Talk:Christian II of Denmark

message: Why not mention his children and link to them? They are present in en.wikipedia! //Astor Piazzolla 09:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children? 

message: I've raised the not verified tag as there is a need to clarify the relation between Renata of Lorraine and Charles XV of Sweden. In the article on the mother of the latter, Josephine of Leuchtenberg, it is claimed that she is an ancestor of Renata of Lorraine, and thereby of her great-grandfather Christian II of Denmark. See also my comment on Talk:Josephine of Leuchtenberg. I have not seen this information in any other place than these two articles and I would like this information to be verified by some external source. --Astor Piazzolla 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not verified tag (Renata of Lorraine) 

message: I have removed the non-verified tag. I mixed to Renatas of Lorraine. My mistake! --Astor Piazzolla 10:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verified! 

message: As viceroy of Norway (1506 – 1512) he had already displayed a singular capacity for ruling under exceptionally difficult circumstances. Patriotism, insight, courage, statesmanship, energy -- these great qualities were indisputably his; but unfortunately they were vitiated by obstinacy, suspicion and a sulky craftiness, beneath which simmered a very volcano of vengeful cruelty.
very culcano of cruelty is hardly NPOV. Could you please provide sources to verify this claim or is this simply another example of original research by Swedish nationalists who think Wikipedia is a propaganda tool in a 500 year old dispute. It's 500 years ago people! Let's get over it! MartinDK 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how that paragraph could end up both sourced and NPOV, so I've removed it and toned down the sentence about his administration in Norway. (What are the sources that his administration in Norway was any brilliant?) It is bad historical practice to attempt a psychological analysis on dead persons unless the sources surviving are absolutely excellent. I haven't heard this to be the case with Christian II. I'd also like to see well-sourced references that Christian's rule was exceptional in a European context. Killing off 80 people you don't trust is drastic, yes, but application of massive force is not unique in European history. E.g., Italian history contains pretty brutal episodes. I also noted the discrepancy between this paragraph and the articles about certain Swedish kings that treated Scania very harshly. Let's stick to well-sourced and NPOV material and apply the same standard for both Danes and Swedes. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added an attempt at a more neutral introduction. It is mostly based on the Great Danish Encyclopedia. The Norwegian Wikipedia article also looks pretty interesting. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In this context, I tried to write an article on Christians admiral :de:Søren Norby in the German Wikipedia, and found that both, the Danish as well as the Swedish article - unsourced - as they are, were not of great help. I didn't find really good English or German sources on the topic.--Kresspahl 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Shouldn't his whole title be included in the infobox? I mean the title used in official documents: "Christiern med Gudz Naade, Danmarckis, Suerrigis, Norrigis, Vendis, och Gottis Koninng, Hertug i Slesuig, Holsten, Staarmaaren, och Dyttmersken, Greffue vdj Oldenborg, och Delmenhorst" (Christian by the grace of God, king of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Vends and the Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn and Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst). The question also applies for all the other monarchs as well of course: Is the intention of the "title" in the infobox to give the full formal title they used, or just a bland listing of the realms they were monarch of? I would prefer the former.--Barend 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in infobox 

message: I have removed the worst Dane bashing from the article but it still needs sources and substantial rewriting before it represents a decent article. Large parts of the article is written as if it was copied from a narrative history book and has no sources despite making some pretty substantial claims. It's been 500 years... isn't it time to bury the hatchet and work together? EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I edited the biography section of the article for POV, and more work is required. See my edit notes in the history; I did lots of chopping for things I couldn't fix. I don't know enough to fix this article without substantial research, and the writing is too heavily influenced by POV for a simple fix. There seem to be lots of awkward constructions, too, like "the delegates could not be prevailed upon." What does that mean? Try to write at a fifth-grade level. Clarity could use some work in this article. --Jp07 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: (Imagine a sharp tone of irritation and disgust directed towards "professional" encyclopedias) The origin of this POVvy and a weird article seems to be Encyclopædia Britannica 11ed/1911, and aside from having a pathological amateurish attitude worse than peacock wordings, it makes me giggle for the fool formulations. About his mistress mom Sigbrit Willoms:
:Dyveke's mother Sigbrit, a born administrator and a commercial genius of the first order
(Hihihihi! So geniuses have orders! Sure!)
:She soon became the soul of a middle-class inner council
(Hehehehe! They lacked a soul, and she was incorporeal! Sure!)
And C2 had a heritage from Sverker, Eric and all Swedish kings, while Gustav I Wasa had only one line, in the section Reconquest of Sweden. How much do we care? 
Other samples: Never had King Christian seemed so powerful as upon[Citation needed!], Unfortunately these reforms, excellent in themselves, suggested [Says who?]. In a way the article is quite hilarious! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias!!

message: The poor 1911 anonymous author (may he/she forever be anonymous for this deed) didn't succeed to reflect the real history very well: the alleged Swedish competitor at the Reconquest of Sweden, Gustav Vasa was a sole internal Swedish refugee belonging to the Sture party at the time of reconquest. It is generally believed that he had no intention of becoming a king at that time, and so he was not a competing candidate for kingship, at that specific historical event. However, when the reconquest resulted in a general uprising, led by Gustav Vasa, some among Gustavs adherents/financers forced(?)/convinced(?) him to be a candidate for the Swedish throne. The article text is confusing about these details, listing heritage lines instead of political considerations, attending to irrelevant details instead of presenting a clear chain of events.
Similarly the downfall section attends to a lot of details of "laudable" reasons of "evil" this-or-that for C2 acting this-and-that way, but suddenly, in one very short paragraph, he is deposed! The reason is that despite his general heroism and laudability, surrounded by first order incorporeal geniuses, he had alienated each and every power around him!!?? The writing style is really confusing because of the nonsential discourse that ascribes him this and that glorious purpose. The text s*ckxs! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsential discourse

message: "Unfortunately these reforms, excellent in themselves, suggested the standpoint not of an elected ruler, but of a monarch by divine right"
While i of course agree that slavery and is wrong and while i agree that "divine right" doesn't hold any weight, the "unfortunately these reforms, excellent in themselves"-part seem a tad bit strong, but i'm not well versed in this particular person of history, so maybe it is just me. Swedra (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird sentence in section "Downfall" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christian II of Denmark. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211034546/http://www.ambstockholm.um.dk/da/menu/OmSverige/Historie/ to http://www.ambstockholm.um.dk/da/menu/OmSverige/Historie/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the note about sources on the article can be deleted. Perhaps it can be noted that older descriptions of history had other starting points, mainly the winners' political propaganda activities at the time of the deeds and what suits the successors.
Frankly, without this background description, the article completely lacks logic and then becomes very difficult to understand (money made the political turns possible). The Swedish War of Liberation, the Count's Feud and the Reformation will be very difficult to understand otherwise.
The source for Margareta Skantze is enough. It is a summary of a modern generally accepted view in university research in Sweden as a reaction to a previously older strongly politically described development largely based on the victorious kings of the time (Gustav Vasa and Christian III) who have a bit character of a saga.
Margareta Skantze's description is the one that constitutes descriptions in the history of Swedish Radio Science, where for instance professor Dick Harrison describes Stockholm bloodbath from this point of view. Where, for example, everything is carefully planned in advance and not a result of Didrik Slagheck's improvisations, but not least the fight for the money. Corresponding actions but on a much smaller scale also took place earlier in Norway.
The perception is now that power and money drive history and a long accepted view is the downfall of the Hanseatic League after the Count's Feud, but here Jacob Fugger, the pope's and emperor's part, highlights, not least the money, a lot of money, the reason why Christian II took his wife. What distinguishes the period is the enormous influx of resources, mercenaries (Christian II rises) and the enormous fluctuation of resources (Christian II fall) through Fuggers and the Hansa's funding initiatives. But also the pope's lack of adaptation in the changed situation as the direct reason why northern Europe became Lutheran through 15 years of interdict. We are talking about a package view of a process that ends with Count's Feud, and starts a new era.
This changed view suddenly makes Christian II's regime, Gustav Vasa's elevation to king, Christian III's successes and the Reformation in Sweden/Reformation in Denmark completely logical. The old version is logical as a fairy tale.
--Zzalpha (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background - the note about sources on the article can be deleted 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christian I of Denmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress