Talk:Ynglingatal

Translated from the Norwegian article
I have translated the Norwegian article, to wich I have made many contributions, into English. Please feel free to correct spelling mistakes etc. --IdaLandberg (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Citation needed"
Is this some kind of demonstration? This article has far more references than usual, everything is backed up by evidence. --IdaLandberg (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Statements like "Krag's perception was captivating and won widespread acclaim" need citations. "Captivating" is NPOV. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is one statement. Someone has put in "citation needed" almost 30 times. And the statemenst already have references. One does not have to citate every sentence one write when the information is from the same reference - then it is OK with a reference at the end of the paragraph. We can't have it that wikipedia are strichter than academic papers..? There are so many articles here that have far less references than this, not to mention the "old" article about Ynglingatal, that had very few references. This looks like some demonstration because the references and the contributours are not English. I can put in more references, but from an academic wiewpoint it is not nescessary. Som of the "citation needed"-marks are just ridiculous, like "Snorri wrote Y.saga on the basis of Y.tal" that is common knowlengde and self evident. That Y.tal ends with Ragnvald is also self evident as the poem is citated...  --IdaLandberg (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think you might be mixing up "citation needed" and "clarification needed", which are not the same. "Clarification needed" may very well be placed in the middle of a paragraph, even if said paragraph has a citation at the end. Citation needed and clarification needed are different issues, with citation needed asking for "a citation to a reliable source" and clarification needed asking editors "to clarify text that is difficult to understand". Manxruler (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true. I will try to fix the sentences that poeople find unclear. --IdaLandberg (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope most is clear now. There is one statement about the researcher C D Sapp that I have not fixed, since I do not know Sapp. The statement is written by some other contributor. I hope I have clarified the rest. --IdaLandberg (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Hypercritical school and due weight
There are issues relating to due weight here. The Norwegian Claus Krag had a prominent position and was lauded with the anecdote "Krag's perception was captivating and won widespread acclaim". The hypercritical school is nothing new. In the 19th century, it claimed that the royal barrows at Gamla Uppsala were nothing but natural formations, which provoked an excavation to prove them wrong, and which it did. In the 1990s, Krag painted a picture where the Icelandic scholars of the 12th and 13th centuries were involved in some kind of conspiracy. He was answered by Olof Sundquist who published his dissertation Freyr's Offspring (2000), and it entailed a "rejection of the hypercritical line of research". There are simply too many points that support its authenticity like kennings, place names, personal names, cultural traits, etc. Sapp (2002) studied the language of Ynglingatal and pointed out that it cannot be a late production (Sapp, C.D. 'Dating Ynglingatal. Chronological Metrical Developments in Kviduhattr', Skandinavistik 2002:2, s. 85-98). I had a look at the University of Aberdeen's Skaldic project, where they state that scholars like Krag have failed to prove their hypothesis, "a convincing case has not been made against the authenticity of the poem as a ninth-century creation". This means that we simply cannot give the same weight to Krag's hypothesis as we do to the standard dating. Sure, Krag should be part of a historiography section, but that is it.--Berig (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)