File talk:Skandinavism.jpg

Any info on the source and background of this work of art? A-giâu 05:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consider it to be a sort of propaganda image from the era of nationalism. It is frequently used in Danish books relating to the First (1848-51) and Second War of Schleswig (1864), both wars between Prussia (and in 1864 Austria) on the one hand and Denmark on the other. I'm pretty sure the image is from the 1840s. It depicts from left to right three soldiers, a Norwegian, a Dane and a Swede joining hands. Nationalists hoped that a political union between the three countries would enable Denmark to militarily defend Schleswig from Prussian expansionism while enabling Sweden to retake Finland from the Russian Empire. The concept of union was not new; Sweden and Norway had been united since 1814, and Denmark and Norway had been united from 1380 to 1814. All three nations had been united from the late fourteenth century until 1523.

In the 1840s it became obvious that the Danish royal family was dying out and the idea of a Scandinavian union became popular especially among students. The idea effectively died when Sweden-Norway declined to help Denmark in either of the two Schleswig Wars. --Valentinian 21:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

(post copied from the corresponding page on the English Wikipedia. It seems relevant here.) Valentinian ^(talk) 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of picture

I must agree with Valentinian. The picture usually symbolizes Scandinavism in Sweden. Since Scandinavism was becomming less poplular throughout the century, I believe therefor that Fred Chess, who believes the picture is from the later part of the century is wrong. I am not totally convinced though.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by 193.165.2.208 (talk • contribs)

(the post above was copied from the corresponding page on the English Wikipedia.)

If we go by the flags, the flags of Norway and Sweden definitely place this image as 1844-1905. To narrow it down a bit, one of the things I consider the best clue is image of the Danish soldier. Not only is his uniform the same as the one used during the 1848-51 war (in 1864 the army used winter uniforms for obvious reasons) but I cannot imagine a Danish soldier being portrayed this way following Denmark's national catastrophe in 1864. After 1864, the only time Denmark considered going to war against Germany again was during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, but the idea was a non-starter from day one. Many German nationalists wished to annex Denmark, and Danes feared that any new conflict with Germany would result in this country completely absorbing the Danish state (which would probably have meant the end of Danish culture.) For what it is worth, a recent book Claus Bjørn (1999), "1848. Borgerkrig og revolution", Copenhagen: Gyldendal shows a very similar but not completely identical black-and-white sketch on p. 156 next to a sketch of three German soldiers joining hands, one of them presumably a Schleswig-Holsteiner. The sources listed for the page is Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesbibliothek [Kiel] [1] and the Danish Royal Library [Copenhagen]. [2] It could very well be the case that one of these images is a reaction to the other, but a definite conclusion requires further data. However, if this hypothesis is correct, this would date both images to the 1848-51 war. Btw, since the image has been moved to Commons, it would be better to continue any further discussion there. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(the post above was copied from the corresponding page on the English Wikipedia, let's keep any further discussions here for simplicity.) Valentinian ^(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the swedish encyklopedia Nationalencyklopedin, volume 16, page 505, the picture was created by an unkown danish artist and that the year of creation could be narrowed down to 1844-1850. This is due to the design of the swedish and norwegian flags and details of the uniforms. /B****n (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on who's who

Another editor has now started an edit war about the identification of the person caricatured on the right in this image, King Oscar I of Sweden-Norway, which would seem obvious to anyone the slightest bit familiar with that king's appearance. About like asking tor a reliable source to prove that a perfectly obvious political drawing of Hitler or Obama is either of them. Sad. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No editor has started an edit war, and before SergeWoodzing takes this more personal and becomes even sadder, we could perhaps sort things out in an objective way. First, does the soldier to the right resemble Oscar I? Yes, he does! Does that necessarily mean that the soldier was supposed to be Oscar I? No, it does not!

The 19th century was the century of facial hair - at least in the western hemisphere. Oscar I was not the only man on earth having a moustache and a goatee. Here are some contemporary examples:

• 
• 
• 

My point is that the appearance of the soldier wasn't unique to Oscar I. The first thought of people who saw this picture at the time it was made, did not have to be that it was a picture of the king.

Secondly, it is odd to have Oscar I to personate Sweden in a picture where Norway and Denmark clearly are represented by soldiers of private rank. There has to be a special explanation for that and I know of none. Furthermore it is odd to have the king of both Sweden and Norway representing only Sweden. And where are the orders of the king? In uniform he would at least have worn the star of the Order of the Seraphim.

The picture of the three scandinavian soldiers is well known and reproduced in many books. If it's so obvious that the soldier is supposed to be King Oscar I, it can't be hard to find one book commenting on this. /B****n (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what's called "starting an edit war" - arbitrarly reversing another editor's reversal, without discussion. Why not learn some basic behavior before we go on discussing this? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Lots of Chinamen look exactly like Mao, so this is probably not Mao on the left - oh and two of these guys (center) are dressed like Ghaddafi and Obama, but they don't resemble them that much, so the drawings are probably of someone else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The guy on the right isn't dressed like Bush, can't be Bush then, even though his face is exactly Bush's, just like the man on the right in this discussion's image is exactly Oscar I. . SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

I wonder who's the pot calling the kettle black?

Anyway, I don't think the soldier to the right looks exactly like Oscar I. In fact, he looks more like Napoleon III. With your kind of logic we should conclude that it is Napoleon, which of course is wrong. And then there's the absence of orders on the alleged king's chest. And the fact that the Danish soldier doesn't look like the King of Denmark and Norwegian soldier doesn't look like the king of Norway. What's the reason for that? In another context, the picture could have been alluding to the King, but it makes no sense here. The simplest explanation is that it isn't the King of Sweden, but just a depiction of an uknown soldier whith a hairstyle, beard and moustache formed à la mode.

Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and it should be applied on Wikimedia Commons as well. Information that has been challenged should be attributed to reliable, published sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. You are free to prove me wrong. Until then, we should not state what we don't know. /B****n (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for continuing to try to be educational! Besides taking an interest in learing what is or is not "starting an edit war" - which is what you did, I respectfully suggest you also try to learn

1. What is a caricature drawing?
2. How often, if ever, does the creator of a caricature or its publisher create or publish a caricature that is so poorly done that they need to spell out and source (for you only!) who is portrayed in it?
3. What did Oscar I actually look like?
4. What did Napoleon III actually look like?

You might also explain why it is so important to you in this case to make never-ending, far-fetched excuses to try to convince us that the obvious likeness of a king of Sweden should be seen as a drawing of an emperor of France etc etc etc etc etc etc...

Till then (if ever), ta-ta! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was not me who restored disputed information.

According to the English Wikipedia a caricature "is a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person ... to create an easily identifiable visual likeness". However the picture is neither exaggerated, nor distorted, and hence it is not a caricature. I have tried to explain why, in the absence of more well-grounded and thoroughly researched explanations of the meaning of the image, it is unlikely that the artist intended to portray Oscar I. I have not tried to establish that the picture should be seen as a drawing of Napoleon III. I have just tried to explain that the likeness between the swedish soldier and Oscar I is not obvious to me and that other men at the time had a similar appearance. And I still lack an explanation for the anomalies that arises if the man to the right is supposed to be Oscar I. Furthermore, I can tell you that the picture appears in the swedish Nationalencyklopedin, volume 16, page 505. The men are described as "three young Scandinavians in front of the flags of their countries" ("tre unga skandinaver framför sina länders fanor"). Not a single word about the swedish king.

My main point, however, is still that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In this case the burden of evidence lies with you. Until you have presented a reliable source, I rest my case. Until then, you can be as educational as you like. I won't mind, neither will I care. /B****n (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)