Talk:Swein Forkbeard

Phonetic pronunciation a thing of the past?

I am amazed at this move (and at the sources supporting it). Very sad to see that so many writers and Wikipedians no longer care at all about pronunciation. Aren't our articles supposed to be able to be read aloud? Since when do English phonetics allow "ei" to be pronounced "ay"? Isn't it obvious that people who know phonetics I am convinced that many people in this context will read this aloud as "Swine Forkbeard". An improvement? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• I do not see the problem. "ei" pronounced as "ay" is normal, as in vein, skein and rein. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Of course there's no problem. Let us not forget "neighbour", "veil", "reign" "weight", "deign", "freight", "eighty" and "sleigh". That's "eight" to be going on with. As to SergeWoodzing's question, "Since when do English phonetics allow 'ei' to be pronounced 'ay'?", I haven't checked the OED for the earliest citations of all these words, but "veil" dates from 1390. Are you answered, SergeWoodzing? Tim riley talk 08:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

What was I thinking, to generalize like that & be so horribly unclear?! I meant "ei" in this context, not otherwise. Are we all against adding an IPA in this case, to prevent "Swine"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think a pronunciation guide would be an admirable idea; I have never mastered IPA but there are those who have. We could also add an ogg sound file if wanted – I've done a few of those in various articles over the years. Tim riley talk 06:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not against adding IPAs if they are referenced. In most cases they are not and are just one person's opinion. In this article, the deleted IPA would not have helped as it was only for the Old Norse, and the reference did not relate to the IPA. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I can testify that the spelling given in the article immediately strikes me as being pronounced as "Swine" or "Sween", not "Sweyn", which conveys its pronunciation clearly. I am unsure the motivation behind the move anyway. His epithet is given in English, yet his name is spelled as some compromise between an English spelling and preservation of the 'ei' dipthong. The spelling is not attested in native English sources, nor does it match the ON spelling. ~2026-16393-60 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You are so right. A few Wikipedians got together and decided to try to ridicule a Dane who had too much influence in England, and to do so under the guise of, and covering up their plan by, using phonetics comparable in other totally irrelevant words which are not names - plus, of course, various dubious reports on frequency of use. This, as with the nut case, his son Cnut, is a typical example of what makes it so extremely tedious at times to try to get any sensible work done here. We're going to have to put up with him being called a swine here, or else quitting altogether could be a good idea. In any case, both the nut and the swine are very embarrassing and their naming does a lot of damage to the reputation of Wikipedia. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I initially read “Swein” as “swine" too, and I suspect many others will do the same. Nothing was wrong with the former name, and maybe it's just me, but I also see “Sweyn” used much more often than “Swein.” I support changing it back to the original name. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Adam of Bremen

FrinkMan. The account in this article is based on the leading experts writing in English, Peter Sawyer and the Danish historian Niels Lund. You state that your edit is based on the article on Erik the Victorious, citing a Danish language source which you have apparently not checked and I cannot check as I do not speak Danish. According to Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia articles are not valid sources. I have nominated the article for FAC, and I never do this with sources which I have not checked myself as people often make mistakes in citing sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Their theories are based on Adam of Bremens account, shouldn't that be mentioned? Sawyer accepts Adams claim that Erik married a sister or daughter of Boleslaw, but doesn't accept Adams claim that the invasion succeeded. Rather curious. And as you know, "in the view of Sverre Bagge the relationship between Olof (Skötkonung) and Swein is not known". Your own addition to the Olof Skötkonung-article. That Swein became overlord of the Svear is just Sawyers theory. I don't know if Dick Harrisons book (Swedish by the way) has been translated to english.

Your re-write of this article needs to be more balanced. FrinkMan (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between Sawyer accepting Adam on Swein's marriage and rejecting him on Erik winning. It is general and reasonable for historians to suspect statements which serve a chronicler's aims but be more willing to accept those which are neutral or contradict his thesis. Adam claimed that Swein was defeated and driven into exile, spending 14 years in Scotland before recovering his throne when Erik died. This is rejected by all the historians I can find, Sawyer, Gwyn Jones, the Danish historian Niels Lund and the Norwegian historian Sverre Bagge. You do have a good point that Bagge questions Swein's overlordship of Olof, and I have amended the article to cover that. I will also look at making it clearer that Adam's account is generally rejected by historians, not only Sawyer. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Death

I'm slightly surprised that there is nothing about his cause of death. The article on short reigning monarchs says he might have been assassinated or died in a horse riding accident, is there any clarity on this? PatGallacher (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The sources cited are a BBC article which mentions a theory that he was killed by the ghost of St Edmund and a History Today article which says that according to one report he died after falling from his horse. Neither article gives any sources and I have not found any reliable source which discusses the cause of Swein's death. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle just says that he died, which suggests that there was nothing suspicious about it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit war

An edit war could be developing. My cautious view is that an actual image of this person, however speculative, would be an improvement on an image of their name. The alternative view could have implications for a lot of wikipedia biographies. PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I originally added the image and Nikkimaria pointed out that the sources I cited are dated. I was unable to find any reliable source stating that it is an image of Swein so I deleted it. I would be fine with restoring it if anyone can find an RS saying that it is an image of Swein. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not the only article where ~2026-35365-83 is edit warring carelessly (see how they don’t even change the caption when replacing images). – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That being said, I would argue a coin of Sweyn could make for a better image in the lede. There are a few of those available on Commons. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There is an image of a coin below in the coinage section where it belongs. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's just a generic Viking according to (uploaded to commons at File:Viking detail in Swansea Guildhall - geograph.org.uk - 1491174.jpg). Either way, it's a 20th-century [inaccurate] depiction of what a Viking might have looked like and therefore should not be the first image presented to the reader. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think File:Sweyn Forkbeard coin (cropped).jpg and File:Sweyn Coinfront.jpg are both fine lead images and probably better than the current one. Srnec (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree. They are almost the same as the coin in the coinage section with poorer sourcing. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

One wife, three articles

The articles Świętosława and Gunhild of Wenden are about the same person, Swein's wife. In addition to these, there is Sigrid the Haughty, which is about the same person in legend. I'm not suggesting we need to reduce these three to one but we certainly should reduce merge the first two. Srnec (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want to merge the articles I think that is fine, but note i suggests that Świętosława is Polish for Sigrid. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

Oleryhlolsson you have made two edits citing sources in Danish. The rule is that sources in English are preferred for English Wikipedia unless there is no reliable source in English. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. There is extensive coverage on Swein in English, so I do not think Danish sources should be used. I am concerned about this because I am trying to get all the Anglo-Saxon kings of England up Featured Article status and I am now working on Swein. I have submitted it to FAC and it was rejected for lack of reviews. I intend to resubmit it and I would prefer not to do so with sources I could not check because I do not know Danish.

You have reverted Cnut being the younger son and pointed to Bolton's error. He is a first rate historian and his biography is in the respected Yale English monarchs series. Everyone makes occasional errors and he makes very few. He cites the Danish historian Niels Lund for arguing that Cnut was the younger son, and Lund's case is accepted in English language sources. You cite an encyclopedia entry by the archaeologist Michael Andersen for saying that Cnut was elder, and this is a less authoritative source than Lund. I have now got the chapter by Lund cited by Bolton and I will edit setting out his case.

I am sorry that I missed the Cinthio edit when I reverted. I put the discussion in a footnote as it seemed to me that it is much more likely that Swein was buried alongside his father, but I have now seen that Niels Lund questions whether Harald Bluetooth was buried in Roskilde. I agree that the discussion should be in the main text and Lund should be taken seriously as Swein's burial place. The Biddles give a full explanation and defence of Cinthio's findings.

I will edit on both points and see whether you are happy with my edits. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)