Talk:Sune Sik

Motivation for a few of my changes

I removed the wording "early 19th century historians" as the impression I get is most later historians has accepted their view and decided that the matter has been laid to rest. For example, Dick Harrison, in Jarlens sekel discusses the family of Birger jarl, but does not even mention the fact that Ingrid Ylva could have had royal blood. He does mention Sune Sik as a donor to Vreta Abbey though, but in a completely unrelated chapter. He also makes it clear that the donation was signed in 1297, so I removed "recorded", which made it sound like it could have been made earlier.

Also, I'd prefer if this article was moved to just "Sune Sik", which seems to be the most common in Swedish history writing and doesn't suggest that Sune was actually the son of Sverker.

Andejons (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that someone isn't mentioned by a historian is supposed to prove that he didn't exist or didn't belong to a certain family? Never heard of any such thing before. The very well respected Harrison probably doesn't want to get involved in what seems to be an almost hysterically infected issue for decades. Why don't you ask him? Lagerqvist and Åberg consider it possible that Sune was the son of the king and father of Ingrid Ylva. That will do just fine to list him as possible royalty.

People didn't "sign" things in 1297. They affixed their seals. You will have to give a source for the allegation that the donation was not just recorded in that diploma in 1297. The only proper reference you provided was one from 1921. That is an "early 20th century" source (which is what I meant and have now corrected - sorry!). Lagerqvist and others disagree with that as late as 2002 and consistently without exception. I know of no modern historian whatsoever who will support your POV here.

Please provide proper sources with page numbers if you wish to change history as written by up-to-date professionals. Until then I am reverting your latest edits. Greetings, though. Let us cooperate on this subject matter, not attempt to dominate it, please, with any unsubstantiated opinions!

If the article's name is changed it should be to English, such as Sonny Cisco (Sune Sik). Leaving out patronymics is always a good idea in English. They belong to other linguistic cultures and tend to confuse readers here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - Corrected a few of my own errors. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If a reputable historian devote several pages to the family Birger jarl, but doesn't mention Sune Sik, then yes, that would either mean that he doesn't know of him (unlikely), or that he doesn't see the point in writing about him, which would imply that Sune Sik isn't seen as historical. This isn't an "hysterically infected issue" - if so, it would be very easy to find sources, including at least a brief mention by Harrison of the possibility that Sune was historical. If you have access, you can also compare with the long article in Nationalencyklopedin, which mentions the sons of Sverker d.ä., but not Sune Sik.

Arguing ex silentio is a dangerous thing, but there is really nothing to suggest that Sune has been ignored for any other reason than him not being considered historical. Implying that he as only questioned for 90 years ago but has been accepted since is not being fair about the issue.

I've also removed the statement about the fire. We don't know whether those documents would have shed light on the issue, and until we find a historian who makes the argument, it doesn't belong in the article.

Also, when reading more about this, in particular Beckmans article, it seems that there might be a few more sources than Olaus Petri, but that it was he who made the connection with Ingrid Ylva.

Since you agree about the patronymic, I'll see if I can move the article. I don't think the full name should be translated if no secondary source hasn't already done it.

Andejons (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Very old sources named Sonny as a prince. One 1921 linguist looks like he demoted Sonny. Current historians either approve of Sonny or choose not to mention him as royal. All that is supposed to prove he wasn't royal? ~ Though I do not think your version is clearer, but seems to make excuses based on personal opinion (POV), not fact, for Sonny not being royal, I will leave it now. Just have to correct you on "in older historical accounts, was a Swedish prince of doubtful historicity" on two counts: 1- You don't mean, I think, that the older accounts doubted him too? 2- The word historicity is too high flying to use in a WP article. Re fire: hey, hey! You removed my source - and then called what you removed "unsourced" in the edit summary - not too nice. Other than that, see below! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated facts. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that Sune Sik is just a noble whose reputation grew enormously after his death. Your POV that he is historic has weak support from one general source, while specialised sources ignores him.

As for the fire, you're one to be talking: you supply a source for the trivial part of the statement and demand the whole of it should be kept because of it, while you're adding a fact tag to another sentence which is completely covered?

Andejons (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly trivial - as to the disastrous effect on research and historical accounts - that that country's national library and archives burned. My POV is totally irrelevant as is yours. What sources tell is all we should deal with. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Tre Kronor burned down and that much of the archives was destroyed with it is well known; I don't demand a source for it. However, you'll have to find a source that makes it plausible that the fire would impact our knowledge of Sune Sik for it to be relevant in this context, not just one that says that the archives were lost.

Andejons (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are demanding here is like asking me to give you a source to verify that is it "plausible" that I miss many nice heirlooms, files, photos and things I had before a major burglary in 2001. It is clear what I had in the house. It is clear what those things would have been used for. It is clear how my life has been handicapped without them and many results mamed and hampered. That's plausible. And obvious. Sigh... SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I might be able to take your word for what was in your apartment before the burglary, but I doubt that the insurance company did. And historians do not go about sprinkling their texts with notes saying "we don't know if this is true, but it's possible that there were a note about it in the now-destroyed archive, so I'm going to claim that it's probable anyway".

Andejons (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not "possible", sir/madame, but very probable and obviously plausible to refer to in a very odd case like this, where the reader deserves a little explanation. I lived in a house in 2001, not in an apartment (someone has told you otherwise?). Neither you nor I know what there was in the voluminous archives and library of that destroyed castle, and your strong POV of what it is fair to assume there was, and thus refer to, is hard to understand regarding Sonny. So yes, I will do some research for more sources as soon as I have time and try to find out more for us. I looked at your brief en.WP user page and rather limited en.WP contribution history (as you also state on your page) and deduced that Sonny must be an unusually important subject to you here. So OK, let's be careful. I then had a look at your sv.WP user page, which you refer to, and notice you are a student of physics. (A friendly suggestion would be to change your listing a "near-native level" of English to an advanced level or such, as you do frequently err on number with verbs.) Are you also a historian? It didn't say, though I enjoyed seeing the 14 history books I believe you list there as your sources. They are all very interesting books, to be sure. Is there anything in them about the castle fire, that you can remember? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly: we don't know what's in there, and so we should not insert unsupported speculation. Nordisk familjebok has a pretty good article about the archive [1]. Considering that Sverker's children lived during the archive's early days, it is of course not outright impossible that there could be a mention of any now unknown sons, but it seems unlikely to me. I doubt that you can find anything other than noncommittal statements like "if it weren't for the fire, we would know more about Sweden's medieval history".

Andejons (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Castle fire

(Continued from just above:) I am asking kindly that this be left alone. Readers of this article may not have matters Swedish as clear to themselves as some of our Swedish editors obviously appear to. This is the only prince of Sweden since the year 1000 whose story is so muddled with confusion that any reader here is likely to wonder why. The fire is not mentioned here as a specific link to this confusion but as a very relevant attempt to explain it. It should stay, unless someone can provide a source that refutes the association between the fire and the remarkable lack of archive material from early Swedish history. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no confusion about Sune Sik - he was a mistake, that was cleared up. The fire has nothing to do with that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Disregard of discussion = disruptive editing, e.g. (above) "in older historical accounts, was a Swedish prince of doubtful historicity" : 1- You don't mean, I think, that the older accounts doubted him too? 2- The word historicity is too high flying to use in a WP article. This user is known for edit warring and has been warned numerous times. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The account SergeWoodzing started editing five days ago, but is wikilawyering already. Editwarring, uttering sweeping allegations, blabla. Whose sockpuppet are you? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I (very rarely) edit sv.WP under IP's, never (so far) under this account. This is the only account I use on en.WP. I have talked to other users from sv.WP, but I am the only one commenting here, so that doesn't break WP:SOCK. I am allowed to talk to real people. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ducal title

I do not agree with this edit where a sufficiently referenced theory about Sune's ducal title was removed. The academic 18th-century source, republished responsibly in 2003, deserves a better treatment. Reversing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. 18th century history is at best interesting for itself, not as a reliable source, but Boraen is an academic nobody.

Andejons (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree. I really don't know where you get such ideas as your rather drastic slur of Boræn, and I don't know what you mean by 18th century history is at best interesting for itself. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the proper way to resolve this situation is to provide additional references about the relation of Magnus Boræn's theory and the academical consensus on the issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are replying here as a 3O helper (this time), please say so, and don't change your mind later (within this section), like you did last time! Then you can also remove the 3O request template in this section.

If you are not replying here as a 3O helper, please remove your entry here and add your comments, if any, in the next section, so that an actual 3O helper will be able to respond as per normal procedure in this section!

Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take it personal, but this dispute no longer qualifies for 3O. The 3O procedure is supposed to be the mean of resolution of a dispute between exactly two editors. This means two literately. Not three, not four, but three. This discussion, though You separated it, contains the opinions by four editors which is exactly two editors more then is a maximum for 3O application.

Regarding qualification of my opinion as 3O: there is no formal description of the 3O editor rights. By removing my 3O origin I wanted to upgrade my level of involvement in the article, though all of my comments still qualify for 3O by their count in discussion.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, please stop deleting comments by other editors. It is a talk page. The maximal changed You are entitled to do on one's comment is to properly indent it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please give the 3O process (see Talk there) a chance to work here by staying away for a little while, unless you are providing a 3O opinion as per procedure! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please carefully read the 3O page as you seem to misunderstand the nature of this instrument. I'm not sabotaging the procedure, I'm just trying to give this dispute a chance for proper resolution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I am here as the third opinion editor. This discussion seems to have be sidetracked by discussion about 3O, which is unhelpful. The general idea of 3O is that disputes should only be listed if there are 2 editors involved; however, most 3O Wikipedians will provide third opinions anyway - the aim is to build consensus, not follow all the rules to the letter. If you want to discuss the 3O procedure, please do so at the relevant talk page. This issue seems to be about the reliability of a source. To establish this, could both editors please tell me why they believe the source to be reliable/unreliable? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! What is sourced is the existence of a theory. I can't see that being disputed any more here. No one has asserted that the theory, which exists, is indisputable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a theory seems undisputed. I'm not very informed on this issue, so we also must determine whether the theory is widely enough held to be included. Per WP:DUE, I would suggest that a secondary source is found to establish the notability of this opinion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is already done by both SergeWoodzing and Andejons in the next thread. Continue, please. Sorry, I missed two last comments. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Boræn's thesis (that's what it was, and it led to his academic degree at Uppsala University) about Vreta Abbey has been explained and commented on by such distinguished Swedish historians as Adolf Schück (1897-1959) and more recently (2003) by Markus Lindberg, one of the leading experts on the abbey today. Boræn's thesis was translated from Latin by Kerstin Bergman and republished in Swedish in 2003. The Church of Sweden cites Boræn and his thesis in the sources published in its latest (2007) official guide book on Vreta (ISBN: 978 91 7962 124-4 p. 31), which is one of Sweden's most important historical landmarks. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if his theory has been discussed by contemporary (and relatively mainstream) historians, his theory can be included as a possible theory. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If the references You are talking about discuss the relation of Boræn's statement and contemporary reasearch, You should update an article with such references and remove the {{dubious}} notice. Otherwise You should find such source or just wait until such discussion is published. Hope You succeed in proving Your position now, so that we all could finally relax. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK enough for me here, as I don't speak Swedish and I can see no use of my further participation. SergeWoodzing, hope You either find a reference, as it seems the only way this dispute could be resolved. And really think about RfC — it may bring some really unbiased editors with expertise on this topic, so they could help You with finding a proper link. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your constructive input here! I have now reversed Kuiper's biased and arbitrary attempt to remove the mention of the theory. Unbiased third opinion so far is to leave this in - the discussion is not Boræn's reliability but about the existence of his theory. The Church of Sweden should suffice when it cites him and it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Still without claiming it definitely is factual, I have now expanded a bit on why the theory deserves a little more respect, and added a source. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "theory". It is just a whopping anachronism in a theology student's writing exercise. And back then in 1724, standards were different. Critical scholarship was less important for Boræn's supervisor than the rhetoric skill of praising one's home county. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps these criticisms of the source could be found in the works of contemporary historians. If we can find sources which suggest that Boræn's interpretation is unreliable, then we can include Boræn's interpretation and its criticism, which would improve the article even more. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary scholars regard such stuff as not even worth mentioning. Sune Sik is just an empty box in a genealogical table, without any deeds in recorded history. Probably labeled with some later person's name. Anyway, the title of dux seems unknown in this period of Swedish history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuiper is taking very broad liberties trying to force his completely unsubstantiated fact modifications and personal POV on us for purely vindictive reasons aimed at me. WP is better off honoring such considerations as those made by the modern Church of Sweden (as now referenced in the article) and other Vreta Abbey experts as to the feasibility of mentioning Boræn's theory. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If Boraen's claims were correct, they would put the introduction of dukal titles (to be precise, the title of "hertig"; let's avoid "dux" as it is also used for the older title of "jarl") a century earlier than they are normally considered. Considering that such a thing is actually a rather big deal when discussing the evolving state, they would be discussed if they were thought to have any validity. Yet they're not.

Andejons (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is claiming that "Boraen's claims were correct", nor that his theory is anywhere near mainstream today, nor that it ever is/was meant or qualified to have any effect on any substantial discussion of "the evolviong state".

It's exceedingly difficult to discuss something constructively unless everybody tries to discuss what we actually are discussing. If the Church of Sweden (as now referenced in the article) thinks Boraen's academic thesis is worth mentioning in the guide book for this abbey, I think we can safely leave it at that, without having to worry about smudging Sweden's history record at large. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Woodzing playing the God card? Come on, the tourist guide of a parish church does not express any official position of the Church of Sweden. The Church does not have any opinion on whether Sune Sik was a Duke. Not even the tourist guide claims that, if I understand Woodzing correctly. Stop smudging history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Boraen is of interest when studying Vreta Abbey says nothing about whether he is of interest with regards to Sune Sik. I don't know exactly why they bring him up (first to write a scholarly work about the Abbey at all? important source for the state of it in the early 18th century? good example of how different early modern scholarship was?), but it does not mean that everything he writes about is of interest in every context.

Andejons (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said that either. It's simple: all we know about Sune Sik has to do with his grave at Vreta. So anything anybody worth listening to said about that is of interest, and if it's well sourced as a theory, it belongs in the article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You claimed Boraen was relevant because he's mentioned in a guide book. If he had something interesting to say about the grave, that might have been worth including, but the claim you want inserted has absolutely nothing to do with the grave.

And the assertion of a 18th century student is about as far from "well sourced" as it gets.

Andejons (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop twisting the facts! It's inappropriately misleading to desribe Boraen as just a "student" when he was Master of Philisophy, a docent (academic teacher) at Uppsala University and co-rector of the University of Linköping. Why are you doing this over and over? The guide book is published not by some small local private society but by the Church of Sweden, which takes great care in its publishing, as far as I know. As you well know, I have access to a historical library of over 500 volumes. Why do you never appreciate my proper sourcing on Swedish history? Feel free to question anything, but when reliable sources then are added, leave it alone and stop arguing and arguing and arguing - please!!! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And it is not what Boraen asserted that has been "well sourced", it's the fact that he asserted something about Sune. I've clarified that over and over now. How many times do I have to try to bring us back to the issue that I opened here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence that Boræn taught at Uppsala? In any subject? But of course Woodzing's library of tourist guides of parish churches is really impressive... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am just going by Boraen's bio, which I have had no reason to doubt. Any evidence he didn't?

"Woodzing's library of tourist guides of parish churches" - I choose not to comment on such slurs that only are meant to (1) mislead and (2) insult me, not to further this discussion constructively. I once sent Kuiper a entire catalogues list of the library, so he knows very well that over 400 of the books I have access to are fine academic works. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

From the biographical article sv:Magnus Boræn not more can be deduced than that he obtained a venia legendi, a qualification to be a teacher in some subject. It does not imply that he taught at Uppsala University. There is nothing to suggest that he did. All we know that he was a student there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

De Cenoblo Vretensi apparantly was printed(?) in 1724. Boraen took his master degree in 1725. I don't see how it is twisting anything to call him a student, because that's what he was at the time.

As far for "proper sourcing", what's under discussion is not whether Boraen wrote what he did, but whether it is relevant to include, and for that, I would like to see a quotation of a modern work.

Andejons (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided a full translation of the Boraen bio in the next section. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

This section was split by 3O applicant from the discussion above. You might want to read it for better insight.

This is a referenced theory, which should be noted here as per WP:V. I would propose bringing information back and adding {{Dubious}} to satisfy all interested parties. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The article about Rev. Boræn on sv.WP reads pertinently:

• Magnus Boræn, even Magnus Borænius, born March 9, 1697 in Linköping, married in 1729 to Elisabeth Askebom (1693-1780), died July 4, 1749 was vicar of the parish Misterhult, kontraktsprost. He was the son of Pastor Arvid Borænius (1657-1721) in Vreta Abbey parish and Helena Pontin (1667-1700), daughter of Bishop Magnus Jonsson Pontin in Linköping. Boræn studied at Uppsala University from 1714 and became Master of Arts 1725th. During 1729-1730 he studied at several universities in Germany, and became associate professor in 1729 in Uppsala, co-rector 1731 and then rector of Linköping in the same year.

I cannot reasonably consider the man dubious as a source. The info about the ducal title has been restored. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Boraen's theories are WP:fringe. He's an 18th century academic that would never have been noted if he hadn't happened to write a thesis on Vreta Abbey, which led to its republication by a publisher interested in the abbey. He's a nobody when it comes to general history.

As for his reliability, the fact that he, 500 years after the man supposedly lived, mentions a ducal title which hasn't been mentioned before should be enough to tell you how far that goes.

Andejons (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both WP:fringe and WP:V suggest that this information should be included. WP:fringe also suggests to cite a reliable source about the relation of a (supposedly) fringe theory to generally accepted theory. As You are the one who states WP:fringe, You are responsible for such citation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Experts feel (see above section) that it is more than likely that some of the genealogical and other information about 12th-13th-14th-15th century Swedish royalty was lost when the old royal castle in Stockholm burned dowen in 1697. The medieval history section of the national archives, in the castle, were particularly severely ravaged. Thus (as Andejons actually well knows) "hasn't been mentioned before" is not at all remarkable in this case. We can assume that the pastor of the parish involved is more reliable than Andejons's personal POV, supported by no source whatsoever, 18th-century or otherwise. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PS the sv.WP article about the castle fire includes this well referenced information:

• Through the loss of about two-thirds of all documents in the castle's library, Swedish historical research in a significant way was hampered. Of the castle library's approximately 24,500 printed works and almost 1400 manuscripts only 6000 printed books and 300 manuscripts were rescued. As a result, the National Archives during the following period was devoid of a medieval department.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is really dubious that some pastor used the sources, that presumably burned down a hundred years ago. And if so, those sources must have been found in some clerical archives afterwards. So (without any professional or whatever else specific knowledge on the subject) I would think that this theory is actually false. So I really believe that the article should clarify this issue with the proper citation if one exists. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood now? It would hardly be appropriate to call Boræn just "some pastor", would it, when he was in charge of the very church where Prince Sune was buried and his father-in-law was the bishop of that diocese? Add to that Boræn's history at Uppsala University, and I think we can assume there may be some professionalism and reliability in his opinion on this ducal title. When Prince Sune was buried in the 12th century the church was Roman Catholic. At the time of the Swedish Reformation in the 16th century older Catholic church records were removed and lost, but can't we rather safely assume that the local church itself and its staff, as well as the diocese, may have known important facts about these things through oral tradition? Some information about medieval royals probably existed at the Stockholm castle, which burned in 1697. No one reliable that I know of (and I have studied these matters very carefully) has ever cast the slightest doubt on Boræn's information (except Andejons who by no means is a historian). SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not sure about his status, so I chose the title that would make my point weaker, so I couldn't be charged with overstatement. You made my point even stronger: the fact he used the source does make the probability of its disappearance even less possible and thus his statement seems more disputable. To be able to remove the {{Dubious}} notice You should find some sources either disputing his opinion or supporting it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has ever claimed here that Boræn used a source that has been lost. It is my opinion, which I believe I (and several modern academics) have a right to have, that a lot of valuable information of this kind was lost in the 1697 fire, as well as when the Catholics left Sweden, but nobody, including me, has associated that in any definite manner with Boræn. SergeWoodzing (talk)

SW loves to use the argument "it could have been in the lost archives". Down that path lies madness. Any claim made by any early modern historian could be supported using it. Unless Boraen explicitly mentions the archives, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

As for WP:fringe, how am I supposed to find a source that says that a theory proposed by a little known vicar 300 years ago is wrong? It is SW that should demonstrate that Boraen's ideas has been considered by anyone at all.

Furthermore, SW should read up on Boraen. According to the article on svwp, the work where he makes the claims about Sune Sik was an academic work, written before he was ordained. SW seems to be confusing Boraen with his father.

Andejons (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not a "third party" person but I saw this dispute on that page. I'd just like to mention that I'd use an 18th-century author's work only alongside a more modern author, and only to demonstrate how or if academic opinion has changed on whatever is being discussed. For instance, see the similarities section in Guy Fawkes Night, where an old theory is mentioned as a precursor to modern theories. I'd never consider such an old source as being cast iron reliable. Parrot of Doom 00:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Andejons (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

My original heading for this section was "Ducal title", not "Dubious" and I'm sorry I really don't understand why it has been changed, rather arbitrarily, as I see it.  Fixed - reinstated original heading and 3O request & started new section Dubious for opinions of non-3O editor. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Is it normal that 3O editors go ahead and change section headings like that, rather than staring a new section?

Anyway, what's "dubious" about the article's actual content?

Is it dubious that "according to 18th-century Swedish historian Magnus Boræn, Sune was also Duke of Östergötland". That's all that's in there. Are we doubting the fact that Boræn made that claim? Why, if so? I've never asserted anywhere that it's a fact that Sune definitely had the title, only that Boræn claimed he did. That's the only thing I added to the article. And then here on talk I added, as an aside, that I (me, myself, I, nobody else) would not consider Boræn dubious as a source. That's my own POV (irrelevant to article content), and it cannot be shown that I am trying to force it on anyone else. I respect your opinions, you respect mine, right? Why then am I being ridiculed?

How extremely unpleasant!

The article is just fine as is. Unless there are more personal jibes or masterful dictates coming up in response to these questions, I have nothing more to add. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the name of this section so that the link from template:dubious on the article page would redirect to the actual ongoing discussion that is already here.

Regarding the 3O: I came here via 3O, though I understood that I could be more helpful if not constrained by 3O so I removed the 3O indication not to confuse people regarding my current status here. And I removed 3O notice as there is 4 different opinions in discussion, so it can't qualify for 3O.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Woodzing's prince Sonny Cisco again! Of course Magnus Boræn was not a historian. His only work of history was the traditional student's exercise in writing a paper in Latin about one's village of origin. (Source: Boraens publications in Swedish libraries) It cannot be used for information about events hundreds of years earlier, only about contemporary beliefs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum! There is a lot of discussion about whether Magnus Boræn is a reliable source or not. May be it's time for references on this topic? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuiper has just recently been placed under an inter-action ban on Wikimedia Commons after having stalked me in an uncivil manner there and here and on sv.WP for years. He and Andejons are friends through their work in physics and have worked together several times before in trying to twist a few items of Swedish history their way. I'm very sorry Kuiper has turned up here now. His input is personal and vindictive toward me and should not be taken too seriously. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I suggest we try as best we can to conduct the constructive part of this discussion in the previous section, where it seems to be clear already that we are not debating the reliability of this academic clergyman as a source himself - dubious or not - but the existence of his theory about the ducal title and the relative notability of the theory. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Woodzing produced no reference that supports Boræn as a reliable source. I remove the sentence per WP:UNDUE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:BURDEN if You claim that this opinion is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority (or whatever You consider applicable from WP:UNDUE), You must prove it. No proof here, so the edit is reverted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd reading of WP:BURDEN. It says that you are the one to prove that the material that you restored was valid content of this article. You call Boræn a "historian", but you gave no evidence for that. And that RfC that you refer to in the edit summary, where can I find that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I really mixed things up. No RfC, so I restore Your edit. Though You really should not make such edits until this discussion comes to consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I just want to let all involved editors know that there is currently a thread open at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would recommend that everyone involved in this dispute has a look over there, so that we might resolve this matter. I would also request that no one involved in this dispute edits the article until a consensus is reached, as it will just descend into an edit war. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Articles (plural) SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring by Woodzing, two minutes before this "thank you" - he just assumes that Zippy's request does not apply to him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)