Jump to content

Talk:Stieg Larsson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his lifetime, he was mainly known as a communist

[edit]

In his lifetime, he was known mainly as a communist, both as a writer and activist for communist causes. So this needs to be mentioned prominently. He only became known as a book author after his death.

Also, it's certainly wrong (not neutral) to portray him as an "expert" on the "extreme right", considering that he himself belonged to the extreme left, as a member, activist and writer for several organisations with a totalitarian and anti-democratic ideology, including the Communist Workers League. The extreme right were his political opponents, but it's not like they were more extreme than him, as he was an opponent of democracy. TYRXrus (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems consistent with what I know. Anyone have a different view? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got any reliable sources to back up your claims? // Liftarn (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article he was an activist with (and left his estate to) the Kommunistiska Arbetareförbundet (AKA Revolutionära Marxisters Förbund). If that's incorrect, Liftarn, please be bold and make the requisite changes.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how you define "communist". I'd say he was well known as a journalist with discernible left-wing sympathies. Some of his reporting and magazine publishing work was politically motivated, in a broad sense, but he wasn't a fanatic or a one-eyed pundit which is what "mainly known as a communist" implies, certainly to (for instance) many Americans. The kind of journalism he engaged in, the subjects a magazoine such as Expo covered, have been left aside by major Swedish news outlets and papers in the past dozen years, in favour of more glossy celebrity gossip and pink lifestyle features, but that doesn't mean it would count as propaganda.
The supposed testament, by the way (if it's genuine) was written when he was 23, and it's never been legally recognized. There's no reason to think it reflects his mature convictions.Strausszek (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can also add that the Expo foundation and Magazine (his work for the last 9 years of his life) is politically neutral, and not affiliated to any political party. This article reads like a typical "Sceptical american viewpoint" with his communist affiliation overemphasized and his fight against racism underreported. Not a word on activity as editor in chief of Expo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.139.153 (talk • contribs) [15:29, 4Feb2011]
Communist seems to be some something bad in US. Funny. But still Stieg Larson has been one of the worlds leading experts on nazism. Not to mention that is absolutely not neurtral. Besides, it's quite faulty logic to think that given he was "extreme left" he could not all the same be an expert on the extreme right. To say that the Communist Workers League has a totalitarian and anti-democratic ideology leaves me rather speechless and I only can recommend to read about democracy and totalitarianism. But since I heard that some Americans regard President Obama as socialist I shouldn't be surprised... Some literature:
  1. 1991 Swedish racism – the democratic way, in: A. Sivanandan (Hrsg.): Europe: Variations on a Theme of Racism; Institute for Race Relations; London 1991; ASIN B000S8FK90
  2. 1991 Extremhögern, together with Anna-Lena Lodenius; Tiden Förlag; Stockholm 1994; ISBN 91-550-3686-4
  3. 2001 Sverigedemokraterna: den nationella rörelsen, in collaboration with Mikael Ekman; Ordfront; Stockholm 2001; ISBN 91-7324-877-0
More you find here. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article474862.ab Sorry, I have no time to translate that now. --JonValkenberg (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. At last, substance in a discussion! Yes, you may have noticed that in the States, "Communist" is a freighted term, somewhat of a holdover from the Soviet arms race. Don't forget that the European communists were our allies during WWII, and between the wars they were quite popular here. I have never been a communist, myself, but let's not rewrite history. In Europe, I understand, every country has their communist party, and communist does not equate to Soviet, or even socialist. And, yes, a left-leaning journalist can certainly "know his enemy". Who better? It doesn't take an American Democrat or a UK Conservative to do the work and become an expert on totalitarian fascists. Soviet communism, or, more properly, socialism, was an aberration. The inclination to have a "people's party" is not so far from the ideas of "of the people, by the people, for the people". Rags (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His "official" website

[edit]

This was set up after his death. How can it be his website? Should be changed to "Posthumous website about him"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.136.71 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? Quite easily. If it was set up by, or under the authority of, his estate. Now, I don't know that to be the case, but that is an obvious way in which an official site can come into existence posthumously, and often does. Rags (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

[edit]

Please find the facts, not opinion. Larsson must have done actions which support or deny allegations. After death, anyone can have a perception they want to air in public. Question rather, the agenda of the opinion giver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.203.109 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie adaptation

[edit]

A movie on The girl with the dragn Tattoo has been made, and it was released in sweden and other countries (I only know about Spain... because I'm spanish and just saw it). There should be some sort of mention about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.3.85 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modesty Blaise

[edit]

As far as I can see, the relationship between Lisbeth and Modesty Blaise is so tenuous as to be nonexistent. If no one objects within a week, I intend to delete this sentence. Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google for the two names, you will find that reliable sources notably disagree with you. Whether you're right or not, the comparison is made frequently. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activist

[edit]

"Activist" is actually a weasel word, a euphamism for communist or left-wing activist. It is never used to mean right-wing activist. I have not been able to find a single instance in Wikipedia where a conservative, libertarian, or right-winger was referred to as an "activist". Weasel words and euphamisms violate Wikipedia style guidelines, and should be replaced. If there are no good arguments during the next week for keeping the current wording, I would like to edit this article and replace "Activist and journalist" with "Communist activist and journalist". Thanks.

Wmoran9550 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source call him a "communist activist" ? If no, then please don't make your changes. Even if everything you say is true, it amounts to original research. Just keep to what the sources say, and summarize them to fit them into the article. I hope him being sympathetic to "communist" causes doesn't push too many buttons, let's just leave it at "activist". cojoco (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absurd assertion; there are plenty of conservative and reactionary activists covered in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and let's call him what he is: a communist activist. Don't weasel word the thing by trying to hide what he was, which is a supporter of an anti-freedom ideology that murdered and killed more people in the 20th century than any other political ideology, including German National Socialism. JettaMann (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if I had said there were no conservative or reactionary activists covered in Wikipedia, that would be absurd. But I did not say that. I said that conservatives, libertarians, and right-wingers are never referred to as mere "activists" in those articles - at least not as far as I've been able to ascertain. On the contrary, the political nature of their activism is always clearly identified - and in fact, it is usually emphasized. The term activist seems to be reserved for left-wing activists, and I think this is a euphamism that should be avoided. To call Larsson an "activist" does not distinguish him at all from Jerry Falwell or David Duke. If a person was an activist for a self-described communist organization, as Larsson was, and if he identified himself, publicly and proudly, as a communist, a Trotskyist, as Larsson did, I see no reason to obscure that fact by referring to him as some generic activist. Imagine if the article on Leon Trotsky referred to him as an activist and journalist. Wmoran9550 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the article for this discussion, I noticed that the assertions about Larsson's political activities and affiliations were not sourced. Of course, I did not write any of this article. But still, I researched and found multiple sources supporting what the article states, and I inserted one of those sources as a footnote. There seems to be no question about the facts, and if those facts are going to be stated in the article, then the section title should accurately characterize those statements. Statements and assertions in the article must be supported by external sources. But that is not true for the section titles. The source for the section titles must be the article itself. The section title should accurately characterize the content which follows. I have proposed editing the title of a section where it is asserted that Stieg Larsson was a political activist for the Kommunistiska Arbetareförbundet (Communist Workers League}, and that he was editor of the Swedish Trotskyist journal Fjärde internationalen. In the next section, it is further stated that he wished to leave his property to the Communist Workers League upon his death, which would indicate that he remained a communist until his death. The current section title does not characterize that content, but rather blurs it and masks it. Wmoran9550 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it may just indicate that he never got around to changing that ancient will. It happens. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe he never got around to changing it. Maybe he completely forgot about it. But there is no evidence of that, so we have no basis for assuming it. The fact that this will was still in existence at the time of his death is rather evidence that he still wanted its terms implemented - especially considering that his political views had not changed in any noticeable way. But that will is not the main point. The main point is the content of the section titled "Activist and journalist". The content of that section is that Larsson was a communist activist. I think the section heading should reflect that content. I see no reason why it shouldn't. But I'm in no great hurry to change Activist to Communist Activist - especially over the objections of two experienced and accomplished editors. I may not be persuaded, but I can still defer. I'm actually more interested in the discussion of the issue. The one-week window was not meant as a deadline, but only a suggested time-frame. Based on this discussion so far, I would not make any change to the title. But I would like to continue the discussion. Wmoran9550 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics aside, it seems to me that "activist" is an unusually mild word for someone who spent a year training guerrillas in Africa. The words "mercenary" or "terrorist" might be asserted by some, but I'd suggest that in the full context "revolutionary" might be the best word, so I'm changing it accordingly. Geoff NoNick (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to resolve this would be to find some sources that indicate how he was described. His biography says "activist," so I am going with that for now. I don't think it is up to WP editors to determine. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"someone who spent a year training guerrillas in Africa"[citation needed]???? Oh, really? Where did you get that assertion? And what kind of guerrillas is this sedentary science fiction fanzine editor supposed to have trained? Are we talking African National Congressor SWAPO or who? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "assertion" came from the article itself and cites an news report in the Guardian that in turn quotes a life-long friend of Larsson. The African guerrillas he was training were the Marxist Eritrean People's Liberation Front. The same newspaper article quotes his friend describing him as a "revolutionary socialist". I realize this only one part of a very busy life, but how many guerrilla revolutions does one need to participate in to qualify as a revolutionary? He clearly was a revolutionary early in his life (I don't regard this as a derogatory observation, by the way) before falling back to a somewhat milder left-wing activism. I think the best compromise is to include "revolutionary" and "activist" as separate items in the title, to indicate that his revolutionary work was as distinct from his activism as it was from his writing. Geoff NoNick (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

What does "1979" mean exactly under "education" in his bio facts box?Cookiehead (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status?

[edit]

Is he currently the second best selling author (behind Khaled Hosseini)?

If so, I will change the article to reflect this (or someone else is welcome to). Ormewood (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced section(s), references, citations

[edit]

The entire name change section is unsourced, and I have so marked itTjoeC (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in sweden believe he was murdered/assassinated

[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned many people in Sweden believe his death may have been a conspiracy? Its nearly impossible it was but a lot of people believe this. Maybe should add some stuff on this? 209.173.186.216 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources on this subject, it can be included. Philip Cross (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rumour is not an authority for anything. The facts are that he died of a heart attack. There is nothing to suggest that this was not a death from natural causes. No doubt he had many enemies, being a Communist, terrorist and opponent of far right wing groups. But how many people from the far left or far right are murdered by their political opposites? To say very few exaggerates the numbers!122.59.67.48 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is accurate to discount rumors, and they are no basis for inclusion of information in an encyclopedia. That said, I have had the same thoughts. A heart attack is a particularly easy death to cause artificially, and has been. How often is hard to say. As he was concerned for his own and his partner's safety, and as they were somewhat in the public eye, and particularly, as they as a couple had taken action through official means to protect their privacy and maintain their safety from very real right-wing movement, I am inclined to believe that due diligence was given to his inquest. If not, the case is a bit cold. But the existence of the BELIEF of foul play, if it is truly widespread, as in the Kennedy, MLK,Jr, and even Lincoln assassinations, might be notable, if suitable secondary sources can support it. Just sayin'. Rags (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for not marrying

[edit]

The explanation for why Larsson and Gabrielsson never married doesn't make sense to anyone who has lived in Sweden. Everyone's address is public information under Swedish law - http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=58131 - so it can't simply be that they didn't marry in order to avoid their address(es) becoming public. It seems that foreign journalists unfamiliar with this system, including Nick Cohen in the article cited, have misunderstood the significance of comments by Gabrielsson. For example, in this interview - http://www.harpersbazaar.com/beauty/health-wellness-articles/eva-gabriellson-on-steig-larsson - Gabrielsson refers to the publishing of Larsson's address by a Swedish hate group. The significance of this is not that the address would previously have been unpublished, but that he was named as a target. So presumably their reason for not marrying was that he didn't want her to be associated with him in the public records, with the likelihood that she would also become a target. This is my attempt to interpret the information in the light of how things actually work in Sweden - I don't have a link to a source that would clear up the point - so I'm leaving this as a comment here, in the hope that someone else can provide a reference.

This seems a legitimate reason to change the article. I don't know when the abovve was written, but today, 7 Sept. 2021, the article still speaks of fear of address being public as the reason for not marrying. Kdammers (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy with father and brother?

[edit]

Eva Gabrielsson was his "long-term partner", and found the DRAFT will of 1977. It is true that she had "no legal right to the inheritance", but this did not spark "controversy between her and his father and brother". She may have expressed a wish to benefit from the estate, but this is not a controversy 'between' her and the family.122.59.67.48 (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stieg Larsson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stieg Larsson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stieg Larsson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth book referenced in the CBS interview 2010 is not talking about the book written by Lagercrantz and published in 2015

[edit]
Larsson's story was featured on the 10 October 2010 segment of CBS News Sunday Morning. In this segment, Larsson's family claims that the fourth book, published in August 2015, is actually the fifth book.
— Current article

This is part is referencing two different works, the unpublished work of Stieg Larsson, which has problems with rights and other legalities, and the continuation by a new author (David Lagercrantz), which got published in August 2015. The book published is not meant to be the 5th book in chronological order, at least not to my knowledge. But the unpublished book written by Stieg, was meant to be the 5th installment chronologically, just as the reference states.

NbOpposite (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology mistakes ?

[edit]

"his grandfather, Severin Boström, died of a heart attack at age 50. In 1974" : in 74, Stieg was 20 years old, not 9 ! And the grandfather, 50 in 1974, was 30 yeaurs old when Stieg was born !

I suppose the right year is 1964, but anyway the grandfather must have been older than 50 (even 40 in 1954 is young for a grandfather, although not impossible).

J. Richard--92.91.74.18 (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larsson better

[edit]

Unfortunately Lagencrantz is a worse writer. His dialogs are heavy. He hasn’t reached Larsson’s talent. Hopefully his wife will realease his manuscripts one day..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.104.196 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.104.196 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stieg_Larsson&oldid=1195039179"