Jump to content

Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Section/para about the death of Descartes

I will stop editing the section now, until it is discussed openly here.

There is now a major discrepancy between the section here and the section about his death in Descartes' own page. My suggestion is that we have to somehow combine the best and the most reliable sources on the subject, and bring the two pages/sections into some type of synching at the end of the debate. Thank you. warshy (¥¥) 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My own view is that the section as it is currently written there best summarizes all possible views on the topic, but I didn't want to just copy the paragraph from there into here. Somehow, the paragraph has to be more extensive and complete there, including all available RS sources, and here it should just summarize exactly what is said there. This is my view/suggestion, anyhow. warshy (¥¥) 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The final goal, as I said, should be to bring the two pages into some type of stable synching on the circumstances and possible causes for the ailment and ultimate death. That's my view, at least. again. warshy (¥¥) 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr Warshy, whatever that means. It is obvious that it is wrong to talk about the "harsh" or "inhospitable Stockholm" climate in 1649-50, because the winter was mild, Severity of winter seasons in the northern Baltic Sea between 1529 and 1990: reconstruction and analysis by S. Jevrejeva, p.6, Table 3 and February 1650 seems to have been very nice. I did not read Theodor Ebert: Der rätselhafte Tod des René Descartes. Alibri, Aschaffenburg 2009, S. 163, but if we fix it here, some could be moved to the Descartes article, which I will read now. Taksen.Taksen (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The sources do not say it was only the inhospitable climate. They say it was a combination of the climate, the specific chilly conditions/environment at the Queen's library, and particularly the strict schedule of the Queen's studies very early in the morning. And they say Descartes was not used himself to any of these conditions, including the unusually cold (for him, certainly) Stockholm weather. Now, to put an analysis of the climate conditions in Stockholm at the time of the philosopher's death as a source for the causes of death is not only completely unwarranted, since the supposed source does not mention anything related to the subject and or his death. This is really just Original Research. I will repeat: the goal is to make the two pages somehow synchronized in what they say, using the best reliable sources used so far in both pages, and perhaps even other reliable sources on the subject, not used in either page yet. warshy (¥¥) 21:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the "inhospitable climate" is completely non sense, and not based on reliable sources, but on prejudices, and repeating what others wrote. Original research or not, I don't like exaggerations.Taksen (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • In my view, unless we have very strong sources linking his death to her actions/wishes/schedule (proper, reliable, secondary sources, beyond mere speculation or extrapolation) then there's no need to mention his death in this article. Mention his role with regard to her, without speculating as to her role with regard to his death. St★lwart111 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"Diplomat" is not the same thing as "ambassador" of course - he could have been some non-notable junior diplomat. If that's what sources say then it probably doesn't belong in this article. St★lwart111 02:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no sources, at least I could not find any reliable one. If you "google" D.A. Nopeleen they all mention the same sentence, but not of them has anything specific on Nopeleen. I was the one who changed ambassador in diplomat, as Chanut was the French ambassador. There can have been only one.
Yes, I'm not querying the relationship, I'm querying the relationship between her and his death. If there wasn't one then while he should be mentioned, his death would be irrelevant to her article. St★lwart111 02:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
According to Bertrand Russell Christina send a warship to pick him up from the Netherlands. I couldn't find the name of the ship and Russell did not add a reference, so there is no proof. After his death Christina seems to have laid stress on the fact she was innocent. (I don't think she was a saint.) I am busy adding at the article on René Descartes; there you can find new details.Taksen (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
it would be easy to find a source that says he died of pneumonia. why didn't you do it? on the other hand, the doctor Johan van Wullen wrote Descartes had blood in his urine, not particular is a sign of pneumonia. Most authors did not witness his death, a citation needed, does not make it more reliable.Taksen (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that English is not your first language. No problem. I just think it should have a citation or two saying that pneumonia was believed to have been the cause of death. With time I can probably find some, but why not have someone else add it in the meantime, if they have it more handy? If there are sources that say that, as I am sure there are, they should be cited, instead of just having it there without citation. What is the problem with that? warshy (¥¥) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! I've read it and the whole matter is much clearer to me now. It makes sense that the French sources would be much better about anything concerning Descartes than the English ones. This source clearly says that the official version has been pneumonia throughout the years, based on the Chanut letter to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia from February of 1650, a little more than a month after Descartes' death. With time now I will try to read the Descartes page on the French Wikipedia and see if the English article can also be improved a little bit from it... Thanks. warshy (¥¥) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Buckley source

Conjecture and speculation and broad, sweeping generalizations and assumptions and personal opinions by/of author Veronica Buckley, in turn completely unsourced by that author in her own work, are beginning to dominate important aspects of this article regarding Christina's sexuality (about which we actually know absolutely nothing whatsoever), and I find that lacking in necessary balance for a Wikipdeia biography. If there are reliable eye-witness accounts of sex acts (not just close friendships) in which Christina participated or admitted to herself, or admittedly pined for, let's source that more properly! If not, let's get a grip on ourselves with the labelling and cut down on it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about this topic and am coming here in response to a post at WP:LGBT.
If the source is presenting a fringe theory then the fringe information should be presented as such. Is it broadly believed that these are minority views? Has the Buckley book or this view been criticized as fringe?
The weight in the Wikipedia article should reflect the weight in reliable sources, of course. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The source is perfectly valid. Serge seems to believe that without physical evidence of a homosexual relationship, no such relationship existed. That is, of course, impossible given that we're talking about relationships from the 17th century. Serge knows full well that such a standard is impossible to meet, but he also knows that such a standard is well beyond that which is required by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. We don't analyse primary source evidence (of the sort demanded by Serge) anyway - that would be original research. We simply regurgitate what reliable sources have said about a thing. And in this instance, those sources say she was either a lesbian or bisexual. Some are more speculative that others, which is no surprise given they, too, don't have access to 350-year-old physical evidence. But the overwhelming consensus drawn from a combination of her contemporary sources and our contemporary sources is what is reflected in the article. St★lwart111 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That is not true, and what Blue Rasberry contributed to this discussion should be taken much more seriously. No serious expert on Christina such as Sven Stolpe or Royal Society of Literature member Georgina Masson or Åke Ohlmarks or Debrett's David Williamson or Ragnar Sjöberg or Lagerqvist & Åberg or Ragnar Svanström or Carl Fredrik Palmstierna or Nils Forssell or Jacob Truedson Demitz or even very recent feminist biographers such as Moa Matthis label Queen Christina a definite lesbian in such a way as has now been done by English Wikipedia, based on the opinionated findings and unsourced conjecture apparently (?) published by Buckley.
Furthermore, there isn't even enough detail given in the Buckley and Crompton sources for us to determine whether or not they have been cited accurately, and my requests for such detail keep getting arbitrarily reversed, most recently called "trolling" (only one of several personal attacks leveled against me in this infected mess). People have been writing about Christina for hundreds of years. Nothing new had been found in the last few decades that would warrant this definite label as worded now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Serge seems to have found a lot of biographers who have never discussed this aspect of this person's life. If those biographers have not mentioned this, but only a few have, then this might be a minor part of the person's biography and be overly weighted now. If there is a contemporary source which is respected by other researchers and it is giving a new perspective, then I think it deserves some weight in the article. What options exist for reconciling all the reliable sources? Are there multiple proposed versions of this article? Also, is there any complete challenge to the Buckley source to have it taken out entirely, or is the complaint that this source is just being overly weighted? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It's overly weighted, just as you so correctly perceive, and it also has not been cited in a way that makes it possoble for us to check if the citations are victims of personal POV interpretation (tendentious rewording) by WP editors, as I suspect (always glad to apologize if I end up wrong) or if they actually categorically label Christina as a lesbian, for the fist time in history. I will be addressing that problem (rather than having my citation requests removed over and over again arbitrarily and continuing to be called a troll), by starting a separate section here for each citation that needs better clarity. Later today. LOWP (Life Outside Wikipedia) need me right now for a few hours. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
PS Several of the biographers I mentioned, foremost among them Prof. Stolpe who was a great authority on this queen, have in fact addresssed her sexuality, in his case thoroughly. It has been suggested that she may have had lesbian interests, but never asserted that she in fact was a lesbian. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Serge, you're defining "fringe" as "outlandish to me personally", but its actual definition is "an outlier in the scholarly literature." I've presented you with a tiny fraction of the sources on her sexuality that are out there. You need to stop taking this so personally and respect the sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
What I need is less bombastic orders from you. What I also need is for you to stop being personal in each and every comment! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the standard practice is to credit those sorts of claims to individual authors and sources rather than have them in "Wikipedia's voice". But the article does basically do that now. The article doesn't call her a lesbian, it says, "most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian". There are two qualifiers there - "most" and "modern" - and at no point does the article say, "she was a lesbian" without qualifiers. Yes, you've listed a couple of biographers who either haven't addressed her sexuality or have disagreed with the mainstream. That's fine - that's why those qualifiers are there. It's not clear to me why Stolpe should be given any more weight than anyone else. There have been plenty of advances in terms of sexuality and gender studies since 1959 when his dissertation was published. So much so that we might not even include him in the qualifier "modern". He wasn't a historian of note, or a sociologist, or an expert in sexuality. He was a writer and literary scholar and while his views are worth including, his inexpert views on her sexuality aren't enough to dismiss the inexpert views of others. I would also point out that he was a 1940s convert to Catholicism and an adherent of the Oxford Group which necessarily raises questions about how clouded his judgement of such things might have been. Given that her sexual history almost certainly included at least one sexual relationship with a Cardinal (to which there are "eye-witness accounts" from her contemporaries) the willingness of a Catholic convert (who adheres to the "moral absolute" of "purity") to delve into her sordid past has to be questioned. St★lwart111 22:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry ! I'm truly sorry that your neutral attempt to help us here is being totally ignored by the others and getting no respect at all. I also apologize that I haven't had time yet to specify what is needed in source details, as I said I would last night. I will try to get to it this evening. When dealing with people whose personal views are strongly involved in a campaign to label someone this or that it's necessary to be very meticulous, and that's extraordinarily time consuming. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Noted passion"

The source given for Christina's "noted passion" having been Ebba Sparre is Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II, Psychology Press, page 292. On that page the only thing I can find that relates to this is "The passion of Kristina’s youth was a woman, Ebba Sparre…"

This is an example of what I mean by tendentious interpretation of a source text (not to mention original research). It's a considerable step to take from one author with a vested interest (for the sake of h book's subject) offering the opinion that a woman was another woman's "passion of her youth", to making that youthful passion "noted", which to me would have to mean that at least 2-3 more scholarly authors describe Sparre as Christina's "passion". The word "passion" is too strong to be bandied around that carelessly, based only on it's use by one single special-interest author, while several other experts (correctly) describe Christina's attitude toward Sparre as normal for her way of expressing herself about many people and for regular close friendship (whether lesbian or not) in those days. The wording, early in the article, sets the stage for a script (by Wikipedia!) skillfully crafted to convince the reader that Christina was a lesbian, but not for a balanced encyclopedic text.

I'm reinstating the cite tag there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, dozens of sources note this. It is disruptive to cite every single one simply because a tendentious user refuses to believe it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
So cite at least two more, rather than just calling me disruptive! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Christina...

Quick one - "youth bedmate" doesn't make any sense. Those two words together don't mean anything. I presume you mean "described by Christina as a 'bedmate' during her youth", which would be okay. Want to have another crack at that one? If you can, use the cite template (not critical, just helpful). Cheers, St★lwart111 06:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, edit-conflicted. I wasn't "deleting references" - I undid the edit. I'm not actually sure those are her words. That would seem to be a fictionalised or dramatised account of her life, written as an autobiography but sourced to texts written long after her death. Not sure we should be using those quotes as quotes. What else do we know about that source? St★lwart111 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
None of that sentence makes sense now because that section was inserted into the existing text. I think you'll need to re-write that bit. St★lwart111 06:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The source is from a university. It looks like an autobiography. I quoted it several times as it has useful information, including "bedmate". Unluckily it does not give much information about the original text. Taksen (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's an autobiography. I think it's a creative writing project; a fictional account. Otherwise, Christina was writing it and citing sources (for her own autobiography, which would be weird enough) that were created hundreds of years after she "wrote it" (even weirder). St★lwart111 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It can't be fictional, it has too many precise details, which I did use in the article.Taksen (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC) We have to find out more. Some quotes seems missing, I don't understand what they did.Taksen (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The style is unusual, but this "autobiography" is very good and has a lot of references to books, and articles. One of the more interesting is Martin Lowther Clarke, used by many authors writing on Christina. Taksen (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you genuinely believe it is an autobiography written by Christina herself? Why on earth would she (and how on earth could she) write an autobiography about herself in modern academic prose with citations that include modern texts written 350 years after she died? That's just illogical. If you genuinely believe it is an autobiography then that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. And a trip to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. St★lwart111 09:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no, this is not an autobiography, the website clearly indicates that it's a sample of an assignment to write a pretend autobiography of a historical figure for a class. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Where is clearly indicated that it .... I looked all over.Taksen (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The host site, which is the page of an undergraduate professor and links to this document as a sample of the "Write a diary, script, or a journal of a famous or a fictional woman" assignment in the syllabus. It is plainly not a proper source. "It cites reliable sources" is an argument for consulting those sources, not for using an undergraduate homework assignment as a major source in our article! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The article is written, definitely not by a student, in an usual style, but it is well sourced, and very useful. I will change it, but not now as I have to do some other things first. I could not find out who is Alexander Tangran, one of the authors in Women in World History, may be someone else can?; also M.L. Clarke wasn't easy to find, but he is cited in many books or articles.Taksen (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't you change it? You are the native speaker, I am not. According to the Oxford Dictionary a bedmate is someone who you share your bed with. It doesn't include a sexual relation. The source come from http://www.clarku.edu. According to you unreliable? I am surprised. It is usually something like: what I have never heard of, cannot be true. I understand we have a new policeman here, since Woodzing is keeping his mouth. Isn't all about ego's, isn't it?Taksen (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
What are you on about? You're inserting comments into the middle of discussions and simply aren't reading what others have written. Nobody is suggesting the educational institution isn't notable, just because one single text is something other that what you have claimed it is. You have a history of confused editing with significant amounts of original research in the mix. Your insistence on using a source that clearly isn't reliable (the text itself) is disruptive. St★lwart111 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And you (quite frustraingly) continue to ignore comments and questions from other editors, driving head with incomprehensible nonsense. Please address the concerns of other editors rather than blindly reverting and edit-warring. St★lwart111 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel we don't find a truth, but we produce a truth. He was right, isn't he?Taksen (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't a Wikipedia editor, that's for sure. St★lwart111 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT history cat

SergeWoodzing, I checked talk as you said, and I see a conversation from 2012 where you were the lone voice opposing any sort of LGBT category, claiming that there weren't any sources. But this is clearly incorrect, and other editors pointed it out to you at the time - sources are cited in the article and there are many more existing that are not cited. Moreover, the "history" category is frequently used when there isn't a consensus of historians as to the person's sexual orientation or gender identity but where contemporary perceptions of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity and/or the historical discussion of the issue is significant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not known whether Christina was a virgin queen, had one or more lovers, and, if so, whether they were male, female or both. There is enormous speculation; and speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, but we can note that many reliable sources have speculated and the direction in which they have speculated. I'm okay with anything that actually appears in a reliable source, rather than the thoughts of a WP editor. St★lwart111 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that speculate that she was an LGBT person of any (of those) kind(s), but plenty of academic sources that state she was/is not known as any such. - "contemporary perceptions of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity and/or the historical discussion of the issue is significant" ~ there are no such perceptions and no such significance except among very persistent gossip mongers who should not be encouraged by WP in any way, not even historically. Christina as an appropriate subject for LGBT studies LGBT history or is just a no go, except to such gossip mongers. This has been going on for years now. Why don't people just stop? Wanting someone to be homosexual doesn't make it so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I challenge anyone to show that there is a single reliable source for this article which can be cited to substantiate the alleged perception of her sexual orientation and significance of historical discussion of that issue purported above. Page number & wording of the source please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Serge, you need to look at the sources before you make these kinds of declarations. A tiny selection of sources: encyclopedia of lesbian histories and cultures, chapter on Christina's transgressive reputation in Spain of that period, several pages in biography on possible intersexuality, [1] on the relationship of her sexuality to her arts patronage as regards her reputation, [2] one of many sources regarding how she is portrayed on film, "Was Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors that view." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Mr Woodwizing is acting as a sort of policemen here, for years, even if he added very little or few facts. His main concern: keeping up Christina as a catholic icon, which is questionable also, as is the immaculate conception. There is little proof. May be the reason for his stubbornness? I assume he dislikes LGBT´s. (Luckely the present pope is more tolerant.) Taksen (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks of that kind aren't contributing anything of value to this article. (Your assumption is wrong and very insulting. Your accusation about my "main concern" is ridiculous and couldn't be more inaccurate.) What I (always) want to see is specifics quoted from the cited sources, specifically supporting the existence of controversial speculations worth mentioning (of any kind, on any subject) in a WP biography. So, where are the page numbers and quoted wordings from the sources under this article? That's what we need to see, and if we do, I'll gladly give up my position, because then these allegations will be reliably sourced. Only then. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Serge, I gave you links to the specific pages in these books, and even one quotation noting that this is a consensus view of biographers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
My objection concerns sources now cited under this article, nothing else, and the lack of reliable such to support therse allegations or the existence of speculation worth mentioning about them. Your introducing more and more new stuff, without relating them to my objection at all, is not helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so perhaps you could add some of these new sources to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth don't you, rather than reverting the work I did on specifying for you and others what needs to be sourced with page numbers and text quotes?!?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You added frivolous tags for stuff that literally already had inline citations. I think the existing citations are fine, but you don't, so I've provided more for you. Since you're the one who doesn't think what's already there is enough, you could add the citations that I've done you the favor of finding. Please stop editing disruptively - I have no idea what you think you're accomplishing here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing frivolous about pointing out exactly where specific sources quotes are needed. I'm not interested in labelling Christina a lesbian, only because academic experts like Sven Stolpe clearly have stated she was not. If you are interested in labelling her a lesbian, get to work on refuting him and all the other academics sources that do not agree with your POV! Specifics, please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if only to end this idiotic game of chicken... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

More personal slurs won't help us here. It is customary in WP work, I believe, that if someone questions certian source citations and wants to see more specifics, such as page numbers and text quotes, that is done, not objected to, resisted, reverted and refused. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There. I'm sure this is only the beginning and you'll shortly add citation/quotation requests for things like "she wrote love letters to people whose writing she admired", too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
How about we just stick to the subject here, and scrap the sacastic comments about me?
Here "Most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime.<ref name="crompton">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TfBYd9xVaXcC&pg=PA357 |first=Louis |last=Crompton |title=Homosexuality and Civilization |year=2009 |publisher=Harvard University Press}}</ref>" you have now made English Wikipedia the first encyclopaedia in the world to definititely label Christina a lesbian, but without a single page number or text quote as requested. Consequently the source is insufficiently quoted for such drastic labelling, and I will be removing that unless you improve the reference. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
There is literally a page number. This is tedious and disruptive, Serge, and you should stop now; it seems like you're trolling rather than trying to improve the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The statement "Most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian" should not be freely inserted into the text, as it is now, unless there are, in fact, refs other than Crompton that can be cited in support of this assertion. Right now, the text as it is shown is lifted word by word from Crompton and there is no support for the Crompton assertion other than the Crompton ref itself! This is untenable and needs be corrected. XavierItzm (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please consult the very small selection of sources above, which offer support for various LGBT interpretations, including lesbianism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
several pages looks like it supports your contention. Why, then is not cited as a ref for, at least, "several modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian"? XavierItzm (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most modern biographers believe that she was a lesbian;
her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime."

The only source given for this catgorization of Christina as a lesbian, i.e. believed to be such, and for her "affairs" with women is Crompton, Louis (2009), Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University Press. No page number mentioned in the source cite. When following the link to check the source, we find page 357 of that book, and on that page only this relating to the sentence in question: "Was Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors the view."

This is another example of what I mean by tendentious interpretation of a source text, equalling original research, as well as a falsification.

There is not a word on that page about any "affairs with women".

I do not believe it is accurate for Wikipedia to describe one single author's cited allegation that consensus of modern authors favor a view as "Most modern biographers believe". The diffence may seem slight, but to me the tendency is clear; the intention of the WP user who carefully worded that is to convince our readers that Christina was a lesbian, not that (as is a fact) that we don't know that, but she may have had lesbian interests.

Professor Stolpe, whose unbiased accuracy has never been questioned by any serious, objective critics, writes on page 74 of one of the most authoritative and respected biographies of Christina (1974) this: "There doesn't seem to be any truth to the opinion given in many popular renditions - such as Princess Lucien Marat's scandalous and tacky La vie amoureuse de Christine de Suède, le reine androgyne - that the queen actually was a woman lover, who had an instinctive aversion toward the man, as such. Christina's relationship to her fellow women is certainly a problem - it's obvious that she felt strongly drawn to beautiful women - but there is nothing that suggests that she went any further in that, than to a certain infatuation, an aesthetic admiration, and certain sentimental emotional involvements, in themselves not extraordinary for a young woman with the unconventional upbringing she had. Christina loved men, was attracted to men, spoke openly of her lust for men." Compared to what our WP text now has, we are at a serious loss for balance, and I find the assertion that more modern techniques in analysing a woman who died in 1689, as if she were a credible psychiatry patient today, nothing less than a bizarre notion out of the Wishful Thinking Department.

Moa Matthis's much admired feminist biography of Christina's mother (2010), the first ever, where Queen Mary Eleanor's only child Christina as a person is covered thoroughly, makes no claim, allegation, inference or mention whatsoever of Christina as a lesbian, a believed lesbian or even a possible lesbian. Those notions are archaic, the opposite of being modern as an opponent of mine on this page has claimed.

I am reinstating the cite tags re: "Most modern biographers believe" and "her afairs with women were noted during her lifetime" because the wording is too slanted to be appropriate in a WP bio. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording has been adjusted by another editor and is now satisfactory, in my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Crompton spends several pages on this subject. Once again: it's necessary to read the sources and acknowledge WP:RS, rather than decreeing that no source which doesn't agree with your own personal view can ever be reliable and/or formatted properly. (Others have already pointed out the weakness in Stolpe's source, viz. that he has no credentials and no background whatsoever in the topic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Woodzing, when are you going to add something substantial, improve the article? The balance is gone. Taksen (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • So your complaint, Serge, is that the article employs an almost-word-for-word quote from a reliable source which drew a conclusion you disagree with? Again, you're entitled to your opinion but in this instance (and in every other instance here at WP) your opinion carries zero weight compared to those of authors like Crompton. In his opinion, the consensus is that she was. Our article reflected that. If you disagree with the opinion of reliable sources, you find sources to counter those opinions. You don't outline your opinion and call the use of an almost-word-for-word quote "original research". It isn't and you know it isn't. Honestly Serge, you've been trying this on since 2012, first edit-warring and side-tracking talk page discussions to remove LGBT categories from the article, and now mindlessly making the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for removing well-sourced almost-quotes. We all have a pretty comprehensive understanding of your view of homosexuality and your distaste for sources that don't align with your personal view of the world. You need to drop the stick, mate - the horse is dead. St★lwart111 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And the quote you provided confirms just how weak your argument is. Even Stolpe (who I would argue nobody has bothered to contradict, rather than deferring to his unquestionable expertise) agrees that Christina's alleged lesbianism is the subject of, "many popular renditions". He doesn't agree she was, and that's fine, but even he acknowledges that it is the mainstream, popular view. But when Crompton suggests the same, he's suddenly an unreliable source because the conclusion he drew (the "popular" conclusion) is different to Stolpe? Nonsense. St★lwart111 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should a cited source include what the article has where the citation appears in its text?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to support what appears to be a generalised conclusion from a single source. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Facts:

  1. The information (main section heading above) is not found on the only page referred to in the source citation.
  2. :The discussion as it looks today claims that it is.
  3. The discussion is severely infected and personal slurs are more and more rampant.
  4. The cite tags keep getting removed and the sentence restored with no action whatsoever taken on fixing the citation.
  5. We need neutral editors to help us here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Legobot brought me to this discussion. From what I can tell of the discussion, the source in question is Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization. In this source, "Most modern biographers believe that she was a lesbian" is very clearly supported by the source on page 357. it does state that she courted women in another source in the article, Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II. I can't find a source that refers to her interactions with women as as "affairs", but except for perhaps that one specific word the sources already in the article do support the content, as far as I can see. - Aoidh (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Crompton uses "attachment" for Christina's relationship with Sparre (which he discusses on subsequent pages, including noting that it and the queen's sexuality generally were remarked upon by people of her own time) - how does that term sound to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't weigh in on this; I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, and although I am a historian, Christina isn't in the period I know most about. Clearly, however, a source citation should include a page number, which that in the article doesn't. If, as Aoidh says, it's on p. 357 of Crompton, the note should say so. Incidentally, I notice the article still contains a quotation from Christina's "autobiography," without a note giving the source. I gather from the discussion in "talk" that the "autobiography" is purely fictitious; if so, the reference to it should be removed. Wallace McDonald (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, this isn't an RFC - it's a summary from an editor with a particular POV and a demand that others agree to his POV. Not even close to neutral and should probably just be closed as such. St★lwart111 04:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it comes from an author who changed at least half of the article here in the past six years. From being an almost childish article it is now full with information nobody else was able to add. I added portraits by Dutch painters and other pictures. If you see a Dutch, German, French or Spanish name it probably comes from me. If there is a link to a geographical location, an Italian composer, musician or palace, the same. I rewrote the lead, changed references into footnotes recently.. Taksen (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) By the way I was the one who changed agree in believe. Roscelese can confirm.Taksen (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Say what? The RFC was started by Serge, not you. I've only ever wished that you would be more careful. You've made some great contributions to the article, but you've also had some shockers because you rush into things excitedly and (in your own words) aren't interested in "the rules". That can be very frustrating (and you know that, and I've said as much) but only once or twice has your excitable nature progressed to something disruptive. You've been open about your sexuality and your interest in adding interesting things to the article. Both explain your editing. Serge is just POV pushing and this RFC is nonsense. St★lwart111 08:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We have an "expert" now that did not read this Script? This article with at least ten sources on each page is quite amazing; it contains precise details, I had never seen before. Taksen (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • In my point of view British and US Wikipedians have a poor knowledge of continental history. (They hardly know where Copenhagen is on the map.) They speak or read no foreign languages and are not able to check outlandish sources. There is plenty to do for a Wikipedian that understands Dutch, German, and French.Taksen (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Err, you may want to revisit your "point of view" or at least keep it to yourself, to go ahead and classify two entire countries worth of editors as having poor knowledge of geography and world history is a pretty bold statement, and broad generalization. You literally just said every American and British editor on the ENTIRETY of Wikipedia couldn't point out Copenhagen on a map... Not to mention it has absolutely no relevance to this RfC. Please base your opinions on the work of individual editors, not your skewed world view (which is ironic since it's exactly what your accusing others of). -War wizard90 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am cordially asking neutral editors to continue addressing the issues of this Rfc and to try to overlook (1) all the personal slurs and (2) the inappropriate constant bickering of two non-neutral editors which practically hijacks the whole page. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that you've breached policy by failing to provide a neutrally worded question for your RFC is not a "personal slur". St★lwart111 21:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Your concescending tone, sarcasm and personalized unfriendliness toward others is so obvious on this page that I'm surprised (or am I?) that you have the audacity to object. Please stick to subject and lay off all this WP:Unacceptable and WP:Inappropriate behavior which serves no purpose at all but to create a very unpleasant working environment. Please stop it!!! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no "sarcasm" and while some have been frustrated, there's no "unfriendliness" either - you're pushing a particular POV and are using this obviously invalid RFC as a means to continue edit-warring in the article. Nor do I "object" - it simply isn't a valid RFC and as a result, there have been few (like, zero) formal oppose or support contributions. You've made no attempt to listen to others and you have an obvious agenda, one you have made little attempt to conceal. Those few editors brave enough to venture a comment at your non-neutral RFC have disagreed with your POV anyway. So your consensus-of-one is a pointless exercise. St★lwart111 08:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers have now been added to the citation, also now adding pages 358, 359 and 360 (besides the linked 357) to what we are supposed to believe is relevant to the citation, but those pages are not available for verification. I do not believe there is any confirmation there that Christina had "affairs" with women that were reliably noted in her lifetime. I do not believe either that it is fair to say that what's on page 357 clearly substantiates such a definite statement as "Most modern biographers agree she was a lesbian". That would be an inappropriate exaggeration of what's on the page: "The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors the view". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree with Roscelese/Stalwart111 that this RfC looks more like one side of a dispute resolution statement rather than a neutrally presented RfC. It also is unclear in presenting it as a fact list. The best way to attract opinions of uninvolved, neutral editors is to very briefly summarize both sides of the dispute and reduce it to a simple question. We can find the details of those arguments, but it's helpful to have a starting place. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope I have now added an acceptable tag "{{verify source}}" (as per User:Rhododendrites's constructive edit summary suggestion), and I apologize for using the wrong one several times before. I'm not very good at this, and any constructive help is much appreciated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Serge, there's no rule where you can open more and more threads on the same issue and as long as one remains open, no one can undo your changes. The source is accessible and verified. Your decision not to believe it is your own business. I invite you to remove the frivolous tag yourself as a show of good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your personal campaign and accusations against me!
The source's wording is not accessible in regard to the whole sentence and thus cannot be verified yet. Nowhere can we read anything to substantiate your allegation that Christina actually had "affairs with women" which were noted during her lifetime.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The source is accessible to me and presumably to other people. I'm not going to type up four pages of it for you; that would be a big violation of copyright and also a waste of my time because every time I've done the work of finding and citing sources you have found new reasons to add frivolous tags. Sometimes sources will diverge from your personal worldview. It happens to everyone, but at Wikipedia, sources rule. Back down, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Serge, you're already at ANI where more than one neutral editor has suggested that the issues here are of your own making and at least one neutral editor has suggested WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against you. Given you continue to disruptively edit-war to add tendentious tags to that section of the article (while consensus even in your invalid RFC is clearly against you), I've suggested you be topic-banned from this article and related articles. St★lwart111 22:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed generalisation statement until additional RS are brought in support of it. So far, the only RS for the statement "Most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian", is the RS itself, namely, Crompton. Such an extraordinary generalisation requires at least a modicum of RS support. Without additional RS, the statement should be qualified to something along the lines of "some modern biographers have concluded she was a lesbian". XavierItzm (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bedmate

From her "autobiography" I quoted the following sentence. "My sexuality is often questioned; I have a longtime bedmate of Ebba Sparre. Although bedmates are common at this time due to our cold climate, Ebba and I share a long time intimate companionship.16 We exchange much correspondence with each other and it is apparent that I have great affection for her. Ebba marries but I never will.17 I was engaged to my cousin Charles but backed out of the union"

Someone from Lapland told me recently it is possible in this cold area to marry at the age of sixteen. In most other European countries the age is eighteen? This guy told me it is mainly because of the long, cold nights that they are allowed by the Finnish government to marry early. It explains why Christina slept with Ebba in the same bed. The castle was cold, the bed warm.Taksen (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Her relationship with Barre has to be explained and this is the best, very convincing.Taksen (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Descartes should have looked for a bedmate also. It would have helped to survive a fairly mild Swedish winter.Taksen (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a few things missing here:
1. The relationship doesn't have to be explained and the situation won't be helped by explaining it using questionable sources.
2. The source is most definitely questionable. It almost certainly isn't her autobiography - it has citations which include texts written hundreds of years after she would have written it. And an autobiography with citations to external sources seems illogical anyway - why would Christina in the 17th century need to cite Stolpe writing about her in the 20th century, for example? And how could she possibly do so?
3. You're confusing modern laws relating to age of consent and permission to marry with what would have been in place during the 17th century, when girls were married as young as 12. And we have directly relevant evidence from one of Christina's contemporaries, living in Europe during the 17th century that she would have had personal contact with.
4. "This guy told me" isn't a reliable source.
I'm removing that problematic claim until we can verify it. St★lwart111 08:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You make the same mistake as Woodzing, if you don't like it, it can be removed immediately? It is a very good explanation! Then you could remove all the references from that source, which would be stupid. You did not, so some explanations you like and others that don't suite, should go out? I will not forgive you; it would be going backward. It is a satisfactory and elegant explanation.Taksen (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Even if the source is a bit problematic, but I will find, as usual.Taksen (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No, you have a WP:BURDEN to ensure that material you add is properly verified. You can't simply add unverified claims or claims with terrible sources (which this one clearly is) and then edit-war to keep it there on the basis that you like it. Unverified claims can be removed and should. Your bold claim has been reverted and now it is being discussed. That's the WP:BRD process. It goes until it is verified, rather than that is stays until it is verified. It is not an "elegant explanation" at all, it's original research and its original research with absolutely no basis in logic or fact. Sorry Taksen but you did the same with photos of another noblewoman and with suggestions she was intersexed and with your suggestion she be referred to as "King" Christina. You really need to think about what you're adding before adding it. The BRD process is quite clear and I'll be removing that unverified claim again. Reinstating it will result in a report at the 3RR noticeboard. St★lwart111 09:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Stalwart, it comes from a university, don't be foolish. I changed what is true. Again, is it about who is the boss? Taksen (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The author knows more about the subject than you. You did not change in the article what was wrong (about her names), about bed mates. Taksen (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC). It is obvious the author, who ever it is, has more knowledge about Christina than you.13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would hope so, but you still haven't addressed the actual issue - whether or not it is a reliable source for the purposes of verifying the claims you have made. St★lwart111 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Foolish? What are you on about? As pointed out, it's a fictional sample written by a university lecturer. It's not an academic text. It is published in the personal space of a lecturer and isn't an official publication from the university. Even if it was, it would still be fiction and not a reliable source for confirming historical facts... because none of what is written there is historical fact. Are you seriously struggling to understand the context? St★lwart111 13:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Taksen - your contribution is nonsensical. People sharing beds because it was cold, according to a friend from Lapland. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your contribution is a bit late. Again: "Although bedmates are common at this time due to our cold climate, Ebba and I share a long time intimate companionship." I am happy to see that there very few people who add facts here. Taksen (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Asexuality

User:Taksen, I'm confused about why you commented this out. The source could be better (eg. [3], but your edit summary didn't indicate that this was a problem, rather showing confusion with the concept of asexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think this section is still in a process. May be it needs a tag "under construction". I don't think there is an absolute truth; it depends on who is looking at it, besides when and where. The different views on Christina's sexuality should be reflected here as best as we can; to me that seems a neutral point of view. It seems to me you agree that she wasn't asexual - a favorite topic on the English Wikipedia - as she wrote with passion to Sparre and Azzolino. By the way Azzolino destroyed all of her letters, many with encrypted passages, but some Christina sent to him from Hamburg around 1667 survived (as I learned this morning). Taksen (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to reflect what reliable sources write about her, not decide which is the best version. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
They all describe a bit of the truth. Again according to Schlegel: "Wahrheit ist die Indifferenz [...] zweier sich entgegengesetzter Irrthumer." (Truth is the indifference [...] between two opposing views".Taksen (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Your translation contains a little mistake. "Irrthumer" (i.e. "Irrtümer" in modern spelling) means "error". So the sentence says really: "Truth is the indifference between two opposing mistaken views." (That means "truth" is what remains after you cut all the info contained in only one of the statements.) Kraxler (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
True, but we don't publish the "truth" - we regurgitate what reliable sources say. Azzolino would have destroyed a lot of correspondence relating to the Squadrone Volante too. St★lwart111 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Queen regnant

In the second paragraph in the section Queen regnant we read a list of languages that Christina had learned. One of them is given as "Arab". Since the language is "Arabic", not "Arab", I'd like to change this, but if the source says "Arab", I suppose it has to stay that way. Can someone check the source and see what is there? CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that the source says "Arab". Apparently the writer of this section misspelled the word, a common mistake made by foreigners whose maternal language is not English. I corrected it. Kraxler (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: RFC result

Changes have been implemented as a result of the RFC; instead of "Most modern biographers", the possibly questionable text, we have "She is thought to have been..." Multiple sources are cited now, so the single-source question is moot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are against consensus. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not true; the RFC concluded (and, as I said, I think it's a poor close and if it were relevant, I'd ping the closer and ask for a re-close; pretty much everyone in the conversation just pointed out that the RFC was invalid because of your disruption, rather than stating a preference for text, and those people who did comment on content said that it seemed supported and possibly only needed some rewording) that "a generalised conclusion from a single source" was what couldn't be included, and that's not what's present; there's a conclusion from a number of sources, and the "most modern biographers" statement from Crompton has been removed. Throughout this entire process, you've been totally unwilling to respect reliable sources or Wikipedia process, so please don't pretend now that you care what the RFC result was. Just undo your disruptive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese's edit is entirely in line with consensus and entirely in line with the RFC close which called for the removal of generalisations. That your RFC was disruptive and badly worded, resulting in a bad close, is not his fault. Again, Serge, your edit-warring to make a WP:POINT is childish and disruptive. St★lwart111 22:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the edit greatly improves sourcing so is valid and is not covered by the RfC which was based no specific wording and a specific source. Second, the best solution is probably to open an RfC on how, specifically, to cover her sexuality, with two or three options people can rank. A more open question may establish a more meaningful consensus. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I must continue to object to the incessant personal attacks leveled against me here. The appalling climate thus created is not conducive to constructive work, and it makes me sick to even try, whether I'm right or wrong about this aspect of the article, or a combination of both. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Any particular characterisation of your actions you object to? Demonstrate that your actions weren't thus and they won't be described thus. The objection (as has always been the case) is to your attitude and actions. If you're not disruptive, people will have no cause to describe you that way. St★lwart111 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I must continue to object to the incessant personal attacks leveled against me here. The appalling climate thus created is not conducive to constructive work, and it makes me sick to even try, whether I'm right or wrong about this aspect of the article, or a combination of both. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, stand by my characterisations of your disruptive conduct, edit-warring and tendentious editing to make a point. Those are not "personal attacks" by any stretch of the imagination. St★lwart111 00:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I must continue to object to the incessant personal attacks leveled against me here. The appalling climate thus created is not conducive to constructive work, and it makes me sick to even try, whether I'm right or wrong about this aspect of the article, or a combination of both. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm . St★lwart111 21:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I will contunue to object to that type of insulting ridicule and bullying as long as it continues, because I do not deserve it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Serge, what exactly are you hoping to achieve here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The cessation of those attacks and insults. Nothing less, nothing more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Known affairs with women"

I asked for a source here, which we still don't have inspite of all the discussion above, but that was reversed within seconds, without any discussion at all. Reverting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Serge, you need to drop this campaign of yours. You're claiming an RFC consensus for your edits that simply wasn't what happened. Stop your disruptive editing and recognize that you must adhere to policy: gain consensus for your changes and respect reliable sources, rather than imposing your own personal beliefs on the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
There has been plenty of discussion but if you want more, that happens before you make changes. You don't get to make unilateral changes against consensus and demand that others discuss them with you before reverting your edit-warring. The fact that you refuse to accept broad consensus and have continued your campaign of disruption doesn't change that consensus. St★lwart111 01:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The wording "She is thought to have been" is a weasely use of the passive vopice which might be acceptable if this were a general consensus. But it does not appear to be a general consensus in the literature, and hence this wording is impossible. it probably requires both attribution and mention of alternative views. The wording "most modern biographers believe/argue/consider" is much better.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that that wording is improving. This section however deals with sourcing "known affairs with women". For that, I see plenty of demands from 2 editors that I stop asking for that source, and POV interpretations of a source by those 2 editors, but I don't see any source. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to respect WP:RS, Serge. You can't ignore the cited sources just because they say things that you don't like. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking for additional, neutral input.

WP:Verifiability requires "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's the only issue here. Why isn't that easy to solve, if that direct support actually exists? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

unpublished undergrad homework

Who told you it is an unpublished undergrad homework? Who is Tangram anyhow? I wasn't able to find anything serious on him or her. Besides you never added any historical facts, mainly speculations, but my explanation had to be removed, because it does not fit? The article on Christina was full with mistakes, but you did not care or did not notice them. Don't tell me I am the fool here. Why was the article read 6.000 times a week ago? Does anybody know? Taksen (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC) You are certainly not the only one who can decide here. Let other people at least have a chance to take a look at it. If I remember well there are more sources that use "bed-mate", Tangram was not the only one.Taksen (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • This is not Tangram, it is unpublished undegraduate homework that cites Tangram. If you want to cite a fact from Tangram you will have to find the actual Tangram source instead of citing it indirectly through an unreliable source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What Maunus said. If you want to cite the encyclopedia of women in world history, actually find it and cite what it says - don't insert this student's editorial commentary and cite it to the encyclopedia in an attempt to undermine a cited scholarly source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Dr Anita L. Fisher is author of the article as she wrote me, not some undergraduate as you speculated. She is retired I guess, but was teaching Women in World History. The article is not "unreliable"; it is well sourced. It has a quite few facts, Mr Maunus, nobody else was able to find! Secondly the template said that the sentence or the word "bed-fellow" needed an explanation, so I did. I was not citing but explaining and added a source. Thirdly, may be you don't remember, but asked for a copy of the Tangram article in Woman in World History, as it is not available in Europe. (Is it a typical American source?) What happened next looks very strange to me, but striking for Wikipedia since many years. Mrs Roscelese deleted the explanation and nobody protested. Most authors here were/are lazy. They prefer to delete; adding is more complicated, more work, you can get attacked.Taksen (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) There is an article on the Amaranten order now. Cheers, Taksen (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly an example of undergraduate homework, even if written by a PhD which the document itself does not claim to have been and for which we will of course not take your word. It is not in anyway a reliable source and you have been misrepresenting it. If you were not yourself lazy or if you were competent you would have found a better source instead of belabor a point in which you are obviously wrong.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
We've been over this. It's an undergraduate homework presented as an example for other undergrads. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this the same Dr Anita L. Fisher who teaches at Clark College - a community college located in Washington state? I think we're being generous by even describing it as "undergraduate homework" frankly.... Yes, it gets so cold in Sweden - whenever I visit Stockholm I have to arrange myself to find a bed-mate. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Christina, Queen of Sweden???"

Much like King Jadwiga of Poland, was she not (rather infamously, I might add) "King Christina of Sweden?" I've created a re-direct but, I think a discussion as to a change of page name is warranted.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine. She was "king" only at her coronation. In fact, her own coins named her regina. Same with Maria Theresa. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha! Thanks.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cn

It is clear you are not historically skilled. What is unknown to you, cannot be true? I hope you will make an effort on the article, and improve it. But, I really think you should stick to the medical side, that is your expertise, is not it? Taksen (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:VERIFY. CFCF 💌 📧 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of information in the article, there are plenty of references compare to 3 million other articles. There is no discussion about down-rating this article? What you do is mean and uncivil. If you have problems with some sentences, information, improve it. That is the idea about Wikipedia! I am not going to spend much time on your questions. If you want citations, you have to do it yourself. I know already what happened.Taksen (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scientific magazine, but read mostly by schoolkids. You are exaggerating. Taksen (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments retacted:WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTFORUM. CFCF 💌 📧 13:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Could the use of the term physiognomy offer a compromise? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think gender sums it up pretty adequately. One alternative is to link to gender. Physiognomy is unlikely to be understood by the majority of readers. CFCF 💌 📧 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christina, Queen of Sweden. 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) 22:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Speech of 1689

Well, I just got reverted for the most ignorant of reasons: "Are you serious? Since when are homosexual women either males or hermaphrodites? This is the most bewildering sentence I've read on Wikipedia!". The word homosexual was invented in 1869 and the world lesbian "is a 20th-century construct". Go ahead, look it up at the top of those two words' entries on... wait for it... Wikipedia. Evidently Christina could not ever have asserted her sexuality and sexual identity using those words. She used the words of her time. Hence her statement, ""neither Male nor Hermaphrodite, as some People in the World have pass'd me for"". What do they teach in the history and English departments these days, anyway? XavierItzm (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And when did the word heterosexual come to be? Did Christina declare herself "heterosexual"? Look it up. Meanwhile, Wikipedia should not equate female heterosexuality with being "neither male or hermaphrodite", or rather female homosexuality with either "being male or hermaphrodite". It is absolutely appalling. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: you do realize that people actually speculated that she was male or hermaphrodite? There is no reason to wildly speculate that in responding to those claims abut her body, she was also denying any romantic or sexual interest in women. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: The phrase is not the result of a consensus; she used the words of her time. Xavier was right to revert Surtsicna's action.Taksen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on the art collection

Her highly important art collection receives barely a mention. Really, it is for this that she is probably best known today outside Sweden. The "B" rating is very questionable while this gap remains. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, do you suggest we create a new section for "Patronage"? Or we could expand and rename the section: "Visit from scholars, musicians and Descartes" Carl Fredrik talk 16:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Many many monarchs and other prominent people have had very vauable art collections. I oppose the idea that images of artwork from her collections belong in this article, because that would open up the same idea for execution in hundreds of other biographies. My constructive suggestion is that you create an article about her collection, if you can source the collection's outstanding importance properly. In the meantime, I will remove that nude again, not out of disrespect for Christina's art collection, but because it's pretty obvious that its placement, not under Queen Christina's Art collection but under "Gender ambiguity and sexuality", is to promote allegations about her lesbianism, which are only that: allegations, and thus do not need to be illustrated with any kind of female nude, from her collection or anyone else's. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Serge, but not with his prudishness; he is creating problems on this subject for many years.Taksen (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC) The title of this section is exaggerated. When Johnbod finished this new article we can see how big it is. The proof is in the pudding.Taksen (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Questa è un’opera importante su Cristina. Bernini, pur così legato alla regina, “stranamente” non la ritrasse mai, compito cui attese l’allievo forse preferito dello scultore, Giulio Cartari… la segnalo per una eventuale aggiunta a questa voce così ben scritta (This is an important work on Cristina. Bernini, though so close to the queen, "strangely" never make a portrait of her, a task executed by the sculptor's favorite pupil, Giulio Cartari. I indicate it for an possible addition to this well-written article) --Never covered (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
After her abdication, effectively Christina's main activity was collecting. I think the collection should have its own section. There is no shortage of sources. It is perfectly common for there to be images of art in biographies of people for whom collecting was a major activity, and there should indeed be more. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, sorry, after her abdication, her main activity when continually in Rome was as a major cultural entrepreneur and producer of entertainment. That is not to say that her art collecting is not worth a well sourced section. --SergeWoodzing(talk) 12:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I like the description "major cultural entrepreneur," but after her abdication she was also deeply involved in the European religious wars and religious conflicts of the 17th century. She was actually at the epicenter of the religious and messianic turmoil of the period. warshy (¥¥) 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
PS Lots of good work recently. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the Queen's art collection section should be created and expanded, and I agree that this impressive sculpture of her by Bernini should definitely be added to the article ASAP. warshy (¥¥) 18:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christina, Queen of Sweden. 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) 12:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christina, Queen of Sweden. 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) 10:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Overillustration

There is a recurring tendency to over-illustrate this article, with images of persons and things that are only peripherally relevant to her life story. Particularly, long irrelevant captions have been added which are inappropriate. I've removed some of it lately. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • You were right with the captions. Too much text and unprecise. There isn't much wrong with the number of illustrations, but I made several changes. Some sections were overcrowded and some empty. Some were boring or ugly. Most of all the article should look nice, and not just text. Many articles on Wikipedia look bad because of lack of sense of lay out. This one does not. Taksen (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You yourself started to complain about the number of pictures. What is sure the Roman Catholic church used her name for propaganda reasons. The plaquette looks like a pretty good example. She was friendly with one of the most famous sculptors Bernini. She liked art; the plaquette is not such a good example. I wish there were more pictures available about her art collection. Secondly, I am not so sure Christina believed in story of the Virgin Mary. She refused to wear that name. One pope called her a woman without faith. He also called her a woman without shame. I don't think she walked around like a catholic nun. Thirdly, I think it is ok to change the lay out every now and then. As you can see we found some weak points.Taksen (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Grand Duchess of Finland

We do not know much about the use of this title, but when you look at the UK or Spain, one is first Prince of Wales or Prince of Asturias and than king. The main reason I added this title is because of style. The article should start with a good or at least interesting opening sentence.Taksen (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday I only checked the lead, but I would not be surprised more nonsense slipped in the other sections, in the past. As this article is well visited, it should be a good example of a biography on Wikipedia.Taksen (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see how adding a virtually-comparatively unknown title immediately after her name, before the primary fact that she was reigning Queen of Sweden and it's vast empire at the time, is an improvement. Thus, it's not credible, I think, to blame a reversal like this one on the opinion that an opening sentence was "boring". If the first sentence needs sprucing up, add the fact, immediately after her name, that she for all intents and purposes was Empress of the Swedish Empire, but don't leave the obscure Finnish title where it is now. I'll be moving it again, unless anyone else objects. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Swedish Empire is a good suggestion, but he was not an emperor and she was not an empress. I need some time to read that article and think of a solution. Anyhow, we really should try to improve the first sentence with some more relevant information. I suppose many people would only read the lead. (Unfortunately Wikipedia does not give us any details how long people stay on a page and if they read the whole article.)
I wrote "for all intents and purposes" and that's what I meant, not that she actually had that title. Who's "he"? And wrote this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Not that I can claim any particular expertise on this topic, but I agree with SergeWoodzing: "Queen of Sweden" is the salient fact for the first sentence of the lede. If really necessary her full style and various titles can be given in a footnote. In either case, the lede should contain nothing that is not also covered in more depth in the body; which would be the appropriate place to discuss details of her titles.
Incidentally, giving both old style and new style dates in the lede is both redundant and confusing. I suggest pick one, and explain as necessary. I would suggest a new style date, and only if needed in the body add the old style date. --Xover (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion is good. The dates are confusing; it needs attention. The link to queen regnant in the first sentence was deleted, which was already more informative; a long time ago all her titles where in the lead, but they were removed too. What is left is a very short sentence that does not impress at all. Then I look around for another detail, but you and Sergei don't like it. In my point of view the first sentence should be attractive one. Secondly, I tried to move the note with the all her titles to another section but when I removed redundant details from the note it became a mess. I need some more time; Rome was not built in a day either. Thanks.Taksen (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree that "Grand Duchess of Finland" is not relevant for the lede. Also, if her full list of titles should be somehow mentioned, it should be after the fact that she was Queen. The title of Grand Duchess was not a title used for the heir presumptive like "Prince of Wales", so that comparison is incorrect.
As for the calendar, I could see several different lines of reasoning: 1. Use old style, since that was what was used in Sweden. 2. Use new style, since she lived for the majority of her life in countries which had adopted it 3. Use old style for birth, new style for death. 4. Give both. I'd like to note that the latter system is used for the birth date of George II of Great Britain, which is a featured article, so it is perhaps best practice.
Andejons (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried this on the talk page of the main editor here: "Thank you for the good work you do, especialy on this article (Christina of Sweden) lately! I must say, however, that your personal opinion about what you find " boring" has had a bit too much influence. Please consider what is enclopedically relevant before any such personal opinions of ours, yours, mine or anybody elses. Adding pictures of gorgeous ladies, who barely knew Christina, and removing rare photographs such as that of the sarcophagus, are not constructive changes, I think. Nor is adding a title that hardly anyone has ever heard of, immediately after her name at the top, as if that were the most important fact about her. I'll rather see a bit of boring-but-vital than too much construed-and-fun." ~ but it was rejected on that talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

PS the top of the lead is much better now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Relevant images

We do not need 2 images of medallions by Sebastian Dadler (de:Sebastian Dadler) in this article. For the "Legacy" section I cannot think of a better picture than Christina's remarkable image (still today!) on a wall of Stockholm Palace. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Erfurt (German States) 1645 10 Ducat (Portugaloser).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 13 February 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-02-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Diana and Endymion
Diana and Endymion is an oil-on-canvas painting by Francesco Solimena, produced between 1705 and 1710. The painting depicts the Roman goddess Diana, one of the twelve Gods and Goddesses of Olympus, falling in love with Endymion, a symbol of timeless beauty. Diana and Endymion is part of the last period of Solimena's works when he mainly concentrated on mythological subjects. He developed this interest in mythological stories while inspired by the Arcadian movement embracing classical culture. The painting is in the collection of the National Museums Liverpool.Painting: Francesco Solimena
Archive – More featured pictures...

17th century in LGBT history category

Restored as obviously relevant per article text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

"In 1638, after the death of Catherine the (royal?) council appointed two foster mothers for the queen..." obviously refers to ruling regency council from above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluespapa (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead bolding & linking

Asking more users to comment on this reversal. For reader clarity it is my opinion that

  1. Queen of Sweden should be bolded in the lead as it is in the article's title;
  2. the fact that she was Queen in her own right should be made maximally clear, and the word "reigned" is not sufficient for that to be clear to the average reader.

Cpmments? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bolding the position she held would be highly unusual and contrary to WP:BOLDFACE. Comparable cases include Anne, Queen of Great Britain and John, King of England. The term "Queen of Sweden", when it first appears in the article, should be a blue link to the article about the Swedish monarchy or the list of Swedish monarchs. That link is helpful, lest I say essential; boldface is not. I don't think "in her own right" makes her position any clearer than it already is when we say that she reigned from 1632 until 1654 and abdicated. This is presumably why this qualification does not appear in the articles about other queens regnant. There are several ways be explicit about it if deemed necessary; for example, we could say that she was the only female monarch from the House of Vasa. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I find the opening sentence very boring for such an extravagant woman, please look at it again. Not many people would get exited reading that she was a member ... Taksen (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. What do you suggest? Surtsicna (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I also struggled with it a long time ago, but at one point it used to be:

Christina (18 December [O.S. 8 December] 1626 – 19 April 1689) was queen regnant of Sweden from 1632 to 1654, with the titles of Queen of the Swedes, Goths and Wends; Grand Princess of Finland, and Duchess of Estonia, Livonia and Karelia, Bremen-Verden, Stettin, Pomerania, Cassubia and Vandalia, Princess of Rugia, Lady of Ingria and of Wismar. Christina was the only surviving legitimate child of King Gustav II Adolph and his wife Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg. At the age of six she succeeded her father on the throne upon his death at the Battle of Lützen, but didn’t begin ruling until she reached the age of 18.

I think it should be something Christina would have liked herself.Taksen (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I do not find a long-winded list of her titles much more interesting. It does sound more extravagant, but would hardly excite anyone. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks great with the intro simply as Christina. In fact, I'd support 'moving' the article name to Christina of Sweden as well. See Baudouin of Belgium as an example for both article title & lead. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The choice of title does seem a bit peculiar in that it is very verbose yet not unambiguous. Five other queens of Sweden were her namesakes. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Haven't checked it over, but I think she's the only Christina who was queen regnant, the rest being queen consorts. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You are correct but queens consort are still queens. "Christina, Queen of Sweden" applies equally correctly to all six women. Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thus a reason to change the article title to Christina of Sweden, as she was queen regnant. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If it is going to be ambiguous, we may as well have it fully ambiguous, eh? And consistent, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna

Surtsicna succeeded to delete many pictures, but did not add any text, for years typical for many Wikipedians. I would not like to go with him to a museum. Some pictures were ugly, I don't mind he deleted them, but others were very interesting, perhaps not for him, but for the female reader or for the one's who are interested in royalty or artistic life in Rome. He also deleted pictures of people who were close or important in the life of Christina. If you want to understand a person, one has to study his or her friends. I will put a few pictures back. Taksen (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Just be careful not to go overboard. I deleted many pictures because there were too many pictures. As MOS:IMAGES explains, too many images can be distracting. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I support those deletions. What's most relevant is still there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
No, there were far too many deletions, and often the wrong ones were removed, leaving little but vast numbers of portraits of Christina alone. If people think the text has too many images, one-row mini-galleries are usually the best solution. We should have one of these for works from her art collection for a start. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Christina of Sweden

Christina was not Queen of Sweden, she was crowned King as it was considered the job title. 142.177.29.98 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that in the sources used in the article. Also, a female king is more or less by definition a queen.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Her coronation was the only occasion when she was called "king". Otherwise always Queen Christina. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Confusing new image

An image has been added to this article showing Christina with Cardinal Azzolino but without mentioning him in the caption. I added that but it was reverted - can't imagine why. I will add it again unless someone can explain why not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

New POV added

New rewording about Christina's early relationship and her mother's feeling for her father has been added. As far as I can see, there is nothing to substantiate any of it, and in one case it goes against a cited reliable source. Needs to be cleaned up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Gustavus Adolphus shared Maria Eleonora's interest in architecture and her love of music, while she was sentimentally devoted to her husband. She may have suffered from a post-natal depression. In the year after Christina's birth, Maria Eleonora was described as being in a state of hysteria owing to her husband's absences. When the king was at home, she thought she was "in heaven"; when he was away, she became depressed, often ill.[1] When Gustav Adolf did not come home as expected after the summer campaign of 1630, Maria wrote to Johan Kasimir that she could not stand it, she wanted to die. She begged him to try to persuade the king to come home. It was decided that Maria would travel to Germany the following spring.[2] On 4 December 1630 Gustavus Adolphus described his wife as being "a very sick woman". Maria Eleonora showed little affection for her daughter and was not allowed any influence in Christina's upbringing. The princess was placed in the care of Gustavus Adolphus' half-sister Catherine and the Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna. To Axel Oxenstierna, he confessed: "If anything happens to me, my family will merit your pity [..], the mother lacking in common sense, the daughter a minor - hopeless, if they rule, and dangerous, if others come to rule over them." In early November 1632 he went to Erfurt to say goodbye to Maria Eleonora, who had been in Germany since the previous winter. In 1633 Maria Eleonora returned to Sweden with the embalmed body of her husband. Things were made worse by Maria Eleonora's continual weeping. During the rest of her life she preserved the memory of her husband, weeping for hours and even days on end. All from the article on her mother which has not any references.Taksen (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Queen Mary Eleonora was the most beautiful queen in Europe, but she was hysterical, unstable and overly emotional. Maria Eleonora was described as deeply in love with the king Gustav Adolf. Maria Eleonora, queen of sweden, arrived on 10 July 1631, to Wolgast in Pomerania. M's stay in Pomerania was a long one. Only at the beginning of Nov 1631 was she able to leave Wolgast to follow the king via the courts of Berlin, Dresden and Weimar, among others. On 11 January 1632 she met with her spouse, close to Hanau. The couple were spotted for the last time on 28 October 1632 at Erfurt. The very next day, Gustav Adolf broke up. On 3 Nov Maria wrote to Axel Oxenstierna: "without H.R.M.'s presence, I am worth nothing, not even my life". Seven days later she received in Erfurt the message of his death, shot at Lützen. Her concern had proved justified.[3]

The most difficult issue was the question of her refusal to allow the burying of the body, or at the very least postpone the funeral for as long as possible. The reason for this was that she wanted to commit suicide and be buried together with her husband. From the Swedish Wikipedia.

  • from Kromnov: In Nyköping she declared that the burial should not take place during her lifetime - she often spoke of shortening her life - or at least should be postponed as long as possible. She wanted a church to be built where the coffin would stand. On 21 August, the bishop announced that Maria had promised to have the king buried, as long as it took place when she wanted to and not in Stockholm, where she herself no longer wanted to live. They tried to persuade M not to visit the corpse so often. In October M wanted to place the coffin in Uppsala and had already ordered marble and builders. The Council pointed out that Gustav Adolf himself had chosen Riddarholm Church as his final resting place. M then accepted burial in Stockholm but wanted the coffin to be taken to Strömsholm, where she wished to build a chapel. M finally had to give in
  • From the German Wikipedia: However, this image of the hysterical, depressive and profligate queen dowager, which has become part of historiography, has been put into perspective in more recent research, first in the 1980s by the archivist Åke Kromnov,[4] among others, and most recently in the monograph "Drottningen som sa nej" by Moa Matthis, published in 2010. According to this, this image is largely due to the propaganda activities of the Imperial Council representing the Swedish high nobility, which wanted to prevent the usually decisive participation of the Queen Dowager in the guardianship government.Taksen (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Insane?

As far as I know there is no source for any claim that Maria Eleonora was considered "insane" by anyone back then, yet that keeps being added to the article as what appears to be the personal opinion of one Wikipedian, not discussing it here but handing out an order in an edit summary. I am reverting this again and writing to the editor again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

After all these years I am not so interested in a discussion with you. It is clear the article on her mother - which is not very encyclopaedic - needs attention too. No critique on Christina, and now her mother. If someone comes up with bad references on her art collection you don't do anything. It seems you are protecting her holiness. Meanwhile, I like to think Christina was as unstable as her mother. Have a nice X-mas, byebye Taksen (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
We are required to be interested in basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What we "like to think" is irrelevant. Please stop adding your personal opinion and slant to article text. We are all supposed to follow the basic rules here. Writing to your talk page seems useless. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=9106
  2. ^ https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=9106
  3. ^ https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=9106
  4. ^ https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=9106
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden/Archive_4&oldid=1257146231"