![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Jacob the Dacian appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I came here via WP:30 as well, so I'll opine my case:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
For the 2nd time lately I have just rolled back extensive mischief by an IP. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Jacob the Dacian appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I came here via WP:30 as well, so I'll opine my case:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
For the 2nd time lately I have just rolled back extensive mischief by an IP. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)