Talk:Götaland theory

NPOV?
This article is not npov. It advocates by including too many counter-arguments. Now, I couldn't care less about the topic, but I feel that the "principle of reaching objectivity" is not taken into account during the production of the article. What "real encyclopedia" (and Wikipedia is a VERY real encyclopedia) has a conclusion in any of its articles? None that I've read. - Sigg3.net 14:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd rather have the article deleted. It is generally laughed at, and the believers are mostly confined to a certain a Swedish province.--Wiglaf 18:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, there are so many problems with the content that I will stay away from editing it any further.--Wiglaf 14:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Objectivity can't be to refrain from listing the available counter-arguments to a regionalist crackpot theory, just in order to not to make it look as off-the-mark as it actually is. If this theory is indeed considered notable enough for Wikipedia, a reasonable summary of the extensive evidence available against it must be allowed into the article, otherwise Wikipedia will be spreading delusion rather than knowledge. The heading "Conclusions" could possibly be renamed to something indicating its about the academic consensus' conclusions, rather than Wikipedia's own. / Alarm 15:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not an updated article, not an objective article and not an objective one. It should be deleted, or at least given a full rewrite. The only sources listed are two of the strongest adherents of the "Sveaskola" and nothing is said about Viktor Rydbergs start of the theory (he died before the Nazis were formed), no names of prominent writers (Verner Lindblom, Mac Key, etc.) and nothing is mentioned about the fact that we only have one source claiming there ever was a temple and religous centre in Uppsala. And that one is Adam of Bremen's text, which is not objective either. Please rewrite or delete. /Khan, 16:47, 18 september 2009

Vote for Deletion
This theory derives from the nazi "archaeologist" Darré, Hans Reinerth and Eric Oxenstierna. The Swedish nazi amateure Carl-Otto Fast and more recent pronazi dillettants are still using this sick theory. It has nothing to do with facts. It must be deleted.

Opposing notes of interest for not placing Ubsola in Uppland
Several interesting notes have been raised against the common theory of Svealand being the ancient home of Sveas and the Ása cult, e.g. the following:


 * 1) Gamla Uppsala holds several mounds, of which the most famous, the three great mounds known as the kings' mounds are visible from far away. These are said to be the mounds of three famous mythological kings, Ane (Aun), his son Egil&mdash;also known as Ongentheow and sometimes Angantyr&mdash;(father of Ottar and Ale), Adils (Ottar's son), living sometimes around 450–550 A.D.
 * 2) Also, it is an indisputable fact that the county of Uppland holds several findings from around the Iron Age that indicate that a kingdom was ruled from here.
 * 3) Furthermore, an often named place in the myths and sagas is Fyris Wolds, a vast field near the temple site of Uppsala. The river passing the modern city of Uppsala is in fact called the Fyris (Fyrisån). Fyris survives as the name of a mediaeval royal estate on the location and in the names of two small lakes. The application of the form to the river, is however from the 17th century.
 * 4) In Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla, the Ynglinga saga being part of the history of ancient Norwegian kings, the place Ubsola (Upsalum) is said to be located by the lake Lagen/Logen, which Snorri means should be the lake Mälaren, dividing Uppland and Södermanland and hosting the capital of Sweden, Stockholm, at its eastern shores. The ancestor of the Ynglinga family is said to be Frey, the God that came to Scandinavia together with Odin. When Odin found the place to be, he named that country (or place, castle, town...) Sigtuna. In the days of Snorri, this town existed (and is archeologically proven to have existed around 1000 A.D.) to the north of Mälaren.
 * 5) The same location is pointed out by Adam of Bremen, who was a bishop in Hamburg that wrote the history of the domain of northern Europe, including Scandinavia until Lund was given an archbishop seat in the 12th century. However, he did not explicitly state that the temple was located in Uppland.

This kind of promoting serves no purpose on Wikipedia. / Fred-Chess 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of this article
I don't know a lot of this "Götaland hypothesis" (which might be a better name for it than calling it a theory?), but as science mostly is right, I suppose it is right with regard to this question too. However, I find the tone of the article problematic. Between the lines I see tendencies of the author mainly wanting to ridicule and pointing fingers to the theory's supporters, rather than only presenting historical facts. It is hard for me to prove this feel though, partly as English is only my 3rd or 4th language, but I would appreciate a rewrite of some of the text's sentences/paragraphs, with regard to this issue. Even articles on the worst forms of misleading scientific nonsense (if that characterizes the Götaland hypothesis), should be written in a neutral tone. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the tone, but it certainly is badly structured. I'm not versed enough in the actual claims of the proponents to actually fix it, but in some cases the article is very vague.
 * Andejons (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It should probably be clarified from the start that it is a conspiracy theory, and the name "theory" is not really a problem here since many crackpot ideas are called "theories", like Out of India Theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Masonic conspiracy theories, and so on. As for the tone of the article, I have no idea about how to give the subject a more neutral sounding tone.--Berig (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)