Talk:Bengt Anders Euphrasén

Gender
Female or male? Conflicting sources. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Male. Which source supports the notion that Euphrasén would be female? --Hegvald (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. They have recently changed it to male(männlich). I guess that closes that puzzle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth
1755 or 1756? Swedish Wikipedia and a blog source gives "1755, April 26" but German sources give 1756 and no month or day. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 26 April 1755 is correct. The Swedish National Archives has scanned the records and put them on the web. (One needs access to a library with subscription to use them.) According to the Habo parish birth records from 1755, Bengt [Andersson] was born on 26 April and christened on the 28th, the son of Anders Bengtsson, farmer in [the hamlet or farm] Myrebo, and [his wife] Marit Jacobsdotter. I won't cite it, as it is a primary source, but the blog entry already used as a link suggests that it is consistent with what a presumably reliable secondary source has to say. --Hegvald (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cleanup"
Somebody put a cleanup tag on this article. As is often the case the tagger did not specify the reason, but it popped up on my watchlist and reminded me of issues I had noticed before. I fixed the most glaring problems, but the article would need more work. There is a 20-page article on Euphrasén by Gudrun Nyberg in Svenska Linnésällskapets Årsskrift 2010, which is likely to be the most extensive biography of him so far (it is cited in the Swedish Wikipedia and the summarized in English here). Personally, I'll probably never get around to reading that article, as I just don't have enough interest in the history of 18th century science, nor the background knowledge to do the subject justice. --Hegvald (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Swedish Wikipedia nor a blog are normally considered reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nor did I claim that they were; I just mentioned (in passing) that they both use the Nyberg article. --Hegvald (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)