This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
I don't know where the subtitles Chiswick Chap insists on inserting are coming from, but they are not from the first published edition of Fredmans sånger. There is a facsimile available at Litteraturbanken, clearly showing a title of "Måltids sång", and no other subtitle [1]. There is also a standard edition from 1992, again showing no other title [2].
I have cited extremely good sources throughout the article, in this case Kleveland & Ehrén 1984, as you could readily have seen for yourself, so there is no point in pretending ignorance, nor in making implications of any kind, especially not those that name another editor and their behaviour ("X insists on inserting" ... that is forbidden as a personal attack, so stop it). There is no reason, either, to insist on 1st edition titles (and your 1992 "edition" is simply a photo-reproduction of the 1st edition, so it adds nothing to the argument), as there has been plenty of time since for slightly later titles to become established. In this case, Kleveland states directly that there was access to the 1790/91 volumes; if he also used slightly later materials, feeling that they were helpful and customary – there has been plenty of time for texts to be clarified, elaborated, and become established in tradition in well over two centuries – that was up to him as an authority; and I really can't see any reason to discount such traditions. But actually, there is no reason to argue here; we can perfectly well say that the first edition was subtitled X, while later editions sometimes extended this to Y. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pretending ignorance"? Nope: that was geniune - the subtitle might have Kleveland's edition attached as a source, but the text did nothing to imply that it was not original, much less if it was traditional or Klevelands invention. Covering traditions is useful, but one should at the very least try to distinguish between them and the original text - anything else would at best be sloppy. Though in this case, my impression is that it's actually not a tradition, but the feature of one particular edition. I've certainly not found the subheader when I've looked elsewhere.
