Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark

Assessment

Very close to a B. I am only troubled by the combination of focus on sexual information, and lack of referencing. If this were an article on a living person, half of it would be deleted outright. It's not, of course, but I would still like better references, especially for the more scandalous stuff. As is, two books by the same author are given, with no publication information, no specific references within the book, etc. Also, the article could be expanded somewhat about something besides her sexual relations. For example, "she remembered how lonely she herself had felt" - how do we know this? Did she write a diary? Whatever the source, if it was intimate enough to know her feelings, surely it said other things about her as well. Some of the spelling needs work: ingored, priaces, suspicison... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read it through, and i understand your questions. Regarding the more scandalous sexual things, they are confirmed in the cited books, but also well known in Sweden. In fact, when one reads about her in Swedish history-books, the information concentrates on the sexual problems of her marriage. I's somewhat sad, perhaps, but as the main purpose of a queen in those days was to produce an heir, the whole thing was videly and publicly discussed, as was the sexuality of both the king and queen. The whole story, about the late consumation of the marriage, about the fact that count Munck had to sexual instruct them in the "production of an heir", about the rumours that Munck was actually the father of the child that was born, was highly public rumours, discussed even in the papers in 1778; the situation was in fact caricatured; here is an image of one of the caricatures from 1778 in the article about Sophia Magdalena in Swedish wikipedia [[1]] - perhaps that should be included here as well? I don't know. The fact is, though, that she is mostly remembered because of this matters. A second reason for this is, perhaps, that she was a very discreet and quite person; as a queen, she did her ceremonial duties, and then withdraw to her rooms. She spent her spare-time in solitude, and disliked social life, so as a person, she has left few memories in history; it was in fact her more social sister-in-law, Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp, who were the female center of the court. I don't know if she wrote a diary-her lonelyness and isolation when she herslef arived as crown-princess is confirmed, as her mother-in-law hated her and made her own son (Sophia's husband) stay away from her, and when Sophia's own daughter-in-law, Fredrica of Baden arriwed in 1797, Sophia herself insisted to skip the protocoll to make Fredrica feel welcome- this is from the cited sources. Do you have any suggestions of information that should be there? --85.226.235.164 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You want to give better references. Wikipedia:Citing sources explains how, but basically you want to give book publisher, publication date, ISBN, and page number. It's a bit complicated, but useful, do try to read it. I'd recommend citing the pages for specific facts, not just once for the whole book. About the cartoon ... eeeurgh! (and don't look that up in an English to Swedish dictionary!) ... let me ask a few people who know a bit more about historical scandals, and maybe they'll weigh in here. My question about the loneliness was meant to suggest a place to find more information to expand the article with. Whoever said that she was lonely - she herself, or the mother-in-law, or the court historian, or? - is likely to have also said other interesting things about her. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there was no need for you to take the image so seriously- the only reason i brought it up, was to illustrate what a large place this affair has in the historical wiev of her. I suppose that picture can be seen as a form of slander- i is merely a contemporary illustration of a very talked about event of the period! I'm sorry if it caused so much trouble. However, Sophia Magdalena was not hated or impopular by the public; it was her husband that was the target. Of course, you are right about the references! Unfortunately, i'm sorry to say that i am too lacy to go through it all. I have at least one book that describes the whole event; "Historien om Sverige; Gustavs dagar" (In English; "The history of Sweden; The days of Gustav", by Herman Lindqvist, published by Norstedts Förlag AB, Stockholm, printed by Fälths tryckeri in Värnamo, 1997. The pages was 154-168, in Chapter 4, with the headline "How is an an heir made? The assistance of the stable-master Munck". I hope this was of some help! Perhaps i should clearify the matter, to distinguish facts from rumours? The king and the queen had not consumated the marriage, which was seen as a great problem, as the country needed an heir to the throne. They did not know each other, and did not meet in private. Munck, trusted by the king, and with a manner that won the queen's trust, was asked to instruct the couple to get close. He helped the king court the queen. The king did not know how sexual intercourse was performed, and therefore asked Munck to be present in a nearby room with the lady-in-waiting of the queen, to be avalible, if the king needed to ask him something. He was called in several times, during several of these occations, and then went in to the bed-room, and instructed the king in what he needed to do. The count describes this in his memoires, adding that he was, in fact, forced to touch them both with his own hands; he describes this in detail. In 1778, the marriage had ben consumated, and the crown-prince was born. Both the king and the queen gave the count gifts for his assistance. This is historical facts. Then, of course, whe have rumours. The gossiping court, the members of the royal family (the dowager queen, who disliked the queen, duke Charles, who had politicall aspirations), the public and the papers, all of these developed the story further, and made up storys about exactly how the instructions of the count was conducted. The storys claimed, that the count instructed the king sexually by actually having intercourse with the queen; the image is an illustration of this, portraying Munck having intercourse with the queen with his penis between the king's legs. Furterhmore, it was said that the king had actually asked the count to make his wife pregnant. This, of course, is higly questionable! There is no proof of these later storys. The wiev of historians is, that although the count was the sexual instructor of the couple, and was in fact sometimes present in the bedroom, he did surely not go so far as taking of his own clothes. I hope this was of some help! As for other things about her, i will perhaps write some later.--85.226.235.164 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That picture seems to have ben inserted now. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Much more things have been inserted now. I believe a lot, (such as the onely-thin in 1797 mentioned above), is from the famous diaries of her sister-in-law, Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte.--85.226.44.74 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes the image is there now. This was it: (see below) Good to have it! --85.226.42.150 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of contemporary caricature without discussion

This caricature was resently removed from the article:

The famous caricature of Sophia Magdalena, Gustav III and Adolf Fredrik Munck

The difficulty with this act is, that the presence of this drawing has been well and thoroughly discussed and debated on Swedish wikipedia, and the descision was keep. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark

Here, the removal of the drawing are likely to cause much less opposition than on Swedish wp, were there are of course more people likely to become engaged and have knowledge about the subject, as it is the country native to the subject.

The caricature was removed from here with the given reason : it is porno, and it was first published in 1987.

This reason was given when the caricature was questioned on Swedish wp also, and there, those reasons were voted down as insufficient.

This is not regarded as pornography, as it is a contemporary caricature of an historic event which was much talked about when it occurred. (and, needless to say, it was not put in the article with a pornographic intent.)

It was removed from here with the claim, that the caricature was first published in 1987. This claim was also addressed and voted down in the discussion on Swedish wp.

No reference were given for this : the claim is referenced, not with a book, but with a claim, put in the reference section, to make it look like a reference.

In Swedish wikipedia, were many people took part in the debate, the vote was to keep. Only one person, the instigator of the debate, wished to have it removed. The reason for the descision of keep was:

It is a caricature made by a contemporary depicting a common wiev of a scandal that were much talked about and commented upon when it occurred. It is well known by people familiar of the subject, and whenever published, it is now well known in connection to the scandal. It is made by Carl August Ehrensvärd , whos drawings are now well known to be frequently used in Swedish history books to illustrate the age of Gustav III. It is valuable as it depicts contemporary wievs and opposition toward the crown by a contemporary event, and because it caricatures a contemporary event.

Further more: the drawing has only ever been questioned by one person sv:User:EmilEikS.

sv:User:EmilEikS has left Swedish language wp. He was there suspected of having been the same user as sv:User:SergeWoodzing. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen/Arkiv/2009/Augusti#EmilEikS.2C_SergeWoodzing_et_consortes

When he left, he claimed to have left his watchlist, etc, to sv:User:SergeWoodzing.

In English language wikipedia, en:User:EmilEikS has been blocked for sock-puppetting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=276769373#Requesting_wider_block_for_block_evading_sock_puppet

When questioning this image on Swedish wp, sv:User:EmilEikS made the very same claims to why it should be removed as en:User:SergeWoodzing has now given to its removal from here on English wp.

These reasons were not considered adequate on Swedish wp, but naturally, the matter is not likely to arouse the same engagement here as Sin Swedish wp, which is the nation of the event in question, so it may therefore be easier to remove it from here without drawing any attention, while it would be much questioned had it been done in Swedish wp. There, the descision is to keep; here, it has not even been discussed.

EmilEiks was also reprimaned for his offensive way of communicating, and his emotional arguments, such as the claim that the drawing should be removed because it is offensive to the memory of the royal couple, which is not an argument in accordance to NPOV.--85.226.44.13 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that whole edit. Maybe this was motivated by the upcoming royal wedding in Stockholm? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This removal was indeed questioned on Swedish wp as being a violation to NPOV when it was removed there for the same given reasons, so I am glad the deletion now reverted here as well. I believe NPOV is important to Wikipedia reliability. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation tags removed

{{help}} Quite a few tags were arbitratily removed and an irrelevant porno drawing first published in 1987 was restored to this article recently here. The user who did it seems to have some personal interest in having this unsourced gossip and inapprorpriate drawing in the article, as noted here. I am particularly disturbed by his edit summary comment here

• something kids may remember

which was in answer to concerns about an irrelevant and inappropriate drawing like that being a part of the history studies of children using WP.

This last action on this article reversed my edit here - please see my edit summary comment then. I believe the image is inappropriate as irrelevant to any facts about this person and that the gossip needs to be sourced or removed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Crying, crying for help again. Instead of destroying a text with tags, you could use the bibliography. Were not you boasting about your collection of 500 books about the Swedish monarchy? It should be easy for you then to give inline references. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are we even using a help tag for a content issue? —fetch·comms 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If the image is as notable as the article claims, that's a good reason for keeping it. There are sources which decribe the caricature in detail and include a copy of it.[2] Therefore, I'm not sure that it's not notable. Am I wrong?

Now, unfortunatly or not, Wikipedia is not censored and sexual content which serves an encyclopedic purpose should be preserved. So, the editor who insists on keeping the image should answer the question: How does the caricature serve encyclopedic purpose? Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, the citation-tags are not the issue here. You have, in fact, not referenced your own claim that this caricature was first published in 1987 either. Instead, you simply put a reference tag to a written sentence put in the reference section to make it look like a reference.--85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that we can't translate the long discussion we had on Swedish language wp, as the exact same issues were adresssed there. But if you look at the section above, I have tried to summarize the thoughts given in that discussion. Is it is the very same discussion, about the same matter, dealing with the same questions, so it may be of some value. The matter should be adressed in the section above: Sergewoodzing created a new section for some reason. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of royal marriages is to produce a legitimate heir to the throne. Gustav and Sophia had their problems with that. Of course, this was the subject of a lot of chatter at the time. Also, after a son had been born, there were doubts about who the father was. Munck was requested to write a memoir (not "his memoirs", that should be changed). Anyway, this drawing is also source material. Ehrensvärd was very close to these events. Woodzing is insinuating that this was produced in 1987, but that is ludicrous. Ehrensvärd was very close to these events. Thank you for the link to that book in English. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kent's modern book cited above, that the drawing also was in, is not a reliable source. It only takes a glance to see that it is (good) entertainment, written mainly for homosexuals, and is full of unsourced conjecture. The author reveals a very carefree approach when citing that the drawing is from c. 1770 [sic].

The drawing was first published in 1987 (for a Swedish television drama), is what I wrote above - so please don't anyone be confused by Mr. Kuiper's false statements alleging twice now - "Woodzing is insinuating that this was produced in 1987". That's not a very nice way to debate this.

The drawing was found in the artist's private notes and was completely unknown till 1987. I have that directly from the TV people who created the publicity pamphlet where it was first published. They called it "a huge find for the project".

I am by no means a prude, but this fantasy drawing would be relevant in an article about Swedish political propaganda in the 1980's. It is not relevant to any factual bio of Queen Sophia Magdalene.

I am restoring the tags where they indeed are needed in order for the text to be acceptable to WP. As Mr. Kuiper correctly noted (though apparently meant only as uncivil sarcasm) I do have a large historical library and have read about five times that, so I do know where utter fantasies have been added here to spice up the story. The claims that the image is notable (as being known before 1987), are included in that hype, to put that huge penis into this particular biography.

Mr. Kuiper admits to be an anti-royalist. I am not a royalist, as he repeatedly has accused me of being all over English and Swedish WP and Commons. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Like most people, I do not care much about royalty; that does not make me an anti-royalist. Woodzing now added about 50 citation tags to the article - significantly only to the part about the episode in this poor woman's life that is best known. If he has all those books, he should not be so lazy, and add inline notes from the books in the bibliography. Woodzing still suggests that the famous drawing was unknown before 1987, but the inventory number of Nationalmuseum clearly shows that it was acquired in 1973. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New references added

Attempting to justify the use of a considerable amount of unsourced gossip in this article (see previous discussion section) another Swedish editor has now added a series of new sources to the article's section on the "scandal", but without giving the page numbers where these choice bits of gossip are alleged to appear in those books. I don't think they actually do.

I own two of the books cited, and I find nothing in them to support the alleged facts for which those books now have been cited.

Material of this kind, added to a WP biography, especially if it is controversial and/or derogatory to the reputation of anyone mentioned, living or dead, must be clearly sourced.

Such allegations as these must definitely be supported by citations giving page numbers:

• they[sic] were many rumours and speculations on exactly how this assistance was conducted;

• People imagined that Munck had intercourse with the Queen to demonstrate

• one of the speculations was that he also had intercourse with the Queen with his penis between the King's thighs

• a drawing is "famous"

• The rumours that Munck was the father of the Crown Prince ... were spread all through Society

• There were even rumours that the King and Queen had divorced in secret, she married Munck and agreed to Munck being the father of the heir.

- as must also any assertions or insinuations about who was "possibly a virgin"; who was whose "lover"; hush money being paid; a queen greatly disliking somebody; or a king trying to keep something a secret.

Additionally, parts of the section were rewritten in very poor English (Swenglish) by the same editor who added these sources without page numbers.

I have am reversing that whole edit and ask cordially that:

1. page numbers be added to the references so they can be verified as reliable;
2. any major text alterations be done in a language which is clear enough to be understood as English, as is necessary when contributing to English Wikipedia.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it is necessary to start a new section every time the article is altered. The issue is adressed in the section above. May I ask you to presume good faith? The article had a series of citation-tags. I have provided in-line citations and references for all of these tags. The references are correct, and confirms the statements. I had, however, planned to return to check the phrasing and make sure that they are in line with the content. This discussion seem rather heated, I am sorry to say. If I may say so, it does not give a good impression to question references when they contradict ones own oppinion in an issue one is personally engaged in. You have removed references which provided the questioned information with references. One of the references were the diaries of Hedvig Elisabet Charlotte, which are known as a valuable historical source and frequently referred to and quoted in Swedish history books. This is not regarded as "gossip", this is an important and well known historical event. My "poor language", if it is truly that bad, is not the issue here, and does not in any way alther the truth of the references. I freely admit that my English isn't perfect, but this does not in any way disqualify me as a serious contributor in English language Wikipedia. I am sorry to say, that the tone in this discussion does not sound neutral. I recognize the tone, the argument, the language from the very same discussion on Swedish wp, were the discussion became very hostile. There, this information was questioned by one (1) user. What ever we may feel about historical events, it is important to report them neutrally. Wikipedia must not be censured. I do not think it is correct to remove references from the article if they contradict ones own oppinions about a subject one have strong oppinion about. It does not give a neutral impression. It may be necessary to ask for a third oppinion. --Aciram (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And you did not have a friendlier way to ask for a page number?? I have restored Aciram's work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pieter Kuiper. SergeWoodzing, you also seem to have misunderstood some of the things you claim above. For example:

The rumours that Munck was the father of the Crown Prince ... were spread all through Society

Now, this is clearly understood from the context: there were rumours, phamplets in the streets all over town as late as 1789, the issue was used by the political opposition, his mother supported the rumour and was forced to make a formal statement denying them, wits and socialites made remarks about them, etc, etc. If that does not qualify as "spread through society", I do not know the meaning ot the word. (Furthermore, this is also clearly confirmed by the references.)

There were even rumours that the King and Queen had divorced in secret, she married Munck and agreed to Munck being the father of the heir.

Also this was clearly confirmed by the reference. Another example:

hush money being paid; a queen greatly disliking somebody; or a king trying to keep something a secret.

This is also confirmed by the references (with one exception: That it was "hush-money" is your own assumption, that word is in fact not used in the article). In short: you have removed references which confirms statements that were questioned by you. This does not give a good impression. I advise you not to remove references. The diaries of Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte, for example, are constantly referred to in reference books of Swedish history. --Aciram (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now rephrased the sentences to make sure it answers correctly to the references given. Anyone can verify that these references confirms the statements made. In Swedish wikipedia, any one can confirm that this event if far from gossip, but a famous and much talked about event in Swedish history and referred to in most books about Swedish history. To exclude from the English language version the matter for which this person is actually most known in Swedish history, would not be in accordance with the wikipedia policy, were neutrality and information is important. I can agree, however, having read through the phrasing more carefully, that the previous sentences was not entirely in accordance with the references: for example, the queen dowager did not adress the matter in public, but within the family: this wording, which I did not recognize at first, have now been corrected. I am glad that SergeWoodzing directed my attention to this. Everything there is now confirmed. --Aciram (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I will give you one week from today to provide a page number for each of your sources, to any of the controversial material here, that are virtually impossible to verify as accurate without them.

In looking at this again, you might consider that, as far as I know, it is unknown to academic literature that

• many rumours and speculations, as to how the consummation was conducted, circulated because of Munck's assistance, which was virtually unknown to many people at that time;
• rumors and stories about this were rampant thoughout Society (perhaps you mean Swedish societeten? - not the same thing);
• anyone ever spread any stories about Munck ever having his penis between the thighs of King Gustav III.

Btw, your English was much better this time - are there two people using your user name, or did you get somebody to help you? Good work in any case! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is of course perfectely correct to ask for page numbers. However: you are not allowed to remove references from an article, wether they are page numbered or not. Please understand this. Page numbers are not the essential thing for a reference at wikipedia. If this is done, then I am afraid I will be forced to take this up with wikipedia. Neither you nor anyone else can remove references, especially since this is a subject you personally have strong wievs about. It is often best to leave articles you feel strongly about to others, as it may affect the NPOV. I myself have done so on several occassions.

• You are no more allowed than anyone else here to make demands on any one. You can not remove references, wether page numbered or, not; wether in a week or not.
• This is a question of phrases. Is "many people" counted as 100 or 1000? Even the royal court can be counted as many. If I may say so, this is picky.
• It was known by ladies of the court; it was also printed by political opponents in pamphlets circulatin the streets, which would make it known outside of the aristocraty.

I must again warn you not to remove references from articles in wikipedia. --Aciram (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we are warning each other now, here is my warning to you:

If, after the week you have been given, you have not provided page numbers to source the controversial things you insist must remain in this article - such as one of the speculations was that he also had intercourse with the Queen with his penis between the King's thighs - I will refer this entire matter to an RfC with the intent to have you censured or blocked from English WP for repeatedly adding unsourced or insufficiently sourced material to biographic articles. There is plenty of evidence that you do so from time to time.

I will also question whether or not you and a person who writes almost identically as you using an IP, always extremely longwinded and argumentative to the point of disruptive behavior, are not one and the same person (WP:Sockpuppet). The two of you use the exact same language.

Personally, I consider it unethical to the verge of being fraudlent work to supply sources by naming books in which the material being sourced does not actually appear. One would think you would want to hurry and provide those page numbers now, to prove that the sources you have given actually are legitimate. (I'm sure you won't be able to do so in at least two cases.)

So, stop taking up your time and mine by arguing and threatening, and just supply the page numbers, if you do not want to see your darling material and unreliable references removed! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no special hurry, unless the upcoming wedding is Woodzing's deadline. I can have a look at the source material later this summer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Upcoming wedding?" Sarcasm again? Personal ridicule again? ??? When is that wedding? You seem to know and care.

The sources given here - only by naming certain books - will have been checked long before "later this summer", and any scandal material discovered as actually unsourced will have been removed, long before "later this summer". Thanx anyway! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable bio

I would suggest Gerd Ribbing's 700-page biography of the queen Gustav III:s hustru, Sofia Magdalena, ensam drottning (Bonniers, Stockholm, 1958-1959) to anyone who might be seriously interested in the only full and reliable book ever written about this interesting woman. It will soon reveal what an inordinately large amount of space English WP is giving at present to a lot of relatively irrelevant sleaze about sex. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is regarded as quite relevant to describe the event for which a person is best known in history. Wether we like it or not, this affair is the thing for which Sophia Magdalena is best known in history. Therefore, it is relevant to describe. To remove the Munck-affair from the article, the matter for which this person is most known, would not be acceptable. It is, in fact, not controversial in Sweden at all, and would this have beeen on Swedish wp, were this issue is more known, the relevance would never have been questioned. As the succession in a monarchy is a politicall matter, this is in fact far from a mere sexual issue, but a political matter. Wether we personally choose to consider is sleazy or not is irrelevant. One biography is not acceptable to be the reference for an entire article. The references I have cited are completely acceptable. --Aciram (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is about the only full biography of the queen ever written and the small amount of space in it taken up by what here is called the thing for which Sophia Magdalena is best known in history [sic] (WP:NPOV). (It is not for going on in the same discussion, about insufficient references, which belongs above in the previous section.)

The rumors and speculations about who the father of her first son was are an important part of her biography, if covered to a reasonable extent. Nowhere else has any enclyclopedia ever before gone into such longwinded detail as here to weather wallow in all the sleazy details, most of which are modern conjecture.

This is an attempt by certain WP users to make all those details the thing for which Sophia Magdalena is best known in history. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Here's another constructive suggestion: why not have a much closer look at the Swedish article you have mentioned several times? It's just fine with me. The drawing is called - nidbild - a satirical lampoon (at best) or ourageous libel (at worst), and the rest of the scandal info is factual and of an appropriate extent. Nothing about Nothing in the text about a penis between another man's legs. Nothing to mislead a reader into thinking that what happened in the royal bedroom was the subject of contemporary gossip throughout society. Any reason why her English article should not be cut down to similar size and reasonably factual content? Go for it! Let's cooperate! I'll be glad to adjust any language problems you might have, in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Christiensson reference

This book has recently been cited to source three items in the queens'a biography:

Jakob Christiensson (2007) (in Swedish). Signums svenska kulturhistoria. Gustavianska tiden (Signum’s Swedish Culture history. The Gustavian Age.). Bokförlaget Signum, Lund. p. 432. ISBN 978-91-878-96-84-2.

The three items are:

• When it became known that Munck participated in the reconciliation between the royal couple, there were many rumours and speculations as to how the consummation was conducted.

• There were speculations such as the imagination that Munck had intercourse with the Queen, and one of the speculations was that he also had intercourse with the Queen with his penis between the King's thighs.

• There were even rumours that the King and Queen had divorced in secret, that she had married Munck and agreed to Munck being the father of the heir.

I was present during a conversation with Mr. Christiensson today about the page number that was added to that citation yesterday, page 432 (by the same Swedish editor who added the original referencs the other day) and about whatever else he wrote on this subject.

The author became quite indignant at having been misquoted on English WP. Nowhere is his text is there any mention whatsoever of anybody's penis or of the King's thighs or any other such details. He has quoted out of a 18th century private letter where there is some gossip about rumors and where the pornographic caricature was included (never published until 1987).

Another author Lars O. Lagerqvist is also cited as a source for the claim made in the first item above. There is no such text on the cited page of his book. He acknowlegdes quite correctly that there were rumours about the crown prince's paternal lineage, but writes nothing whatsoever about all the juicy sex we have been served up by seemingly unethical contributors here. I know the distinguished Mr. Lagerqvist personally, and he would also be quite insulted to be thus cited on English WP.

Since the Swedish WP editor involved here should be able to read and assess Messrs. Christiensson's and Lagerqvist's writings in an objective and factual manner, and also is known to me to be capable of translating such things to passable English (albeit usually including some confusing Swenglish), we have to assume that she (identified earlier as female) did this on purpose.

That would entail the intentional giving of false references to a WP biography, to which we must all strongly object.

I am now going to begin to edit the bio text accordingly, removing those references and most of the non-notable gossip. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am obliged to reply on these questions.

• When it became known that Munck participated in the reconciliation between the royal couple, there were many rumours and speculations as to how the consummation was conducted.

This is a quite general statement. The rumour that the King hired Munck to impregnate the Queen, is confirmed by the page numbered references I have given. In my definition, that is a rumour. I have no problem with altering this from "rumours" to "rumour".

• There were speculations such as the imagination that Munck had intercourse with the Queen, and one of the speculations was that he also had intercourse with the Queen with his penis between the King's thighs.

I have never been very interested in this particular sentence. The fact that a person have made this caricature, is in itself proof that they were speculations from at least one person that this occurred. I do not mind that it is removed, but I beleive it would be good to have it there, as it mentiones the caricature, which is by large consensus on Swedish wp decided to be valid in the article. As for sexual content in general, there is no censurship toward sexual content in Wikipedia.

• There were even rumours that the King and Queen had divorced in secret, that she had married Munck and agreed to Munck being the father of the heir.

This rumour is clearly stated in the page numbered reference I have given. I have never claimed that this is true: I do not beleive that this was true. The book does not claim that this marriage ever took place, it claims that such a rumour excisted. This was a rumour, and it is as such relevant to mention. If you have removed this, you have done wrong in doing so.

You have asked for a page numbered reference, and I have provided one. You are in fact breaking wikipedia:s rules by removing a page numbered reference. I can not in any way comment on your claims that the authors of the books I have referenced are your personal friends and have told you that they take offence and have been misquoted and have another interpetation of the information I have quoted, when that information contradict and does not fit in with your own view. It is impossible to verify this, and it is in fact not necessary: any neutral party can verify this by looking at the books. I am not in any way affraid of being investigated. You may report me to anyone if you wish. When I first provided the references, you removed them as they were not page numbered. When I provided page-mubers, you removed a reference all the same. No one can remove page numbered references from articles in wikipedia. In your text above, you display an accusative and somewhat hostile attitude toward me. Personal comments, such as my gender, is not relevant here at all. This must stop. If not, I will have no choice but to contemplate reporting this. I ask you to calm down, and try to remember, that what we do here in wikipedia, is to present information as neutral as possible. --Aciram (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would cordially suggest a more apologetic and humble tone when you have referenced these sex items in a way that anynone looking at the books would have to find false, and in a way that offends the author of the main book you cited. Those authors are not "personal friends" of mine. Who said they were? Mr. C. was contacted only because of your allegations about his text, never before. Since I couldn't see what you asserted from his text myself, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and thought perhaps you had the page number wrong. Mr. L. is a good acquaintance of mine, but not a "personal friend".

It is not particularly difficult to contact the author of a relatively recent book. Try it yourself if you ever have a legitimate concern! Just phone the publisher! Better yet: read a book you wish to cite as a source on WP, and if what you want to cite is not in the text of that book and cannot even be interpreted to be in there, do not cite it! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of son

Please discuss on husband's talk page here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok - non-ISBN id identified?

Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok is used as a reference on about 55 pages. Until recently, most of these pages had ISBN errors due to use of unknown non-ISBN IDs in the ISBN. The ISBN errors have now been fixed by various editors, either by moving the unknown IDs to the ID field or by deleting the ID. I recently noticed that the unknown ID numbers appear as part of the signature marks. I posted some more information about this in a central location (Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok - non-ISBN id identified?) in case this affects any opinions about whether these numbers should be retained and/or how they should be documented. I'm posting similar messages to this one on the talk pages of a few other higher-traffic articles that use this reference to give any watchers a chance to participate in any discussion there. I will be watching the central page but not this one. TuxLibNit (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Porno drawing revisited

After 5 years, I would like a fresh discussion of the pornographic drawing included in this article, which is not an article about Sexual propaganda or about Genitals drawn in private letters but about a queen of Sweden who was innocent of the sleazy activity depicted.

What I know of the drawing is that it was sent in a private letter from the artist, a Swedish courtesan and known writer, to another person in jest, regarding rumors which were being mongered at the time about the king and queen and one of their other courtiers. The drawing was discovered in the 1980s by television producers when planning a program about the king's murder and the opposition to his reign in the nobility, which led to the murder. King Gustav III was portrayed very negatively in it. The drawing is otherwise completely unknown.

Here, the drawing is out of context in regard to the assassination of Gustav III, as well as an item which only can be perceived as an attempt to sensationalize his wife's life story as if WP were some sort of tabloid rag or tendentious, politically motivated TV documentary.

I am not a prude, and certainly there could be articles where this little piece of work could be suitable (?). Whether or not English-language school children, just wanting to read about various European royalty, should stumble upon it here, is a matter I feel we have yet to reasonably contemplate and fully resolve.

I think, very sincerely, that Queen Sophia Magdalene deserves better. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You might be right but your argument is faulty. The "sleazy activity" depicted here is sex; most Swedish queens were definitely not "innocent" of it. The mechanics of sex are very much the same regardless of social status, and Wikipedia is not supposed to revere "a queen of Sweden" more than a courtesan.

The drawing was made by Carl August Ehrensvärd, a person "mostly remembered for the burlesque caricatures of often famous people from his era with which he decorated his letters". Some of his work has been published by a "learned society" dating from 1910. Are you sure that the drawing was "discovered in the 1980s by television producers"? It is apparently displayed in Sweden's National Museum of Fine Arts. That also makes it unlikely that "the drawing is otherwise completely unknown"; I suspect it is more known than any other depiction of Sophia Magdalena.

Her story obviously was sensationalized in her own day. Her marriage was a public affair, and her son's legitimacy an important issue. If high society at the time took time to accompany their rumours with drawings, which then ended up in a national museum, for what reason should we deny those drawings to readers? Because the subject is a [Swedish] queen? Or a [Swedish] queen rather than a courtesan? And in what article could it be more suitable than in the one about its subject? Finally, it is very naive to think or claim that literate English (or Swedish) speaking school children could learn about sex by stumbling upon this drawing of an 18th century Swedish queen (assuming, for some reason, that school children should not know about sex). Surtsicna (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, as usual, but it would be so much nicer if you just would adress issues, not other editors with your incessant personal criticism of them, when commenting. It can be done.

The drawing was never used in public until 1986 and was then used as propaganda by 2 avowed far-left writers with an extreme agenda against the monarchy in general and Gustav III in particular (quoting one of them, Häger, whom I spoke to: "we've got to pull down that God damned statue one of these days!"). As such, it also appears here. It was found in the museum, but was not on display there. I've been there & checked this & I have the little booklet where it was first published in 1986.

The porno is irrelevant to this article because nothing even close to what it depicts ever occurred and there was no public effort to demean this woman at that time in this manner. A limited portion of the financially threatened nobility and 2-3 friends of theirs in the royal family spread the rumors about the baby, nobody else knew about any of it. It has been falsely turned into a public scandal in our day and every respectable scolar has shown that it was nothing but conjecture. There were newspapers then. In them, not a word about any of this.

A comment like "I suspect it is more known than any other depiction of Sophia Magdalena." is way off base. Nobody else has ever had the bad taste (i.e. poor ethics) of publishing it until 1986, and then only in a little TV booklet that did not do well. It was not shown on television. Many fabulous oil portraits of Sophia Magdalene have been displayed in public places since the 1770s.

The claim in the article on the artist, as his being well known for this kind of drawing, is unsourced and probably false. This porno also appears there, where it might be considered relevant, maybe even turn someone on.

What we have here can be quite exactly compared to someone in the 1980s finding a sensational 1810s private drawing by one of George III's secretaries of Thomas Jefferson with a big exaggerated penis erect and fixing to make some rumored extramarital babies, then posting that drawing in the article about Sally Hemings. The only difference would be that Hemings aparently did have children by Jefferson, whereas Gustav III's boys were legitimate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did I criticize you personally? Where? I will not address a single point you make until you answer this question. Personal criticism would be if I now told you how tired I am of your endless victim playing in every discussion, for which you have been rebuked by administrators. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"it is very naive" - "your endless victim playing in every discussion, for which you have been rebuked by administrators" (my bold; which I have never been). Let's not do this again! We both mean well. I concentrate on never starting my input in a discussion by getting personal. So could you, if you'd like to break a well known habit that you don't even seem to see yourself. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I will be personal: you either do not have a grasp of what "personal" means or you are intent on manipulating every discussion into a lesson for the other user. At least one user appears to have noticed that disturbing pattern here. And yes, you have been rebuked for it by administrators, on a noticeboard a few years ago; you were told that pretending to be offended by every little thing was immature. Would you like me to remind you of that with a link or perhaps by pinging those administrators to repeat that? Surtsicna (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The job of an encyclopedia is to summarize scholarly sources (at least, when such sources are available). The article in question is on a historical subject, therefore the task at hand is a simple one: WP should include the picture only if the majority of contemporary history books that cover the article's subject (and are authored by those considered expert in their field) include the picture; furthermore, inclusion in the WP article must be in accordance with WP:DUE. Certainly, as the article stands, the presence of the sketch seems gratuitous: the more significant aspect of the issue—‘Pamphlets to that end were posted on street corners all over Stockholm’—having been adequately covered. The burden of proof is therefore on those wishing to include the picture to provide justification as described.—HTH, Aquegg (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am here in response to the third opinion requested at WP:3O. Unfortunately, the issue does not seem to have been discussed. Rather, it seems there has been discussion about the situation the image refers to.

"Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark#Porno drawing revisited. Disagreement about whether or not a pornographic drawing is relevant to the article. 01:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)" - Yes the question is whether or not the drawing should be included. It is not clearly "pornographic" (if the purpose of that drawing is to sexually excite the viewer, I'd say it simply fails). The image is "relevant" to one degree or another (it is closely connected to the situation discussed in the section). That the subject or her um...supporters (I guess?) might find it offensive is not at issue. Whether the image accurately depicts the event is not at issue.

I am completely uninterested in any arguments about whether or not the image mocks or offends anyone. In the matter at hand, the question is whether or not the drawing is significant. By way of comparison, consider two examples. The first image in the article on Gerrymandering is not only relevant, it is significant: Pick up any high school textbook on American history and the section discussing gerrymandering will include this image. It would be rather absurd to have an article on gerrymandering in the U.S. and not include that image.

At the other end of the spectrum would be a fan's sketch of Taylor Swift in Taylor Swift. It would be relevant, as it would depict the subjsect. However, its inclusion would fail on other grounds: It would not provide meaningful information on Swift that other images would better provide (i.e., a photo of Swift).

To the editors discussing this, please address whether in image is informative about the subject and, if the image is meaningful informative about Sophia Magdalena, whether there are other images that would better convey that information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The significance of the drawing has been proven by the user who opposes its inclusion. He explained above that it has been used in a TV documentary. Furthermore, it is displayed in Sweden's National Museum of Fine Arts. The only issue here is that SergeWoodzing believes articles about kings and queens, princes and princesses, should resemble hagiographies. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I explained that it has not been used in a TV program but in an unsuccessful booklet published about that program.

"SergeWoodzing believes articles about kings and queens, princes and princesses, should resemble hagiographies" is just a figmentaton - one of many personal accusations leveled at me instead of constructive discussion. Hardly what I'm known for at all.

Thank you SummerPhD^v2.0! The image is not significant or meaningfully informative about Sophia Magdalena. A more appropriate image would be an oil portrait of Munck, of which there are several well known that have been used in most books about this royal couple, which he assisted in consummating their marriage at their request. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you accuse me of levelling personal attacks at you one more time when I do no such thing, I will report you for that. Again. I am sick of shameless calumnies. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR. Let's try this again. WITHOUT MENTIONING THE OTHER EDITOR, WHAT THEY DID, WHAT YOU HAVE PROVEN, HOW YOU HAVE BEEN WRONGED AT EVERY TURN BY THE OTHER EDITOR WHO IS CLEARLY THE WORST HUMAN BEING EVER TO SET FOOT ON PLANET EARTH', please explain why this image is more like the clearly encyclopedic (used in every textbook I've ever seen) gerrymandering article or more like a fanboy's sketch of Taylor Swift hanging over his bedroom mirror. It's really not that hard. We're trying to figure out whether the image belongs here, not who is more intelligent/better looking/etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The image is certainly used in some serious works that covers the subject; one example is the recent Sveriges historia. I would not go so far as to say that it would be absurd to not include it, but it is a image that is both known and linked to the event. It is probably more well known than at least some of the other depictions used in the article.

Andejons (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I would venture to say that it has become well known in the 2000s largely because of its overexposure in Wikipedia articles. No matter, it is not significant to this life story, to facts about this person, only to a non-event, and therefore not encyclopaedic here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation. Here it is referred to as "famous" (unfortunately, the passage is split over two pages, so it is hard to refer to the snippet in Google books. here is the second half.). The book is from 2003, before the image was uploaded to commons. The image is also discussed here, in a book from 1985 (thus before 1987, which was the year claimed it was first published in an earlier discussion on this talk page).

Andejons (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The drawing may be discussed in 1985 (actually just very briefly mentioned and described as existing), but it was not published until 1987, and the next time was on Wikipedia. I never said it had never been discussed (thus "Unsourced speculation." was an unnecessary comment). The TV guys probably found it through that 1985 book which has a very heavy monarchy-hating slant in their political direction. The "artist" is admittedly called a "fierce heckler" of King Gustav III. The drawing is referred to as "famous" in the 2003 because Swedish TV SvT had published it in the booklet I've mentioned in 1987. It was not really famous until it had been spread on Wikipedia for a while. Most Swedes had never heard of it before then and would still know nothing of it, had it not been on WP. WP is spreading propaganda with this image like a tabloid rag, and/as it is not relevant to the actual life story in this article. The exceedingly vulgar language in the 1985 book, where the drawing is mentioned and (needs to be) described (since it was totally unknown), doesn't say much for that source. It certainly doesn't make a scolarly impression, with a lot of words I'd rather not translate here, and it's not a work on (or of) art. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Earlier, it was "The drawing was discovered in the 1980s by television producers [...] The drawing is otherwise completely unknown.". Now it is "The TV guys probably found it through that 1985 book". Earlier it was "it has become well known in the 2000s largely because of its overexposure in Wikipedia articles" and "an unsuccessful booklet", now it is "The drawing is referred to as 'famous' in the 2003 because Swedish TV SvT had published it in the booklet I've mentioned in 1987".

However, that does not really matter: the image is well known, and if this was because of a TV show, Wikipedia, or a sleazy book from 1985 has nothing to do with the decision if we should use it. It has been described as "famous" in another work. It has been used in what is probably the major work on general Swedish history from the last years. Here is a dissertation on propaganda against Gustav III that uses the image as an illustration, despite the fact that it was not published in his lifetime and that the image is not discussed further in the text. Against this is your assertations that - what? That the image is unknown? That it was once unknown? That it is only known because someone wanted to be mean towards Gustav III?

Andejons (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing my statements and showing so clearly how coherent and consistent they are! That said, now let's stop addressing each other and, as asked, only address the issue at hand for the benefit of neutral users.

Answering questions: As shown in this latest link, the image is unknown outside of circles that are still hounding the reputation of Gustav III. It could possibly be relevant in an article about that propaganda. Calling the drawing famous, in a very small amount of select and obviously tendentious texts, does not in fact make it famous. It was unknown to the general public until it was used for such propaganda in a booklet about a television show in 1987, where it was a flash in the pan and soon fogotten. It has only become more known than that by its being spread on Wikipedia. I think I've said all that before. Most important is the fact that the image is not significant or relevant to this life story. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, now that you're both back to discussing each other, here's what I am seeing:

• "The image is certainly used in some serious works that covers the subject" - I am not really seeing many. Academic English language sources don't seem to mention it. (Wikipedia mirrors are, of course, irrelevant.) Various throwaway books from minor publishers include it in collections of anecdotes, scandals, etc., but their goals are selling books through titillation, shock value, etc. Not much help here.
• "...probably more well known than at least some of the other depictions used in the article." - Irrelevant. For any biographical article, we would want to include a clear representation of the person, not necessarily the best known. (The best known depictions of Abraham Lincoln are certainly those on the penny and $5 bill, but the lesser known photo we use first is a more accurate representation.) We certainly don't intend to use this as the main photo.
• "...has become well known in the 2000s largely because of its overexposure in Wikipedia articles."/". The book is from 2003, before the image was uploaded to commons."/etc. - Irrelevant. How something becomes well known, while interesting and -- if sourced -- might be worth discussing in an article, is of no importance. The gods rearrange the stars to form the image but reliable sources don't discuss it, we don't discuss it. A small child draws it on a gum wrapper and the New York Times, CNN and the University of Chicago Press can't stop writing about it, we discuss it.
• "...not significant to this life story, to facts about this person, only to a non-event, and therefore not encyclopaedic here." - We're trying to determine if it is significant. Flatly saying it isn't doesn't tell us anything. The "non-event" is covered in a fair amount of detail in the article. By all appearances, the story -- whether true, a flat-out lie or somewhere in between -- seems to be encyclopedic. Heck, the discussion here seems to simply accept that the story belongs here.
• "Here it is referred to as 'famous'..." - The book, from Wahlström & Widstrand helps. I don't know anything about the publisher, other than that they've been around for some time. (Our article on them reads like a carefully worded CV, resting on who they've published with nothing to say about their standing.)
• "...also discussed here..." - Published by Askelin & Hägglund. Kalle Hägglund's calling seemed to be publishing what others would not publish, so I'm not really seeing it as an indication of notability so much as an indication that others didn't want to publish it.
• "...discussed in 1985 ... not published until 1987, and the next time was on Wikipedia....TV guys probably found it..." - Irrelevant.
• "...that 1985 book which has a very heavy monarchy-hating slant in their political direction. The "artist" is admittedly called a "fierce heckler" of King Gustav III." - Yes, there are sources that hate this, that or the other political entity and will stop at nothing to destroy them. Yes, there are sources that love this, that or the other political entity and will stop at nothing to protect them. For this reason, we prefer tertiary sources in such cases. Mainstream publications reporting that there are a lot of sources discussing (issue X) tells us that is a notable issue. A potentially biased source that says the Secretary‑General of the U.N. said something isn't really very meaningful: They found a quote and are likely using it to spin their agenda (saying it shows the U.N. is biased (to support ignoring the issue) or saying it is an indication of how serious the issue is). A mainstream source discussing what other sources are saying about something the Secretary‑General said is more meaningful. This is where mainstream sources discuss both sides of the issue: Does it give credence to the story? Does it show anti-monarchical sentiments? Neither? Both? Absent that, sources discussing rumors or notable people discussing the rumor are often enough to get the ball rolling. (A rumor, spread by political enemies is run of the mill. A rumor, discussed by historians and referenced by Pushkin is a notable rumor. The rumor here seems to meet that standard, the image? I'm not so sure.
• "The drawing is referred to as "famous" in the 2003 because Swedish TV SvT had published it in the booklet I've mentioned in 1987. It was not really famous until it had been spread on Wikipedia for a while. Most Swedes had never heard of it before then and would still know nothing of it, had it not been on WP. WP is spreading propaganda with this image like a tabloid rag, and/as it is not relevant to the actual life story in this article. The exceedingly vulgar language in the 1985 book, where the drawing is mentioned and (needs to be) described (since it was totally unknown), doesn't say much for that source. It certainly doesn't make a scolarly impression, with a lot of words I'd rather not translate here, and it's not a work on (or of) art." - How it became famous is completely meaningless (unless we have sources for the source of fame and want to discuss that in an article). That you or anyone else finds the story or image "vulgar", not "scolarly", includes words you find offensive or is not artistic is irrelevant. Rumors of leaders having sex with a horse, being the Anti-Christ, committing rape/murder/etc. can certainly reach the threshold for inclusion. Betsy Ross is notable only because of a flattering (but likely false) rumor spread by her grandson.
• "It has been used in what is probably the major work on general Swedish history from the last years." I must have missed this. Which source are you referring to? Keep in mind that we certainly aren't going to include everything "used" in such a source.
• "Here is a dissertation on propaganda against Gustav III that uses the image as an illustration, despite the fact that it was not published in his lifetime and that the image is not discussed further in the text." Yes, a 400 page work on Gutav III will likely include lots of material. That this illustration is included doesn't do much to show the image is notable. That the image isn't discussed further in the text is, IMO, a fairly strong indication that the image is a fairly minor point.
• "...circles that are still hounding the reputation of Gustav III....obviously tendentious texts,...used for such propaganda..." - Yes, the image refers to an unflattering story. So what? Yes, an unflattering story will be used by those who wish to denigrate the subject. So what? It might not be true (or might be a biased exaggeration). So what?

All of that said, I'm not convinced. At the moment, I would say the image would likely belong in an article that was specific to the specific rumor or rumors about either person or, possibly, rumors about the Swedish monarchs. I do not think it is a significant enough element in the biography of this woman. It's more on par with the rock album, [Ohio (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song)|a hit song]], various movies, the opera, the preserved, reanimated head and various other references to one person that are notable in their own rights, but are not significant parts of his biography. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer a few points:"For any biographical article, we would want to include a clear representation of the person, not necessarily the best known." True, but we are not discussing the merit of the image vs any other image. There are several good depictions in the article, and some rather obscure ones. This image is instead focused on a central event of Sophia Magdalena's life, similarly to how there are also political caricatures of Lincoln in his article. I do not see how the image would not be a valid illustration in this regard.

Wahlström & Widstrand is a respectable brand that is now part of Bonniers, but it does not have a really strong identity. That the book as been published there tells that it probably was believed would sell well and be of a certain quality, but it is a popular history.

"It has been used in what is probably the major work on general Swedish history from the last years." I earlier refered to Sveriges historia (Norstedts). This is a modern history of Sweden in eight parts, written by scholars.

As for the dissertation, it is about handwritten pamphlets that circulated during Gustaf's reign. The author considers the image to have been made after the death of Gustaf, and thus out of scope of the dissertation, but has included it anyway as an illustration.

Finally "'The image is certainly used in some serious works that covers the subject' - I am not really seeing many." Apart from what has already been quoted in this reply, I have a reprint of Erik Lönnroth's " Den stora rollen: kung Gustaf III spelad av honom själv", but that does not have any illustrations at all from what I remember. There is also a biography of Gustaf II by Leif Landén, which I did not find it in when I was looking. There are certainly more books, but I would have to consult a public library.

Andejons (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! The image is not focused on "a central event of Sophia Magdalena's life" because scolars agree that that event (a sexual threesome) never took place. It's focused on, and the most sensational example of, the propaganda against her husband.

• Professor Erik Lönnroth's original biography of Gustav III (1986) has a considerable amount of illustrations. This sex drawing is not mentioned or included.
• Dr. Gunnar von Proschwitz's 428-page book of Gustav III's letters (1986), like Lönnroth's book published through the Swedish Academy, also has a considerable amount of illustrations, no sex drawing.
• The same is the case with the 534-page version of that book in French (1992).
• Same re: biography by Pierre de Luz (1949) 310 pages.
• Same re: 497-page biography by Dr. Leif Landen (2004), many illustrations, even several drawings by Count Carl August Ehrensvärd (first cousin of one of the men convicted of murdering Gustav III) who did this one, but no sex drawing in that book either. The drawing is not mentioned in the book.
• 700-page biography of Queen Sophia Magdalena in 2 volumes (1958-1959) by Lady Gerd Ribbing, illustrated albeit sparsely, no drawing, no mention of it.
• several recent books about the period by Christopher O'Regan, especially about King Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden (the baby whose creation the sex drawing purports to depict) - lots of illustrations, no sex drawing.

With respect, I'd like to bring a comment of mine down here from way above, slightly refined: What we have here can be quite exactly compared to someone in the 1980s finding a scandalous 1810s private satirical drawing, subesquently used in anti-Jefferson propaganda, by one of George III's secretaries, depicting Thomas Jefferson with his supposedly huge penis erect and about to make a rumored extramarital baby, then posting that drawing in the article about Sally Hemings. The only difference would be that Hemings aparently did have children by Jefferson, whereas Gustav III's boys were legitimate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that the image is a depiction of what actually happened. It is an illustration relevant to the whole scandal. The whole story, from Gustaf's and Sophia Magdalena's initial difficulties up to the birth of Gustaf Adolf is one of the most well-known and discussed aspects of her life.

As for Lönnroth's biography, what I said was regard to the reprint I have, not necessarily the original. If you say that the original is illustrated, I will accept that.

Andejons (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of the word "event" is what I reacted to. There was no "event". As with my Jefferson analogy, her childlessness, and the malicious gossip about it within a smal sector of the nobilty and a few of their friends in the royal family, has become one of the most well-known and discussed aspects of her life. The fact that they had no children for many years was, of course, well known. How it was solved through Muncks requested instructions - not by his sexual activity - was not common knowledge. It was and still is a propaganda item, same as the type of propaganda item George III could have used against Jeffersson, had that gossip about his slave girl been leaked. The subject image is propagandistic, not biographical. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the image was part of a propaganda. The propaganda had a great impact on her life, and the image is an illustration of the propaganda, so it naturally is biographical. I honestly do not understand what you are arguing now. Your initial argument was that an image of a Swedish queen fornicating was inappropriate because, well, it's a Swedish queen. You have since given us a variety of reasons for keeping the image. Surtsicna (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Your initial argument was that an image of a Swedish queen fornicating was inappropriate because, well, it's a Swedish queen." an total fabrication. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"After 5 years, I would like a fresh discussion of the pornographic drawing included in this article, which is not an article about Sexual propaganda or about Genitals drawn in private letters but about a queen of Sweden who was innocent of the sleazy activity depicted." "I think, very sincerely, that Queen Sophia Magdalene deserves better."

Sure, a total fabrication. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion 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.

---

More neutral input seems to be needed as to whether or not a contemporary pornographic this drawing is encyclopaedic and significant, relevant and appropriate should be included for in this article. 13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• My opinion is in the 3O request, above. (Incidentally, your statement on the issue is not neutral. "Contemporary" is not clearly relevant and "pornographic" is neither neutral nor, IMO, true. I'd suggest restating the question more along the lines of "Should this drawing be included?") - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The image should also be added to the RfC so users don't have to go back to the page to see what the RfC is referring to. This RfC should be reformatted and neutralized. Meatsgains (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The image merits inclusion in the subsection it is associated with. I can see how some may view this as "pornographic" but given the context of the section, it is relevant. It is also a drawing... not an actual image. It is not our job to censor. Meatsgains (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include Summoned by bot. I agree with the reasoning of User:SummerPhDv2.0. Additionally, per WP:GRATUITOUS: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I don't think anyone has credibly argued that any of those elements apply here. Also: "we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." Clearly a nude image is not going to be conventionally expected on the page. Perhaps a case can be made for including the image on Carl August Ehrensvärd's page, but that's a separate question and more reliable sources might be needed before using it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, there are no alternative available (well, I found out today that there are other similar pictures by Ehrensvärd, but they would not be any better). There certainly is not much reason for someone friendlier to the king and queen to have depicted anything relating to the whole story, as it does not show anyone involved in a very flattering light.

As for "not conventionally expected on the page", I went to the library, and found the image in two other books; Herman Linquists Historien om Sverige: Gustavs dagar, a biography of Gustaf III and general history of Sweden during his lifetime (it is not a shining example of history writing, but it has been read by many Swedes, so it is relevant), and Politik och passion: svenska kungliga äktenskap under 600 år, edited by Henric Bagerius and Louise Berglund, a history of royal Swedish marriages. Apart from a few books already mentioned on this page, these were the only books which covered the whole story in any detail. From what I can tell, the only book on the subject from the last (ca) 25 years that has not published the image is the biography by Landén. For these years, the convention certainly seem to be to publish the image.

As for the omission causing the article to be less "informative, relevant or accurate", for me it seems that it is a good illustration of the kind of gossip that circulated and forced Gustaf to choose between his wife and his mother. It is of course possible to just describe it in text, but I don't see how that would improve the article.

Andejons (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your efforts to locate books on the topic and report here on them. As I understand it, the WP:GRATUITOUS section says "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Note the use of "and," which is inclusive. You need to show all four of those elements are present, not a single one. Yes, I agree there is no suitable alternative of this picture. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the article is less informative, relevant or accurate. To me, that's clearly not the case here. We're talking about a private letter that was discovered and published 200 years after her death. The picture itself isn't illustrative of anything that was known or important at the time of her life. I'm not disagreeing with you that it doesn't represent something important - I think that's a question about whether to mention the existence of this drawing. The picture itself doesn't provide the reader with more "information" or provide greater "accuracy". I don't see how the article is less informative by a mere mention that the picture was done. I understand why it might be useful on Ehrensvärd's page to explain the types of drawings he did. But I don't see what utility it provides to this page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem enough to prove one of the three of "informative, relevant or accurate". If the image is relevant enough to mention in the text, surely the article would be more informative and accurate by actually showing the image? (As a side, the text was somewhat wrong; in the source given, there are other drawings by Ehrensvärd on the same theme, I might have to look it up again to see what more it says; I only did a cursory check when I was at the library).

Andejons (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quoting the article re Ehrensvärd's drawing(s?) on the subject of the group sex in that(those?) letter(s?): "without inferring that he believed they were true". To me, the inclusion of a private drawing of a sex act, made by an artist "without inferring that he believed [what he drew was] true", in an encyclopaedic biography of a person untruthfully shown in such a drawing seems rather ridiculous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include The image has been spread in newer work only because it has been popularized by Wikipedia. The only recent scolarly biography of Gustav III does not have it. FuriouslySerene has now made it perfercly clear that it should not be included in this biography, and why. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Do not include I stumbled across this whilst engaged in an unrelated RfC. It reminded me of 1 Night in Paris, a more recent celebrity sex scandal. In that example, there are no takes or even links to the original. Even the text is minimalist. True, those involved are still living. The description on Sophia Magdalena of Denmark is more than adequate. The graphic is only of specialist or perhaps prurient interest. I tend to consider it adult content inappropriate for an encyclopaedia whose readers include children, although that's not a reason for outright exclusion.Galerita (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Do include. Wikipedia is not censored. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Why should we merely describe the image in text if we can also provide the image itself? Describing it makes it clear that the image is relevant and notable, and not providing it is thus obvious censorship. The image we are discussing can be found at Sweden's National Museum of Fine Arts, which makes it undoubtedly notable and attests to its historic significance (certainly not its artistic value). How many such drawings are housed in national museums? Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The image is not on display at that museum and never has been. It's kept in a collection of private drawings by Ehrensvärd for private letters. Some of those are very good artwork and have been on display there, also printed in works about him and the art of his times, but never this one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

So, we should mention the drawing but keep it "private"? Why? Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would understand omitting the image if it was out of place, but it directly reflects the section it is associated with. If children are old enough to read about the sex scandal, they are old enough to see the picture. Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Have we all taken a moment to read the section adorned by this image? We do have a whole section discussing Munck's role in the royal couple's sex life. We also have a contemporary and notable caricature by a notable caricaturist depicting Munck's role, or at least depicting what people believed was going on. Then we even dicuss the image itself in the section. What's next after we remove the drawing? How shall we censor the text itself? Shall we start by removing the (rather erotic, huh?) mention of this caricature, lest someone be tempted to Google it or take a trip to the museum if nearby after inadvertently learning about it? Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

At risk of being a bit trite, I repeat: this was a non-event and has no place of any kind in a biography about any person, royal, regular or middle, in whose life no such event occurred or ever was rumoried to have occurred. There was, in fact no "sex scandal" except for ruomrs spread in a small section of the nobilty and 2-3 members of the king's family. The image, which was discovered in our time in the correspondence of one of those noblemen, does not depict "Munck's role" or "what people believed was going on" because no one has ever believed that Munck had his erect penis, large enough, between Gustav's thighs in order to penetrate Sophia Magdalena's vagina, nor that anything remotely similar to that ever happened to her. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:GRATUITOUS, which is cited in WP:CENSORED. There are many situations where graphic pictures aren't included on Wikipedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do include. WP:GRATUITOUS says that that the image would be OK if there are no alternative, and if the omission would make the article less informative or accurate. No one has proposed an alternative. The image is often included in modern Swedish literature upon the subject, and is well known (which even those that oppose it seem to acknowledge), well known enough that it should be mentioned in the text. Thus, there is a clear gain in accuracy and informative value in actually including it as well. Andejons (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Protest I do NOT like canvassing! The Banner talk 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Do not include - my issue is not its explicit nature but the encyclopedic relevance to a biography of her life. The drawing in question, according to the text, was not published until 1987!! While it was drawn by someone of her era, it apparently remained unseen by the public. It if it had been widely circulated during her lifetime and contributed to the scandal and been notoriously associated with her, then I can see the relevance. Otherwise it just seems like it is designed to titillate. If the drawing itself is really so famous and notable, then perhaps it deserves its own article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Do not include: Per FuriouslySerene and Wikimandia. It was not circulated during her lifetime, and it's a caricature depicting a sensitive topic, so I don't see the value in including it. The text in the section seems appropriately explanatory of the issues, and the picture doesn't add to our encyclopedic explanation. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Do not include per above (Mainly Safehaven86 & Wikimandia) - Had the image been public when she was alive then I could understand .... But it wasn't ... So I'm not really seeing the need to include the image, The text goes in to alot of detail so really there's no need for a picture here .... –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Clarification I've followed instructions here and at Wikipedia:Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the History, Biography, Society-sports-culture, Wikipedia-policies-and-guidelines, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom are known to me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for notifying me. This is not canvassing in any way. I'm signed up for the feedback service and one of my main interests is nobility so I don't see the problem. My first instinct upon clicking on the pic in question was to recommend keeping it (seeing its caption describing it as "famous") but reading that it wasn't published until recently and had actually no impact on her life whatsoever, made my decision thusly. If it really is so famous (and I'm not doubting that), it should have its own article. I would have no problem with that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral. I was asked to comment here. I don't think it would be gratuitous to include if there were historical significance, but the argument for its significance hasn't convinced me. That leaves me with no strong opinion about its inclusion. By the way, a neutral notice on a random person's talk page is not canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Include Most of the article deals with the sex lives of the royal couple and the difficulties this produced. Of course there would have been ribald and salacious gossip. This drawing illustrates the contemporary​ interest very well. --Pete (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Depends, as follows: I don't see argument about whether the related text [3] should stay, so I'm assuming it's agreed to be appropriate. On that assumption the drawing should stay as well if -- IF -- it represents the perception of the situation among (or was in circulation among) some significant segment of the population at the time -- if not the population in general, then e.g. some segment of the nobility. Based on some comments above, it looks like that condition wasn't actually fulfilled, in which case the answer would be Don't include. EEng 22:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  That would depend on how you define "represents the perception" - was there some significant segment that believed in the possibility that Munck was the father of the crown prince? Sure, among whose where the Queen mother and probably Duke Charles, which caused a huge disruption in the royal family. Would they have believed that what took place was something similar to what is depicted? Probably not. Andejons (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Depends, if the image is related to the article (though some commenters say it's not), then it can be retained as long as it contributes to the article's accuracy and information. The article does talk about the sex lives of the couple mentions the painting's artist. Sam.gov (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Don't include; it was not widely circulated at the time, so it is not actually relevant and is not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#FACEBOOK; this is not a funny-image-sharing platform.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Don't include  The picture is so small that readers are likely to see that the king is undressed to show that he is a stud, and have no idea why Munck is physically close.  Only a subset of readers will click on the picture and get a closer view.  I couldn't find that the picture had any relevance to the text.  If it did, it could probably be described with words.  The picture as it is now is merely WP:Offensive material.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Not pornographic I don't agree that it is "pornographic," however it is not really encyclopedic so I would suggest do not include as well. Damotclese (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Do include - We must not censor images. The picture relates directly to the section it is associated with. Meatsgains (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Do not include This image was unpublished at the time of the alleged controversy, and adds nothing to the content being described. It is a part of personal correspondence, and was merely one individual's thoughts on the topic. It did not contribute to the discussion at the time, nor does it contribute anything now. Scr★pIron^IV 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The image have now been removed. [Personal attack removed.] Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the image, if for no other reason than that this RfC has not been closed yet in a proper manner. SW gives an explanation for who he selected above, and I can't fault the tone of his message, so I really see no problem with canvassing.

Andejons (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: First bolded heading on that page: "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here." Applies in this case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs: "There are several ways that RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). [...] 3. The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. 4. It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. [...] the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable". I see no obvious consensus here (there are more people who want to remove it, but that is not an obvious consensus), there are one or two editors who have written "depends" as their answer who would need to either clarify or have their position evaluated by someone who is not already involved, and whose answer could move it from "obvious majority" to "very close", so the matter should be left to some uninvolved editor, not necessarily an administrator.

Andejons (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2016 (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.

Orphaned references in Sophia Magdalena of Denmark

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sophia Magdalena of Denmark's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

• From Frederick III of Denmark: Bain, Robert Nisbet (1911). "Frederick III. of Denmark and Norway" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• From Gustav III of Sweden: "Gustav III". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 18 January 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)