Talk:Olfert Fischer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Revision explanation

Recent quotations from author Jakob Seerup have been used to make some point about Olfert Fischer not being a worthy hero of Danish history. The first charge is quite trivial and unsuitable to an encyclopedia article: it is hardly worth noting that as a young man Fischer was caught consorting with a prostitute (or even "mistreating" her). The second charge, that Fischer was "unimportant" and "not considered a hero", requires some rebuttal.

"He had suffered a stroke during the battle and it is doubtful how far he was capable of leading anything." — Fischer's loss of command is addressed in the article, and it is explained in all sources as a function of battlefield conditions. Not one source claims Fischer was not up to the job. He had definitely not suffered a stroke or else he could not have continued trying to direct the battle from shore: "[T]he Danish commander, although wounded, betook himself to the Tre Kroner battery, where he continued to direct the fight." (Williams, p.421).

"When Nelson sent his envoys to discuss a ceasefire, he explains, they did not seek out Fischer, Nelson's counterpart in rank, but the Danish crown prince, illustrating how unimportant Fischer was considered to be." — No one would consider the "Danish commander-in-chief" (Nelson, p.259) to be "unimportant". Nelson did not "seek out" the Crown Prince: he sent a peace treaty, a state document for him to sign. It was given to the highest-ranking Danish officer available; obviously, delivery by the C-in-C would have been preferred but this was simply not possible.

"In the days following the battle, there were not very many who thought he was a hero." — it is quite indisputable that he was hailed as a hero, both then and now. "The Danish sailors fought with their hereditary bravery and, under the command of Olfert Fischer, upheld their former naval glory against Nelson." (Williams, p.421) Fischer was decorated by the king — twice — and promoted to Vice Admiral. Contemporaries clearly valued him because his version of the battle was treated as the official account; moreover, it was translated to English and published as far away as the United States before the end of the year. If more proof is needed, his namesake ships in the Danish Navy show clearly that he has been held in the highest regard ever since. Seerup's suggestion that the seafaring nation of Denmark needed to invent heroes to name their ships is beyond reasonability. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reacting on this. Seerup's book has received wide coverage in the Danish press and appears to be based on reliable Danish sources. I will look into this in more detail and try to get back on it soon. In the meantime, see also here and here. Seerup and his coauthors appear to be qualified historians who have carried out their own research and therefore cannot simply be dismissed. To be continued... - Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to get a copy of the book through the Danish library network but as a recent publication it is not yet available. It was published last year in connection with the 500th annniversary of the Danish fleet. The authors are all recognized experts in the field, viz: "Thomas Lyngby og Søren Mentz er begge ph.d. i historie og hhv. museumsinspektør og seniorforsker på Det Nationalhistoriske Museum på Frederiksborg. Søren Nørby er cand.mag. i historie og underviser på Søværnets Officersskole. Jakob Seerup er cand.mag. i historie og arkæologi, ph.d.-stipendiat og museumsinspektør ved Statens Forsvarshistoriske Museum." Looking through Danish web sites and discussion forums, I must say the sources for Olfert Fischer seem to be well founded. The story of the prostitute incident is far more detailed. Fischer and his friends apparently tried to burn away the woman's supposed "infection" with a candle, causing serious burns. That could explain why Olfert was demoted to the rank of "matrose" (an ordinary seaman) for a period of one year. The Battle of Copenhagen story also seems to have been well researched. And btw Seerup points out that he did not want to dismiss Fischer as a national hero but rather to nuance his fame and glory. When I posted my piece on WP, I too was rather careful not to be too decisive.

I must say I was rather surprised you simply deleted my contribution without discussion. In the light of the wide coverage in Denmark - and in the absence of any strong reactions against the account - I think something about this important book needs to be reinserted, perhaps with an additional word of caution. After all, Olfert Fischer is a Dane and contemporary Danish research should be taken into account. I would also point out that Seerup's book was about several Danish marine heroes and that the others did not suffer the same level of criticism. Before I reinsert anything, I would like to hear your views. - Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First let me thank you for the cordial tone of your response — please see your talk page for more on that :) As for the issue at hand: your remark that "Olfert Fischer is a Dane and contemporary Danish research should be taken into account" is a very persuasive point and I must fully agree with you, but let me explain where I was coming from. My first impression of Seerup was based on the Science website citation ("Olfert Fischer, sex offender" — really?) which is not in the least bit convincing. Even combined with the other two book reviews linked above (both nearly identical to Science), the reporting of Seerup's work comes across as sensationalist to the point where it undercuts his own credibility. By their casual nature and uncritical tone, these articles make it very easy to picture Seerup as one of those shock authors, so prevalent here in America, who produce popular "non-fiction" works of devastating hearsay. Seerup's slim authorship history was, to me, not much more reassuring and I still cannot find any academic credentials for him (even Danish Wikipedia lacks an article about him). But I'll take your word regarding his qualifications and we can just discuss the issues raised in his book. I don't have access to it myself but perhaps you can obtain one and we can go from there-? The remarks drawn from the web articles are very simplistic and superficial and I believe I've responded to them adequately above, but if the fuller arguments in his book can be brought out and summarized in a convincing way, it would be a very nice addition to the text. With your assent, I would be happy to collaborate in that process. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional explanations. I tend to sympathise with your reaction to the article I originally quoted. Unfortunately, most of the specific references on Olfert Fischer tend to emphasise his misconduct with the prostitute. Perhaps the least sensational article about the book and the Olfert story is the one published in Jyllands Posten, one of Denmark's most respected newspapers. There you can read (literal translation):

• PhD student and museum custodian at Statens Forvarshistoriske Museum Jacob Seerup has in connection with his research into naval history found out that the reason for Olfert Fischer's demotion was that when young he was convicted for an unpleasant incident with a prostitute when on duty on Holmen in Copenhagen. "Together with the other guards he had had a prostitute rowed over. There they all had intercourse with her and she was 'visited' with a candle," says Jakob (sic) Seerup.

Seerup goes on to say "We willingly tell the exciting stories as there is lots of drama in them. But we also want to nuance the impression of who the heros were and how important they were."

You can find the JP article here and continued here. For a general overview of the book Danmarks største søhelte and summary qualifications of the authors, see here. For a profile of Seerup, see here. I am not at all surprised that the Danish Wikipedia does not have an article on Seerup. I constantly find that many well-known figures are missing.

In conclusion, I really think the article needs to cover the revelations in the book, even if you still believe they are subject to debate. Perhaps you would like to reinsert something yourself. I would then be happy to carry out and further edits. - Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the background info on Seerup, et al. Knowing that, I think the website articles can be used as sources for the prostitute episode: I reinserted it in the early life section and changed the citation from Science to Jyllands Posten (even though they are virtually the same article, I find JP's headline much less troubling). Feel free to alter it as you see fit. However, I still think Seerup's more interpretative assertions' ("unimportant", etc.) can't be suitably described or sourced through any of the articles we have so far. The quotations offered are so superficial and create such antinomy with the established histories that I believe it would be confusing and counterproductive to include them. I think we should wait on detailing the book until we have some deeper, more explanatory quotations to include. Do you agree? SteveStrummer (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

After the minor modifications I have just made, I think the article is fine for the time being. The book costs DKK 299 (USD 60) and I don't feel it is worth buying it. Once it becomes available through the library, we can look at it again. - Ipigott (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)