Talk:Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg

HansM (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg. 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/20120208091810/http://portal.hsb.hs-wismar.de/pub/lbmv/mjb/jb050/350367779.html to http://portal.hsb.hs-wismar.de/pub/lbmv/mjb/jb050/350367779.html

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) 12:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric or Albert?
I believe this portrait by Theodor Fischer depicts Albert, not Eric. A from Schloss Schwerin shows the text above the painting, which identifies him as King Albert. This painting is from 19th century and has always been in the same gallery, so it seems unlikely that the identity of the subject would have been forgotten. The Gotland symbol can surely be explained in a variety of ways, as he did rule Gotland with the Victual Brothers. Isn't it also unlikely that the heir would have been depicted with the crown?

One can compare with other portraits of Albert: (Nationalmuseum server seems to be unreliable, but the last link does occasionally work). He's wearing the same clothes in the above images, and given the artistic licence, there is some likeness, as is there with the fresco of him as an old man (e.g. the hair and the eyebrows). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And the Gotland symbol specified in the image's caption? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What of it? Without some reliable source we don't know what exactly it symbolizes, and since Albert himself had a connection to Gotland, it hardly counts as evidence for the claim that this should be Eric. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That symbol is most likely a generic Agnus Dei which is a common Christian symbol. Persevant (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Gotland's coat of arms has a ram instead of a lamb, and the flag has five tails, unlike this one. On the other hand, historically Gotland's coat of arms seems to be very close to generic Agnus Dei (commons), so its difficult to say whether this one should now be interpreted as a reference to Gotland. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This, rather obviously, is what Eric has hanging from his neck. Any NPOV person can see that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do find it possible that it might refer to Gotland. But without a reliable source it is WP:OR to state that in the article.
 * And to claim that this is Eric you would also need to provide a reliable source. The text above the painting says "Albrecht III" and there seems to be nothing unclear about the provenance of this painting. The book by the Borchardts describes the portraits in the Ahnengalerie, and there is "Albrecht III" there, but no "Erich" (although he is listed as Albrecht's son ).
 * A piece of wikiarcheology: You seem to have gotten the idea that this is Eric from this discussion in Commons, and then it subsequently found its way to your friend Demitz' 2020 book (RSN thread) which you now use as a source here.
 * Feel free to ask for a third opinion if you feel that neutral input is needed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, here's a short description of the Ahnengalerie: https://www.landesmuseum-mv.de/en/exhibit/ancestral-portrait-gallery-in-schwerin-palace/ The painting is also discussed in this book: I don't have full access, but these Google Books snippets give some background information on which works the painting was based on. Apparently was "helpful", but Fischer's painting was based more on a drawing by Carl George Schumacher, which unfortunately seems to have been lost during WW2. Perhaps the book would also tell what Schumacher's drawing was based on. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong son of Albert in a painting you mentioned of King Albert & son. . That's Albert (Jr.) not Eric. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not identify the son in the painting as Eric, so I am not sure what you mean by your remark.
 * If we look at that double painting, we see that Albert III on the left is again wearing the same clothes and a crown with a similar design as in Fischer's painting, although he has a beard here. But note that the other snippet describes Albert III as having a clean-shaven face like in Fischer's painting (which he is describing of course). The book is maybe a bit confused here though, since it says that the double painting in Gadebusch includes the king's father, "es zeigt auch der Vater des Königs", while its actually his son. Either this is a mistake in the book, or there is another double portrait of Albert III in Gadebusch that I am not aware of. I find the latter unlikely, but not impossible. Albert V's own portrait in the Ahnengalerie is clearly based on this double portrait. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know whay anyone would want to try to use an unresolved and archived reliable-source discussion here, especially when the extensive bilbiography of that book was ignored there. I do not know why any wild personally antagonistic theories about how something ended up in sombody's book are being brought up here. I also do not know why we are to discuss anything but the fact that there is no evidence of any kind that this is Albert nor that it is his son Eric. The age of the depicted man and the symbol on his chest would lead most NPOV people to guess that it's Eric. That's what the image caption does. It does not dictate anything. Any user on some kind of a ruthless or careless campaign (ignoring previous warnings about headstrong behavior) like some kind of a Wikipedia Police Officer, to remove everything found in a book, even theories, is not reallly doing us any big favors with most of that. Oh, and image descriptions at Commons giving alternative identification info should bot be changed by any user jumping the gun on lacking consensus just to try to get h way, especially if that user has been warned several times about that behavior at Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am bringing them up for context. And the evidence is there above the painting. If that bibliography contains something related to this painting, please present it here. The argument about the age I don't follow: presumably Albert III was once a young man, and there are other portraits that present him clean-shaven. He was crowned king at the age of 26. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Albert had no relationship to Gotland at that young age. Get it now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The painting's symbolism might be anachronistic, assuming the lamb represent Gotland. You still have not provided any reliable sources claiming this is Eric. In contrast, the text above the painting reliably identifies it as Albert. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, believe or not, I did not specifically target your edit here. I was looking if a better picture of Albert, King of Sweden exists, since that wooden sculpture looks quite unappealing to me. I found this from X, and subsequently looked it up on Wikipedia, only to find that here it was used for Eric instead. If it was added by any other user, I would have just removed it and discussed afterwards if complaints would have arisen. Seeing it was added by you and supported by Centuries of Selfies, which we had just discussed at the RSN, I chose to open a discussion instead. I only removed it after you replied but did not provide any argument for why it should be retained.
 * Above, you agree that there is no evidence that this is Eric. Can I now remove it? I am not actually going to suggest adding it to Albert's article either, since it is from 19th century and there are already a lot of pictures in his article. The fresco might make a good infobox image there, but I am not fully certain about it. At least it should be cropped. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The image should be removed. This is Albert III according to the painting's original description at Schwerin Castle, and there is clearly no reason to believe that to be incorrect. Persevant (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is that clear description to be found? Do we have access to it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here. The text above the painting reads: V.G.G. ALBRECHT III. HERZOG ZU MECKLENBURG KOENIG IN SCHWEDEN † 1414. Persevant (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging users who have edited this article in other language versions to consider removing the picture from their projects: @AttoRenato (it), @Joane (es), @Kruusamägi (et), @Nikosguard (el), @Граф Рауль Валуа (ru), @Melanita (bg), @William Avery (ca). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) @ McYata (ja) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The image caption clearly states the conditions, the reasonable indications, under which this image has been included in this article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The caption is not based on reliable sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate
Is the suggested birthyear "after 1359" based on Nordman, and if so, how does he justify it? I expanded the first paragraph under Life based on Röpcke 2020, and it is now somewhat contradictory with the infobox and the first sentence. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Cause of death
@SergeWoodzing, regarding this diff: Röpcke ascribes his death to Seuche, which seems to be one of those German words that are difficult to translate into modern English. One meaning is plague, but he explicitly argues against that meaning. Other meaning is "epidemic" in more general sense, i.e. any disease that spreads like a plague. It would be good to tell that he died of some disease suddenly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "suddenly of some disease" is fine but we must not contradict ourselves by being certain in one parapraph and doubyful in the next abouy the same item. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was not clear to the reader. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)