Page contents not supported in other languages.

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]
The only reason I do not like Kuiper is because he has harrassed me for over 3 years. I have never harassed or gone after him in any way, but have tried several times to get us to stop interacting. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing, do you have a reliable source to support the claim? Eomund (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eomund: are you replying as our requested WP:Third opinion editor? If so, please say so and remove the 3O request from that page. If not, let's wait for that reply, please! Then I'll be glad to comment again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you answer the question, Woodzing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I came here from the 3O page (and have now removed it). So the question still stands. Is there a reliable source? If there is a dispute about whether or not the source is reliable, perhaps it can be better answered at WP:RSN. Eomund (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The question as posed at 3O was this:
  • Dispute about the whether or not an alleged daughter should be mentioned (as alleged) as per a source given
I am asking you very kindly Eomund to address that question as asked if you are replying as a neutral 3O helper. In other words, should the information about an alleged daughter have been removed or should it remain in the article based on the source that already had been cited? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Every fact that appears in Wikipedia should be both notable and verifiable. Mentioning children of a king would, I believe be notable. However, based on what I can see I would not call it verifiable. Looking in the history I see a total of three sources addressing his alleged daughter. There is the Ristesson Files website. As it is a website I would not call it reliable. (I could throw up a website saying I am the son of Oscar II of Sweeden). As to the other two, I cannot access them and so cannot comment on what they say or whether or not they are reliable. Therefore, based on what I can see I would say that the information is removed. If you wish to discuss the reliablility of certain sources I would recommend discussing it at WP:RSN. I hope that I have explained my thinking clearly. Eomund (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 3O editor: you were/are indeed able to form an opinion of one of those sources by following the link in the diff in question to the English WP article about it. That book simply states (on p. 150) the allegation that Oscar had extramarital children and (on p. 277) names the daughter alleged in this case. This is not the discussion page for the article on that cited book. Thus, the question that can/should be debated here is not the more complicated one about whether or not that source can be considered reliable enough for this info - that's turning it around - but the simpler one about whether or not that daughter should be mentioned as alledged in that cited source. Use the book's link and then give me your 3O opinion on that simple question, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia article it does seem to appear reliable. What exactly does it say about Oscar II of Sweden? If it is as straightforward as you put it, it seems like there is no reason to exclude the information. However, I would like to get User:Pieter Kuiper's thoughts regarding Throne of a Thousand Years before making any firm decision. Eomund (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Woodzing wrote that book himself. It was self-published, the only book ever produced by Ristesson. And Woodzing also wrote the wikipedia article about it. This daughter of Oscar II could be a hoax. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is seeming more and more like a discussion over whether or not sources are reliable. My opinion is, If it can be supported by reliable sources it should be included. I know this may be less than helpful, but I cannot vouch for the reliability of the sources. SergeWoodzing, you seem to be able to sever the two parts of the question (whether or not the sources are reliable and whether or not the information is included in the article) but I cannot. Because if there are no reliable sources supporting certain controversial statements, they should not be included in the article. Eomund (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page 150 (quote:) "The King [Oscar II] also had children before & ouside of his marriage." Page 277 (quote): "Page 150 'children' (of Oscar II outside marriage, e.g.): Smitz, Elin Esping, a Swedish matron". That's all there is about her. Also see the bibliography listed on the book article's talk page. I have intermittent access to the Ristesson files about the book and have found nothing unreliable in any of the extensive research and basics found there.
I have no other recourse but to report Kuiper's unwarranted (and irrelevant) attempt to out me as a user problem. His (mostly refuted) thoughts about the book are also on that article's talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the talk page of the book. I do not see anything to establish it as a reliable source. It does, however, suggest moving the conversation to WP:RSN. That seems like the best idea to me. Shall I start a discussion there? Eomund (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about establishing it as a reliable source for historical facts (which I would not suggest attempting), or merely for the documented existence of certain allegations?
Do as you please with that, by all means, if you think it would be helpful! I think I've done about all I can on it. If all that extensive bibliography means absolutely nothing, I'm perfectly stunned and would be lost in any discussion of the book's reliabilty, either way.
I can say that insulting accusations about hoaxing, and inferring that I might promote any such thing on WP in bad faith, are way out of line.
I'm more and more confused about your 3O assistance and stance here. You seem to have to changed your mind 180 degrees and have now firmly sided with one of the editors in the dispute, or am I wrong? Highly irregular neutral 3O assistance - I've never seen anything like it.
In other words, you are now saying, in complete contrast to your previous opinion, that that book is not a reliable source fot the statement that that daughter of King Oscar II allegedly existed - note: allegedly - . Is that your current opinion?
You seem to have changed your mind that drastically not so much because of the book itself, though that's what you seem to be saying, but rather because of Kuiper's unwarranted attempt to out me (for which he has been blocked for 48 hours). Is that the case? Sorry about all these questions, but quite sincerely, I'm at a loss to understand your agenda here. Maybe you'd be so kind and explain it, as directly related to the specific question (which I have copied in above) that you picked up at 3O about an alleged daughter?
Are you a regular 3O editor? SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I am new to the whole 3O thing. So I am sorry if I am not what you expect. I have not dramatically changed my view as I have not had a strong position either way. I would like to clarify. I am 'not saying that it is not a reliable source. What I am saying is that I cannot say that it is reliable. Pieter Kuiper says it's not reliable, you say it is. I am neutral. That is why I suggest taking it to WP:RSN. I do say that without establishing it as a reliable source the information should not be added to the article. As to the bibliography, I would suggest looking through those sources to see which one supports this particular claim that you want to add to the article. (The bibliography may be useful in WP:RSN). If I may ask a question, why are you so opposed to taking the discussion to WP:RSN? Eomund (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The question on this, as I strongly believe it to be, and as I submitted it to 3O, is what in the article's text - an alleged daughter - actually was tagged with this reference, and whether or not the book can be cited as a reliable source for that - her alleged existence - not her factual, registered, certfified, historically documented existence. That is what you addressed at first, correctly in your neutral 3O role, then changed your mind after input by my adverary that did not deal with the actual question. Thus you are now no longer dealing with the actual question either, but with the hypothetical one brought in by my adversary which is irrelevant to this discussion.
By twisting this around to the point of unrecognizability, my adversary has now warned several editors about me, here and elswehere, fearing that the daughter in question might be a "hoax". That may very well be true, but I have not found the slightest reason to suspect that the allegation that she existed could be a "hoax".
I don't know how to make this clearer.
3O is a very valuable method, perhaps English Wikipedia's most effective tool for quick, fair dispute resolution. I like to abide by any 3O editor's opinion even if I am found wrong. Neutral 3O editors normally do not let themselves drift away, or be driven away, from the issue at hand like that, because of irrelevant input. That's what's unusual, no offense intended, about your behavior here.
As far as your direct question goes, I wrote "Do as you please with that, by all means, if you think it would be helpful!" Why then would you ask me if I am "opposed to taking the discussion to WP:RSN"?. I already answered that question quite clearly.
Now may I ask you: Do you or do you not feel the cited book can be used as a source for the fact that it has been alleged that King Oscar II had that daughter, NOTE: the fact that it has been alleged (not confirmed!) that he did? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I am not to going to take this information to WP:RSN as I am not trying to get this information into the article. To answer your second question, no I do not think the book Throne of a Thousand Years is enough. Even for claims where wikipedia simply alleges something, it is important to use reliable sources. If I self-publish a book stating I am the son of Oscar II, should we put in the article? No. Everything in wikipedia, even allegations needs to be verifiable by reliable sources. As no uncontested sources have been produced, I do not think the information should be in the article, even if it is qualified by saying it is only alleged. Eomund (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, for Goodness sakes, Wikipedia isn't alleging anything! Wikipedia is telling it's readers that something has been alleged. There is a huge difference. Nobody is asking that any allegations should be verifiable or verified, only that the allegation's existence is verifiable because the allegation appears in that book.
If you self-published a book with the extensive distribution this one has as a reference work, and in that book you alleged you were the son of Oscar II, and there was section in Oscar's WP biography stating the fact that that had been alleged, there was an allegation that you were his son, and that undisputable fact (?) - that it had been alleged (all over through that book) that you are his son - wouldn't it be appropriate to cite the book that spread that allegation around the world and placed it in all those national libraries? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With your version wikipedia is stating that it is alleged that Oscar has a daughter. We need a reliable source that says this. I haven't seen one. That is why I think the information has been removed. Eomund (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source that that has been publicly and noticeably alleged is that book which clearly makes that allegation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I have gotten mixed up. As I understand, the book you are using to support these claims is Throne of A Thousand Years and Pieter Kuiper says that it is not a reliable source. Is this the situation? Eomund (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I cannot comment on your entry as worded. You will find out why if you have a look at recent developments on my talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Eomund, this is the situation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a parallel discussion of the unreliability of this self-published source at Talk:Jacob the Dacian#3rd Opinion. Alarbus (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on SergeWoodzing decision on his talk page, I do not think this discussion can continue. Therefore, in agreement with the decision at Talk:Jacob the Dacian#3rd Opinion I think I can say that the information should remain out as Throne of a Thousand Years is not considered a reliable source. Eomund (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:SergeWoodzing stepping away from User:Pieter Kuiper? Probably for the best from what I've seen. Alarbus (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified with SergeWoodzing that he may discuss the question of whether Throne of a Thousand Years is a reliable or unreliable source, without commenting on Pieter Kuiper (either directly or indirectly) while doing so. It's a fine line, but one that is easily skated if all participants here remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Everyone involved in this discussion should remember that and take care not to personalise arguments or positions. --RA (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I believe that book is a reliable source for the fact that it has been alleged, in a sufficiently notable forum, that Oscar II had that daughter, but not to confirm that he actually did. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to make my position any clearer. I can only repeat "With your version wikipedia is stating that it is alleged that Oscar has a daughter. We need a reliable source that says this. I haven't seen one." Consensus seems to be that Throne of a Thousand Years is unreliable. If we are to add information into the article we need reliable sources Eomund (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you! Your position is finally clear to me now. Sorry about all the communication problems. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout haywire!

The layout has gone haywire, with images all mixed up with genealogy chart, ay least on my (small size) screen. Anyone know how to fix it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was easy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate move

{{help}} Why not of Norway and Sweden, then, in alphabetical order?

I oppose the undicussed move of this article. Oscar II was King of Sweden longer, was dethroned in Norway, and his family only had access to the Norwegian throne through the earlier political successes of the Swedish throne. It is especially inappropriate to rename this article in this way, and just as it would be inappropriate to add a bunch of unnecessary countries (16 or so?) to the artcilce name of Elizabeth II, I would also be against adding and Norway to the article names of Charles XIII of Sweden, Charles XIV John of Sweden, Oscar I of Sweden and Charles XV of Sweden. Please reverse this move! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I removed the help template, it didn't seem to be related to where it was and I couldn't see that you had any need of help here. My advice is to ask Mais oui!, the editor who moved the page, for a more precise justification than "per mos". --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - compare all the others in Category:Norwegian monarchs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oscar II of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prize

I am thinking about making an article about the mathematics prize he announced; any thoughts? Ema--or (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oscar II of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oscar_II