with me and then turn around completely, half way (like here) or all the way. Who wouldn't be confused and feel a lot of time and effort was being wasted for absolutely nothing ~ kind of like what I complained about here from the start? What is now in the Swedish article shows the gist of what Starbäck related and what I tried to add here, which you would not allow. Why then is it still missing here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: "...before you come with ..." is more of your incomprehensible Swenglish and can only add even more confusion for readers who don't know your language. Looks like you are delving into my sexual habits or something. I ask you once again, cordially: won't you please change your user page template to an English skill below a "near-native level"? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to have such a hard time understanding me, I don't see much point in trying to explain my behaviour to you. I am pleased that the article at least is not marred by the silliness of "the Strident" anymore. The present translation is at least not totally of the mark.

Andejons (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have to object to your calling my work "silliness" just because you do not understand the nuances and expandable meanings and etmyological orgins and development of many English words (how could you?). But I agree that the present wording makes the point clearer, and that's what's important. Perhaps I might add my kind request that you try not to insult me unnecessarily to my kind request that you revise your opinion of your English skills? I will try very hard to be nice to you also, but I must be free to criticize you when you are out of bounds as an English expert. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I can't understand how a word which every dictionary I've consulted on the question gives a meaning along the lines of "characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound" is in any way a reasonable translation of "orolig, våldsam och stridslysten". It must clearly be my inferior capability for the English language that is to blame here, and I must beg you, who possesses such a wonderful wealth of knowledge and such great kindness towards me, to enlighten me in this.

Andejons (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You sarcasm constitutes inappropriate behavior and deserves no reply at all. I tried to be constructive, you answered hånfullt. If that's the kind of last word you'd like to have on this page: varsågod! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As a native speaker of Dutch (but reasonably fluent in Swedish and English), I would agree with Andejons about the translation. Starbäck (1860) cannot be considered a reliable source. The etymology is not of great interest, and should be removed from the lede. It should not make claims about the "original name" of a character of doubtful historicity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I've been away for a couple of days. It seems as though the article has been changed back to the original name - whether or not through consensus, but there does appear to be some common ground in the discussion above. If you need me to carry on assisting, please let me know on my talk page. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Historian from 1860 unreliable & etymology unimportant?

I do not agree with the latest assessment by a Dutch-Swedish user (just above Perspeculum)m neither that (1) etymology is not important; he claims to agree with my previous opponent on that, but I cannot find any such thing, on the contrary Andejons indeed writes as is if it is important; nor (2) that C. Georg Starbäck is not reliable as a source. The legendary person about whom this article has been created was of more "doubtful historicity" in 1860 than now - and back then an esteemed academic history educator wrote at length about the importance of understanding his original and subsequent name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Starbäck (1828-1885) wrote at length, yes he did. He could write at length about anything, as could Saxo Grammaticus. But about the name change, Starbäck has just one sentence. Starbäck gives no sources, and has no source value except for about history teaching in Swedish schools in the 19th century. His story about Styrbjörn Starke is here - entirely uncritical. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your new Third Opinion Request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Your request has been removed from the pending dispute list at the Third opinion project as it appears to be nothing more than a relisting of a dispute already given a Third Opinion by Perspeculum. If you question or disagree with that opinion, please, first, see the "What Happens Next?" section of the Third Opinion User FAQ and, second, remember that a Third Opinion is not a tiebreaker and does not "count" towards or against consensus. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My apology. I misread "(just above Perspeculum)" as "(just above, Perspeculum)". The absence of the comma makes a lot of difference and I shot from the hip too quickly. Glad to see that you relisted at 3O and reward myself a self-whack!. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request reinstated - thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Sure, I'll give it a shot. Unless I'm misunderstanding, is this all based around a translation of what Starbäck wrote - that is, if it means strident and strong, or feisty? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! We now seem to agree on what the two epithets mean (Styr- = quarrelsome or feisty and starke = strong ), and the text has been adjusted accordingly, again citing Starbäck. His full name then could also be given as Björn (or Beorn) the Feisty (or Quarrelsome) and Strong, but no one is advocating moving the article to a different name.

The questions under this new heading have become

• whether or not Starback, being a 19th century historian, can be cited at all
• whether or not the origin of this man's epithet is relevant to the article.

I see no other remaining issue in dispute here. The latest objection can be interpreted, as I see it, as a protest against revealing to the reader that this man's original name was Björn (though I fail to see why anyone would protest that on reasonable grounds). SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PS the Swedish article clearly states that his original name was Björn, and the link to Starbäck's text given above by my opponent refers to him a number of times by that name alone.

It was not customary in 1860 for the writers of history to cite sources in their books - their academic degrees were sufficient to identify them as legitimate authorities. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I think the origin of the name is worth including, especially since it was changed during his life. Now as to the source itself, I have two questions. One, are there no other sources on the entire planet that discuss this name change? And two, are there any other sources that challenge Starback's authority on this, or is it just a general feeling that the source is questionable? Pending answers to these questions, one way to handle it would be to add proper attribution to the info, i.e. "According to Starback, a 19th century historian, his original name of Bjorn was changed..." I'd also consider moving it out of the lead and into its own section (or one of the others, maybe). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, SergeWoodzing is wrong in stating that 19th century historians did not refer to sources. But Starbäck was not writing an academic study. His genre was that of the nationalist historic tale, for the use of nationbuilding by schoolmasters. It does not have any authority, and if something can only be found in Starbäck, it is shear invention.

Styrbjörn's life is not the subject anymore of 10th century history. It is just a literary character in Saxo's tales and in the Icelandic sagas. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess my main question is, under what grounds is Starback being challenged? Like, has he been called out by other writers as having been particularly inventive with his writings, or is it just based on your personal take? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued 3O assistance! I will answer your questions just above this last one, to avoid going into a personally tainted polemic with my opponent about his dismissive claims. 1 - Yes, e.g. Professor Birger Nerman on page 89 in his major work from 1952 Sveriges konungar och drottningar genom tiderna (The Kings and Queens of Sweden Through the Ages) always based on such material as the legend - Eyrbyggja saga - mentioning the original name (as Biorn) with its own section in this article (we are correctly describing legends here - I am not purporting that these are 100% verified facts) and another section here - Styrbjarnar þáttr Svíakappa - cited in the Swedish article as the ancient source re: the original name; 2 - there are no reliable scholarly sources that challenge Starbäck's authority on Nordic legends and older history, and there is nothing either in the extensive Swedish article to support any such allegations. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Then failing any actual reasons to support questioning the accuracy of the book, I think the text should be included. If it's a selling point, then include attribution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's rather pointless asking for criticism of a popular history book of over 100 year of age – if there is any, it's to be found deep in archives, or in very specialized studies. Starbäck might have been held in esteem in his day, but he's not someone you'd see references to in modern books. Asking for specific criticism of this kind is only to invite people to try to find as obscure sources as possible.

As for the material, my belief is that it is better to phrase the article along the lines of "primary source A says this, primary source B says that", and then use the secondary sources mostly for interpretations. It will make sure that the material is much harder to question, and one can then use relevance instead of reliability as the basis for what secondary sources to use.

Andejons (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked up Starbäck in "sv:Svenska män och kvinnor", a biographic dictionary. His view of history is characterized there as "influenced by Geijer", which is a way of saying that he was old-fashioned in his own time, an adherent of Swedish gothicism. It also says that he wrote "for a wide audience" and "with the purpose of stimulating love for the fatherland." Worthless as a reference for historical facts in a modern encyclopedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Andejons, yes, that was what I meant by attribution. Rather than assuming the renaming is absolutely correct and valid, changing it to "Starback wrote that blah blah blah..." makes more sense.

Pieter, I don't think this article is written as a biography the way we would write one about a living person. The second sentence in the article even casts doubt on his entire existence. It mentions other (fictional) sagas, and isn't Starback's account really just another source that happens to be fiction? That doesn't mean we can't use it. Anyway, I think adding attribution to Starback is the way to go. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Starbäck also wrote historical novels, but this work was supposed to be history. The wikipedia article does not cast sufficient doubt on what can be regarded as knowledge about this character. The claims of genealogy are appropriately attributed to late and unreliable sagas. But Woodzing adds claims of knowledge of an "original name" - nobody knows, it is impossible to know, and utterly irrelevant for the lede. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper is twisting my words and very rudely mentions my name about things that are not true, as he usually does when he follows me around to pick fights with me. This is personal with Kuiper, not factual, not neutral, not constructive. What I have added is what the legends say about Styrbjörn's original name, and what Starbäck and Nerman say about the legend in that regard, nothing else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Original name in lede?

I believe the legendary subject's legendary original name belongs in the lede and will be adding a brief mention of it there unless someone objects to it for a relevant reason or a WP policy reason I am not aware of. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Insignificant, and far too legendary for the lede. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede is just a couple of lines long right now. How distracting could it be to give a brief nod to the "legend" there (if you have a WP:RS for it)? I do not see that it greatly affects the article either way. (I saw this at WP:3 but am not responding in that capacity now because I don't have time to look further into it -- that's just my immediate response. My impression just glancing at all of the above is that you two may be spending an unnecessarily large amount of time disputing points-of-difference that do not merit it). ←Unofficial opinion Wikiscient (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I never actually gave my thoughts on this one (it didn't come up before) but I see no reason not to include it in the lead. (PS, we didn't need another third opinion; I'm still active here.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons I didn't de-queue it: I did notice the previous attempts; apologies for unofficially butting in, I wouldn't have put it that way had I been officially opining. Good luck and happy editing all around! Wikiscient (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason not to include this in the lede is the way this kind of articles are best structured. It is a structure that avoids editing conflicts by not going beyond the facts. The lede gives a very short positioning of the character, followed by an overview of what sources there are. Story elements should not be presented as historical information in the lede, but are recounted in subsections for the different sources. The "original name" thing is such a story element, that seems to belong to the "Styrbjarnar þáttr Svíakappa" subsection. If something should be added to the lede, it would be the character's association with the Jomsvikings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that it should be handled with care. He is universally known as "Styrbjörn". Neither "Björn" nor "Styrbjörn the Swedish Champion" (were does that come from? The title of Styrbjarnar þáttr Svíakappa?) should be presented as more than names that appear in some of the stories.

Andejons (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus for restoring the subject's original name (as per legend) to the lede. I beleive that should not continue to be reverted. The fact that the three users who find it appropriate there are native speakers of English should reasonably factor in here. We are trying to do the best possible work for English WP. Calling any part of that "ethnic discrimnination" (quote an edit summary) is belligerent bordering on insulting, not constructive work, in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC) There is also no reason, other than user POV, to repeatedly remove the valid source I provided from the start in this matter. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not even discussing or responding to my arguments. You are just disqualifying me because I am not a native speaker of English. When it comes to other things than matters of English usage, that is ethnic discrimination. In this case, it is more relevant whether one can have an informed opinion on whether Starbäck's story book is a reliable source, and that I can do. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a native speaker of English should have no bearing on this issue. This is a discussion as to whether or not the lead should include a line about the guy's original name. Right now, more people favor including it over not including it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Feeling a need to defend myself against a pretty nasty accusation, I have to say this:

I very firmly believe (and have seen so many times) that it is relevant to a discussion on a WP project's talk page whether or not the participants in that discussion know enough of that project's language to be able to discuss the issue rationally and knowledgeably, especially when it centers on or, to a relevant degree, depends on linguistic matters such as interpretations, translations, synonymic nuances, etymological influence on exonyms, and so forth. I believe that has been a problem in this discussion several times, though I agree that, if such details as language are not determinative in a discussion, there should be no discussion of any language other than such as could be expected in civil behavoir.

Both the Swedes involved here, in this section and before, have strongly asserted that any possible limitation of language, on their part, never under any circumstances can have any bearing whatsoever on their contributions, work and discussions on English WP. Both have even shown personal huffiness (to put it mildly) when reviewed on such matters by others who have no such limitations.

I am unhappy about such reactions, but do not sincerely feel I have anything to apololgize about in that regard. If I did, I would.

How shall I be required to react to an edit summary like this (September 7): I don't believe Starbäck tells that he's retelling the story from this particular source (he doesn't in later editions). And it wasn't any nephew of Styrbjörn's that got him the name. - when (1) in real English that Swenglish (obvious to me) looks like Starbäck was trying to conceal something (he never did any such thing) and (2) the editor reverted without even understanding the clear text he was reverting (I had clarified that it was Styrbjörn's uncle that gave him the new name, and nobody ever claimed it was "any nephew".)

And how do we (if we do not know Swedish or Dutch) interpret this, above in this section: ...whether one can have an informed opinion on whether Starbäck's story book is a reliable source, and that I can do. Whether or not something...? Do what, "have an informed opinion"? Are we dealing with a Starbäck expert without knowing it? - I know seven languages pretty well (five well), but honestly, I couldn't even begin to try to figure out what that means and how to reply to it or argue its merits, if any. "...story book"? Does that mean storybook, or is it a sarcasm? A critique? If a storybook is meant, what storybook? There is none involved here anywhere, as far as I know.

At least half my time on English WP, for years and years, has been spent trying to figure out what to do with things like that, written by over-confident Swedes and others; cleaning up their work in hundreds of articles so that readers of English, who do not know Swedish or Swenglish or other obvious source languages, will understand the (often valuable) stuff they are trying to contribute; and cordially (at least at first) arguing almost interminably with headstrong individuals, whose English is not great, about what is acceptably good and comprehendible English, or isn't. It is almost impossible to get most of them to understand the problem at all, so the need of such work here is virtually endless.

It would be great if we could all live in the real world in such basic and essential matters and not be forced to pretend that everybody knows and understands everything in every language, no matter what languages they are good at. For example, let's not demand 100% respect in every detail on Swedish or Dutch WP, when discussing language or matters directly related to it, unless we are are 100% certain that our Swedish or Dutch is good enough.

There is no "ethnic discrimitation" involved in that, nor in my attitude about it, just a heartfelt wish for conscientious, rational, constructive work.

But yes, the main issue at hand here is consensus on article format on English WP. Since most of us want the original name in the lede, I'm putting it back for the 5th time or so. I ask respectfully that there be no more edit warring on that detail. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of Starbäck's book translates as "Stories from Swedish history", and that is what really is: just an old storybook (if Woodzing insists that the alternative orthography of "story book" would be so unacceptable that it disqualifies me as a contributor to English wikipedia). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the third paragraph, second sentence, of the Swedish Starbäck article: "Hans främsta historiska verk är Berättelser ur svenska historien (English: His foremost historical work is [the history book - not storybook - cited here])". SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Styrbjörn the Strong. 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/20120306132844/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11116 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=11116
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227085107/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)