Jump to content

Talk:Oscar II: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Removal of daughter: could be a hoax
Line 30: Line 30:
== Removal of daughter ==
== Removal of daughter ==
Directly related to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=471702604 this], the same editor simultaneously removed one of Oscar's extramarital children and is questioning the same source. Because of the long history of problems between that editor and me, I am reinstating her and inviting neutral comment here. [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Directly related to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=471702604 this], the same editor simultaneously removed one of Oscar's extramarital children and is questioning the same source. Because of the long history of problems between that editor and me, I am reinstating her and inviting neutral comment here. [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
:There was just no reliable source. Restoring unsupported information without any new evidence just because Woodzing does not like me is not improving the encyclopedia. It is not a living person, but it is the kind of information that would need very good evidence. Woodzing is acting as the agent of the one-book Ristesson publisher; this could well be a hoax for all we know. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|talk]]) 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:03, 16 January 2012

Extramarital children

It seems to me that there are good enough sources to establish the allegations about at least 4 of Oscar's extramarital children. There are allegations about at least another 3-4 for which I have not found any sources as yet. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed gossip that had been tagged as requiring source since 2007 - Woodzing restored it without reliable sources, which is not helpful. Yes, I know that there is an abundance of stories, but what is needed is a reference to biogroaphies by authoritative historians. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are sufficiently reliable sources now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources are sufficient now, the article in Aftonbladet should be enough for the claim that 4 illegitimate children are alleged. jorgenev 10:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aftonbladet is not a reliable source when it comes to history. Neither is a blog. Neither is a self-published book. Torgny Nevéus has an authoritative article in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon (p. 377-392 in volume 28). There is no mention of any illegitimate children in these 15 two-column pages. Nevéus writes that Oscar fell in love with Camille af Harmens as a 19-year old. And about his married life, Nevéus writes that Oscar II kept his extramarital affairs well hidden, so that they only later became more widely known. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make any claims of supreme reliability of the sources, but the article in Aftonbladet talks about a documentary about the king's four illegitimate children and whether or not they were actually his illegitimate children, the fact that documentaries are being made about them as if they were I think counts enough for a claim that illegitimate children are "alleged". jorgenev 21:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the real source for there being allegations is http://www.blattblod.com/ - infotainment, that does not justify the amount of detailed genealogical information in the ""children" section. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jorgenev for your unbiased opinion, which truly was needed here and is worthy of respect. It seems we agree there have been allegations (not factual disclosures), and that the sources given are enough to substantiate them. Sorry that a one subject user (visits English WP only to try to correct my work again and again and again and again) can't agree. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference given by Woodzing to my colleague Nivre does not support the allegation that Oscar II had children with Friberg. It is a fake reference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of daughter

Directly related to this, the same editor simultaneously removed one of Oscar's extramarital children and is questioning the same source. Because of the long history of problems between that editor and me, I am reinstating her and inviting neutral comment here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was just no reliable source. Restoring unsupported information without any new evidence just because Woodzing does not like me is not improving the encyclopedia. It is not a living person, but it is the kind of information that would need very good evidence. Woodzing is acting as the agent of the one-book Ristesson publisher; this could well be a hoax for all we know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]