Talk:Karin Månsdotter

message: I'm afraid that picture is not correct and it does not portray her. As is stated in the article, Karin Månsdotter was never portrayed; the picture put in the article has long ben presented as hers, and it was believed to be of her, but later historians and reasurchers have, sorry to say, discovered that it is in fact not of her, but of her sister-in-law, Princess Elizabeth of Sweden, probably painted in the late 1570s, when Karin was in exile in Finland. She would not have ben painted as mistress, and the fashion is of the 1580s and not 1560s. In the 16th century, portrays was not always named; the names of the people portrayed, was often added long after, when one felt a need to have a portrait of this or that person, wether the portrait actually showed the person in question at all. Sadly, there where simply no portrait made of her, and this picture of her sister-in-law should not have ben put in wikipedia commons under her name. Perhaps one should put it in the article of Princess Elizabeth, the person it really is, instead? I will remove it now and insert this facts in the article.
:That was indeed the wrong picture and was correct to be removed. It is not correct, however, that there is no portrait of this queen. Text corrected accordingly + reference. The bust at her grave is displayed in a public place and easily photographed by anyone, ergo the likeness belongs to the Public Domain. The b&w photo of it here also seems to be quite old. No reason to suspect that it is under any copyright. Deletion warning removed. EmilEikS (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize about my inkorrect comment in editing history. That new reference had not beeen removed, only the picture. Maybe I am mistaken but I was thinking that there is a reason to check on the discussion page before an image is deleted. Will someone please help and update that image page? I do not know how to do it. Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The truth is simply, that there was never an official oil-painting portrait made of her; just private drawings on little bits of paper made by her husband, and the bust on her grave is a bust; an image, but not a portrait=painting. Just clerifying to make things clear!--85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bust is also a portrait. Every depiction of a certain human's or animal's face is considered a portrait, no matter what the medium. The question whether or not some portraits are likenesses is another one. You are quite right about what exists and what does not, as far as is known.EmilEikS (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Many things coulds be in an article, but on WP they are supposed to be directly relevant to the article subject. This painting is not, here. It would only be confusing to add it to the article since it is not a painting of this person, and it would detract from the factual images and other such material. I suggest you write an article about the painting and put it there, or be satisfied that the painting already appears in the article of the person it is thought to show, namely this queen' sister-in-law Elizabeth. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture 

message: Though she might have had a finnish language form of her name (these are easy to reconstruct, and it was often done during the   finnicization period), there seem to be little evidence that she used one, and it is not even mentioned in the biographical lexicon ofFinland. I suggest that this is ommitted from the lead sentence. --Orland (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish name