Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
B
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
==Immaculate conception?!==
==Immaculate conception?!==
The immaculate conception is a doctrine that wasn't developed until the 1800s. Surely whoever wrote this article is referring to the incarnation. [[User:Pinksisket|Pinksisket]] 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The immaculate conception is a doctrine that wasn't developed until the 1800s. Surely whoever wrote this article is referring to the incarnation. [[User:Pinksisket|Pinksisket]] 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

==Temple at Uppsala==
I move two sentences here for discussion:
:''By 2001, the existence of this temple had not been confirmed by archaeological findings.<ref>Kaufhold 2001, 86</ref> Whether the remains of several large wooden constructions, found by excavations under the present church, are from a pagan temple or from an earlier church build in the same place, is disputed.''
The presence of this text is problematic because it does appear a bit off-topic and misleading in the context. No one disputes that the area was used for pagan sacrifices, and AFAIK extremely little of the area has even been excavated: a small area under the church, the foundation of the royal mead hall and the centre of two barrows. The text that I have removed makes it sound as if 1) the area has been thoroughly excavated and 2) the presence of pagan worship is disputed, none of which is true.--[[User:Berig|Berig]] ([[User talk:Berig|talk]]) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:16, 22 February 2009

Immaculate conception?!

The immaculate conception is a doctrine that wasn't developed until the 1800s. Surely whoever wrote this article is referring to the incarnation. Pinksisket 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple at Uppsala

I move two sentences here for discussion:

By 2001, the existence of this temple had not been confirmed by archaeological findings.[1] Whether the remains of several large wooden constructions, found by excavations under the present church, are from a pagan temple or from an earlier church build in the same place, is disputed.

The presence of this text is problematic because it does appear a bit off-topic and misleading in the context. No one disputes that the area was used for pagan sacrifices, and AFAIK extremely little of the area has even been excavated: a small area under the church, the foundation of the royal mead hall and the centre of two barrows. The text that I have removed makes it sound as if 1) the area has been thoroughly excavated and 2) the presence of pagan worship is disputed, none of which is true.--Berig (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Kaufhold 2001, 86