Talk:Jacob the Dacian

Prince of Denmark

It looks to me like most modern sources now refer to Jacob or James as a legitimate son of John and Christina's, thus Prince of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Added that today. Perhaps time to remove the question mark? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Page moved

I have read up on this man since this afternoon and find that "Jacob Dacian" is an en.WP invention which appears nowhere else in English than here and in spin-off texts from here. In any case, there is also a preposition missing in that name in order for it to be correct English. Finding Jacob the Dacian at least acceptable, I am being bold and moving the page accordingly with every good intention. Dacia was the Roman Catholic provincial name for all of Scandinavia, not Denmark (Latin: Dania) alone. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of source

This edit seems to be unmotivated in the textual context. Only motive may be continued stalking and demonstrative harassment as addressed several times on ANI. I am reversing it and inviting neutral editors to comment. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Kuiper's contributions on English WP are few and far between, and an inordinate amount of them seem to be in a self-appointed role of a Wikipdeia policeman devoted to checking up on SergeWoodzing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My removal of the reference was motivated in the edit summary. Throne of a Thousand Years is just a self-published book, and its author Jacob Truedson Demitz has no academic qualifications. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be happy to take the third O request if you'll have me. Please sit tight and I'll give my opinion in a short while. --FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

I came here via WP:30 as well, so I'll opine my case:

• The sentence starts with "Several modern authors ... ""A number of modern authors ...".
• User:Pieter KupierUser:Pieter Kuiper's edit summary in the revert states that the citation is not a " ... reliable source"

Using these facts, the revert should not have been made because:

The sentence only states "Several modern authors ... ""A number of modern authors ...". This does not exclude non academics.

• It does not need to be a reliable source to be included as a citation citing "Several modern authors""A number of modern authors ...".

The other side of the issue is if you want ONLY academics to be the content of the article. That will require rewriting of the opening words of the sentence.Curb Chain (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a weird interpretation of WP:V. Curb Chain opens wikipedia for all kinds of gossip. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Curb Chain, but I will have to disagree. The source is very obviously a self-pub - it appears to be the only publication of a charity which, according to his Wikipedia article, the author chairs. Because there does not seem to be any evidence that the author is a noted expert on Jacob the Dacian, the source is not reliable, per WP:SPS, for this article.

It isn't a question of academic sources versus non-academic sources, but of sources that are reliable versus those which are not. Wikipedia never sources information to sources which are not reliable for the material they might be used to support. --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Curb Chain! As expected, your neutral 3O interpretation of this question is balanced, as it takes into account what actually is in the text of the article, rather than discussing hypotheticals that are not relevant in this case. The cited book in question has (1) sponsors and (2) bibliography (listed on that article's talk page along with Kuiper's mostly refuted views on it) that qualifies it as a source for the fact that a "modern author" wrote about the subject at hand.

Kuiper's motives here are nowhere near what meets the eye. Strictly personal. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP, I'm looking at Jacob the Dacian and it does not distinguish academic writers and non academic writers. It only says modern writers, all of which the citations fall under. Like I mentioned above in my 3rd Opinion, if we were to exclude these sets of writers, the 1st few words of the sentence need to be rewritten.

2nd, Throne of a Thousand Years mentions that Throne of a Thousand Years is a non fiction book. If you want to dispute the reliability of the source, then the article should be changed. You are telling me that he is the head of the charity which wrote the book, but I see no evidence of this.Curb Chain (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above, Curb Chain, the issue is nothing to do with academic versus non-academic sources. At Jacob Truedson Demitz we learn that the author "is Chairman of nonprofit foundation Southerly Clubs". The only web presence for Southerly Clubs appears to be a Facebook page, liked by 17 people. This links to Ristesson, publisher of Demitz's book, which liked by 9 people. It is clear from the page that Ritesson is essentially the same thing as Southerly Clubs and has only published one book. This means that the book falls under WP:SPS and is not a reliable source for this article. --FormerIP (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP: Thank you for your interest in this, but with all due respect, you are ignoring the most essential fact as clarified by two of us above as to what it is in the article text that the cited sources are there to reference! It thus becomes impossible to discuss this with you constructively; you seem to insist that we to discuss the book as a reference for some historical facts. That is not what we're discussing. We're discussing sources about which writers have mentioned James/Jacob the Dacian as a son of King John, not whether or not James was his son.

Also, in Googling the Southerly Clubs, you are likely to find it in more places, such as at Commons. It may or may not be interesting to you to have a look at some of ther contributions/donations, such as the image for this and many other articles on Scandinavian history and entertainment. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI Throne of a Thousand Years has been out of print since 2001. The book was published simultaneously on December 16 1996 in Ludvika and Los Angeles by Ristesson Ent. The publication was financed in full, after their having reviewed its contents, by the cited sponsors (see WP article). Three well known Swedish academics and history experts (all with articles on Swediish WP), who also reviewed and approved contents, are named as having done so on p. 190. Swedish CEO of Ristesson Ent (1995-2001) was Jacob Truedson Demitz. California CEO was and still is Ritch M. Esra who also (then and now) publishes the Music Business Registry. Current CEO of Ristesson Ent, a division of the Southerly Clubs which maintains an extensive library and the files of several organizations and private persons, is Sami Josefsson. SergeWoodzing (talk)

• Remove as an unreliable, self-published source as explained by FormerIP. This is all pretty fishy, if you ask me. Alarbus (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  "Fishy" - please explain or refrain! If you have issues that concern me rather than just this article, and you'd like to discuss them constructively and in a straightforward and above-board manner, without acrimony, bad faith or aggression, you are welcome to my talk page with them. Otherwise, I think you should strike that insinuation. It does no good here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  not taking the bait. Alarbus (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'm trying to still the waters between you and me, believe it or not, but you keep making insinuations, and this, which you linked me to - "Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on in the subtlest of ways..." is a very serious personal insult/attack. I am none of those three things. You are obviously not interested in getting along, and you really deserve to be reported for resorting to this kind of mean spririted behavior. I hope you appreciate my goodwill in not doing so. Shape up! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not the one pushing self-published sources into articles. Shape up yourself. Alarbus (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence anywhere that I am "pushing self-published sources into articles". I have removed many such and have never objected to others doing so also.

In this case, siding with the neutral 3O editor above, whether or not the cited book is self-published or not is irrelevant to what is being referenced and what we ergo are discussing, unless you also wish to object to the book's very existence, its distribution, its sales 1996-2001 and to its 1996 author being called "modern". SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Woodzing had restored the Ristesson publication, somehow "per 3O". But I have now replaced the reference to self-published retired hotel manager Demitz (who does not seem to have read Rasmussen's studies) with a link to a book review in the Danish scholarly journal Historisk Tidsskrift (skeptical of Rasmussen's thesis). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I have read some talks where a friend of mine has been involved. I think it is very remarkable that you want to be so nasty and belittle alive people and try to limit their reputations and accomplishments through calling somebody "retired hotel manager". That person is not retired (which you actually know I think) from anything, do not work in the hotel business since the 1980:s and have worked with a very great amount successful cultural projects for 40 years. You should be ashamed!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.193.90 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rolled back nonsense

For the 2nd time lately I have just rolled back extensive mischief by an IP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)