Talk:Herman Wrangel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Sweden The article on Herman Wrangel is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

I'm pretty sure this is the same fellow as Hermann von Wrangel who is refered to as the father of Carl Gustaf Wrangel, but the two articles give different birth dates. Does anyone know which is correct? Or am I wrong and they are two seperate people? SimonP 00:21 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Swedish article is ambigous regarding the birth date, in either 1684 or 1687. The observation is otherwise correct. -- Mic 07:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)