This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stockholm Bloodbath article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 10, 2006, November 8, 2007, November 8, 2008, November 8, 2009, November 8, 2010, and November 8, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The term "Stockholm bloodbath" looks like bias but is apparently the standard one for this incident. Google gives 652 hits for this.
It surely is biased, just like the Swedes calling the king "Christian the Tyrant" although he in Denmark is known as "Christian the good". But calling it "massacre" instead doesn't make it more NPOV.
-- Ruhrjung 14:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I propose you to discuss that with the Danes: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_2
--Ruhrjung 16:06, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I completely disagree that the term "Stockholm bloodbath" is not NPOV in any way.
Firstly, it is the most common name for the incident.
Secondly, it is the name used by both "sides" in the incident. How could it get more neutral than that?
Thirdly, any bias in the term "bloodbath" is bias against killing unarmed people without trial. Hardly a controversial position.
Fourthly, it is offensive to the Danish to imply that they wouldn't regard this as a "bloodbath". Both modern and contemporary danes regarded this as a barbaric act and so did the rest of Europe. After a Papal inquest, Didrik Slaghekk was burned to death in the Stortorv in Copenhagen for having instigated the massacre.
Fifth, and last, it is not a term unique to this incident, nor does it have any particular Swedish-Danish ties, because the term is also used for "Linköpings bloodbath", a similar purge commited later by Swedes against Swedes.
I changed『fortress of Stake (Stäket)』to just "fortress at Stäket", the name "Stake" makes no sense to me. It appears to come from EB1911, and is perhaps some attempt at anglicization. (The name 'Stäket' is the definite form of 'Stäk' or 'Stäke' meaning 'narrow channel of water' and indeed is cognate with the english word 'Stake'). In modern Swedish『stäk』is an uncommon word and『Stäket』is generally used as a place-name without any thought of its meaning. Translating it can only cause confusion.
One would think that after 500 years there would be no controversy... anyway, section of the text reflect a pro-Swedish bias:
I will try to rewrite keeping the facts and filtering out the bias. --Orzetto 13:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Your beloved "warrior king" most certainly qualifies as more of a Tyrant than Christian II ever did, but as usual Swedish nationalists have managed to sprew so much of their propaganda as to convince their people otherwise. Luckily, people outside northern Sweden know better.
The lead says "about 100" people were killed, whereas later 83 is the figure quoted. Which one is the correct one? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The November 10 article says 82... 83.255.69.190 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone have better references on the exact dates of the events from November 7th to November 10th in 1520 ? I counted the days myself, starting from Nov.7th, based on the contents of this article. I got a message on my talkpage saying the dates are wrong. Did the first executions ("the anti-unionist bishops of Skara and Strängnäs") take place after midnight of Nov. 9th (0:00h, Nov. 10th) ? -- PFHLai 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
83 NAMED persons were killed/executet duing does 3 days, but as was inferred by visitors, several more were killed out of hand but was not 'people of importance' mostly because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because they tried to protect their employeers IE servants/guards. Also Christian II is NOT known as *The Good* in Denmark, if he earned a epitaf in Danish history books it was *The undecided* due to events AFTER the bloodbath (He couldn't decide whether to try and defend his kingdom or escape when given the oppotunity some years after the events in Stockholm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.32.8 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply