Talk:Swedish Royal Family/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Swedish Royal Family. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Re: princesses (2008)
When Princesses of Sweden contract unequal marriage they lose the Royal Highness prefix but retain the title of Princess [Christian name], Mrs [Married name]. How would verbally address this type of princess. Normally it would be Your Royal Highness but since they don't have that style. I am not sure what the correct title of address would be.
- Probabely, one would address them Prinsessan (literally: "the Princess"). TV reporters and such are normally heard addressing the king Kungen ("the king"), the queen Drottningen ("the queen") and the children Kronrinsessan ("the Crown Princess"), Prinsen ("the Prince") and Prinsessan ("the Princess"). If I´m not mistaking, some reporters have already broken the barrier and addressed the Crown Princess with the ordinary second person singular pronoun "du". Pemer (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Queens
What does "since women only acquired that right in 1979" mean? There were queens prior to 1979. Please clarify.
The main point is still that, in 1979, Sweden simplified the law of primogeniture by providing that the oldest child of the royal family becomes monarch regardless of sex. Sweden may have been the world's first well known monarchy to make such a change, which was adopted over the objection of the king and queen. But consider the constitutional crisis which the British would have faced if, after her assuming the throne in 1952, Elizabeth II had been presented with a little brother, the Queen Mother being, at the time, likely but not entirely beyond childbearing possibility.
Rammer (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there would have been no crisis in those circumstances, surely; Elizabeth inherited the throne from her father, not her mother, and there would have been no change whatsoever if she had a little brother after her father's death. --85.226.41.42 (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be so sure of that. The Queen Mother actually underwent a medical examination the day after her husband's death to make sure that she wasn't pregnant (she was at the very start of menopause, according to her official biographer, and had just missed her first period). Had she been pregnant Elizabeth would not have succeeded until the child was born a girl, as at that point there was no way to know a child's sex until birth. Had her accession been proclaimed before the pregnancy was discovered, Elizabeth constitutionally would still have had to step aside had her mother borne a son. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent mischief
 |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page. |
Could someone with rollback rights please restore the article as it was before 3 recent mischief edits? I don't know how. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks! Favonian (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Pruning
I removed all the pre-1818 stuff. It does not have much to do with the subject of this article. Also, it seems to be a coatrack for Woodzing's made-up anglicizations, like "Steinchetellian Dynasty". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A lot of valuable sourced information seems to have been removed here by an editor with a personal agenda making several unsubstantiated accusations which can be seen as personal attacks, not constructive editing for the benefit of WP. Of course the article can be edited regarding some matters of terminology, if necessary, but the entire obliteration of my many hours of work can be questioned, I think. I am reverting it and asking for a Third opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| I would be inclined to retain the information if properly cited sources would be used, both independent and reliable. As this is an English language site, anglicizations are unavoidable. However, as the information (existing in the last edit containing it) does not cite any sources, I would say leave it out. For this information, I think something more substantive than Wikilinks need to be used to document the facts. To bottom line it, my opinion is 100% based on the ability to cite reliable sources for this information and to use Wikipedia's templates on this page to document it. It has nothing to do with the concept of anglicizations, which I don't have a problem with if it's conventional (actually used by most, if not all, English-speakers), or your previous history with one another.—Bark (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you! I have now restored all the deleted information minus the only controversial exonyms (such as Steinchetel in English for Swedish Stenkil; or Alstan in English for Swedish Hallsten) that I have seen objections to lately, objections that have even gone so far as to nominate helpful redirects for deletion. I know these names are legitimate in older English literature, however (just as Wolferic is English for Swedish Ulrik), and will restore them when I can find reliable sources that they exist. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, it does NOT appear you addressed any of my points. --Bark (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize sincerely if you found me disrespectful of your efforts to help here.
- As I see it, any editor (seemingly with a personal agenda rather than genuine content concern) can go though all of another editor's contributions systematically and add a lot of accusations all over about hoaxing or made-up content to each and every item that isn't sourced. Such claims are likely to be personal POV claims and may lack even an ounce of substance, especially if the editor is not knowledgeable about older English literature and h fluency in English is limited..
- Anyway, all my well intentioned hours and hours of work on this article (mainly using only very well established name forms) has now been deleted again. I am not sure if you are happy with that. I can only hope not. Perhaps my latest comments here might interest you? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, it does NOT appear you addressed any of my points. --Bark (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any emotional reaction with the exception that it's regrettable that you two can't come together about this. Citing sources using the citation templates is important and should be done simultaneously when adding new information, to maintain the rule of verifiability. If Pieter Kuiper contends the naming conventions are incorrect, or even fabricated, cite sources proving you are correct. You would have a better position to defend. Fact is that most English speakers are probably not knowledgeable about older English Literature. (I know that I wouldn't want to take that test, myself.) Therefore, the responsibility is on you to provide the citations and connect the dots. If your peers cannot review your additions, then they should not be added. Remember, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." --Bark (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Bark said in his third opinion (which Woodzing has asked for) that it was better to leave this out. Yet Woodzing reintroduced the list, with lots of strange madeup terms ("Estrithian dynasty", "Sweartgarian Dynasty", etcetera; "dynasty" is not even the appropriate word in an elective monarchy). It is still completely unreferenced, which was Bark's main objection. I still feel that such a historical list does not belong in this article about the present Swedish royals. Wikipedia has a List of Swedish monarchs. That should be enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of "Names" section
Some time ago this section was removed from the article. I had worked on it for days and added it as based mainly on well sourced info found in other related articles.
I am restoring it so that anyone who'd like to work on the specific sources the 3O editor suggested will have something o work on:
Information collapsed to not overwhelm talk page.
|
|---|
|
==Names== In verifiable history, Swedish royalty has gone by a variety of names, of the dynasties as well as the persons. Many different languages have effected the spelling and known frequency of such names, but Swedish spellings, and also well known - or less known - exonyms in English, have been normal in English literature and usage. DynastiesThe royal dynasties of Sweden, with the Swedish kings, queens regnant or consort; and princes and princesses, since the 10th century are:
IndividualsThe known official names of Swedish kings, queens regnant or consort; and princes and princesses have been (alphabetically):
|
- Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hoax info re: other "heirs"
Attempts have been made recetly by a one-time new user to add hoax information about actual heirs to the Swedish throne, asserting that they descend from a dynasty deposed in 1809 and extinct in 1877. The user referred to a Facebook page, which now has been reported to Facebook as a scam. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The problem continues, and I have now warned the user. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- In response to the above: Under what authority do you have to decree that you, alone are correct in all that you know, SergeWoodzing (talk)? How do you know that said Facebook page is a hoax? Have you studied in Sweden? Have you conducted primary research in Sweden? Do you know anything about these people? Because I have. History is written on the shoulders of conquest and often contains great bias. It would seem that the goal of an open-source encyclopedia project is to explore both sides of an issue and to CORRECT history, not just bring the same half-truths forward from previous publications. Just because it was previously written somewhere DOES NOT make history true. In your private comments to me you said, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." You failed to mention it is an OPEN SOURCE project, and not "The History according to Serge." Who are you and what gives you the authority to determine right and wrong here? Oliviaactress (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't start a new section when you are replying to a subject within an existing section! And please stop SHOUTING at me!
- My "authority" or yours has nothing to do with this. It is not allowed, for you or me or anyone else, to add this kind of information to WP articles if it has not been properly sourced. WP information is supposed to be reliably truth based. If you can find a reliable impartial source that claims that the actual heirs to the Swedish throne are extramarital descendants of King Gustav IV Adolf (??), then please feel free to add that and that source! Till then, please do not add it again! A Facebook page is not a reliable impartial source for such claims.
- Thousands and thousands of people in history have wished to present themselves as royalty without actually having any substantial evidence that they are. I can't see any evidence in this case, so WP is not supposed to be a forum for such promotion.
- If any of us are curious as to who another user is, we can start by visiting that user's user page and hope that there will be some answers there. Besides that, in my case, I have access to a private library of over 500 books on Swedish and other history, and when in Stockholm (often) I live only a few blocks from the Swedish National Library Kungliga biblioteket where I have done a lot of research for many years. I have never heard of the things you are trying to add to this article. That's why I reacted to the absence of a reliable source. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I shall await confirmation which satisfies your sensibilities. I am told this is to be taken up by Riddarhuset - perhaps that satisfies you as credible. Until then, reporting their site to Facebook was mean spirited, and you know it; calling their claim a hoax in your document was mean spirited, and you know it. I believe their claim to be true and so do a lot of other people. Knowing, as we all do how history books can and have been manipulated with great bias, it would be ignorant to assume it to be an impossibility. Look, when I studied there, people referred to the seated royal family as "immigrants" - it was not, I am English. I have my reasons why I don't like injustices in history, and in this case there is much more to the whole story than appears in any of your 500 books. I shall leave it be ... for now. I shall not even challenge what is "reliably source based" as most so-called history books are riddled with false and half-truths. Kindly, Oliviaactress (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but please don't aim just to satisfy me! We are all supposed to satisfy WP guidelines and rules. That's all I ask of you. You and "a lot of other people" may believe what you choose. We all have that right. But we do not have the right to deceive people by publishing our personal beliefs as if they were facts, when they obviously are not. There is no basis whatsoever in fact, genealogical or otherwise, to claim that any extramarital descendants of a king legally deposed over 200 years ago have any right to call themselves royalty or assert claims to any thrones. It is not really "mean-spirited" of anyone to correct such blatantly false information (that's what a hoax is) and complain about false claims on Facebook where people are posing as something they absolutely are not. I will phone Riddarhuset tomorrow and find out about what you are claiming now regarding that institution. Shall I quote them here after that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, YOU brought the word "extramarital" into the discussion. I have never heard that, and I certainly did not say it. Where is YOUR reference source? You seem perfectly fine to toss innuendo and nasty comments about backstage to justify whatever it is you feel you want to defend. "information is supposed to be reliably truth based." <---- YOUR words. And yet you do not have a problem tossing terms like "hoax" and "blatantly false" and "extramarital" at your leisure. I do not know what Riddarhuset will say. I have not contacted them, myself. I was only just told that they were contacted. Period. Thus, do as you wish - you seem to be doing that, anyway. Look, my one point here is that the record of written history is flawed and oft filled with bias and half-truths. My understanding of an open-source encyclopedia project is to challenge conventional notions where they might not be completely accurate. Otherwise ... what is the point? Oliviaactress (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely about your "one point ... that the record of written history is flawed and oft filled with bias and half-truths". Still you are not defending anything worth defending in this case, whether or not an "open-source encyclopedia" is supposed to be used as you would wish, in principle.
- Here and here are examples of the silliness you are defending. It is claimed, by the people you say you believe in, that poor ricketed spinster Princess Amalia of Sweden, with an unknown man and unmarried (i.e. extramarital), had a child from whom your alleged rightful heir to the throne of Sweden - "King Johan IV" - is supposed to decend. I respectfully suggest you direct your anger not at WP's rules and at me but at people who have convinced you and "a lot of other people" to believe in such utter nonsense and have gotten you to try to help them publish it. I don't expect you to apologize here, but I would hope those hoaxters apologize to you. This embarrassing genealogy isn't even worth contacting my friends at Riddarhuset about. I'm sure they would wonder if I've gone nutty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, YOU brought the word "extramarital" into the discussion. I have never heard that, and I certainly did not say it. Where is YOUR reference source? You seem perfectly fine to toss innuendo and nasty comments about backstage to justify whatever it is you feel you want to defend. "information is supposed to be reliably truth based." <---- YOUR words. And yet you do not have a problem tossing terms like "hoax" and "blatantly false" and "extramarital" at your leisure. I do not know what Riddarhuset will say. I have not contacted them, myself. I was only just told that they were contacted. Period. Thus, do as you wish - you seem to be doing that, anyway. Look, my one point here is that the record of written history is flawed and oft filled with bias and half-truths. My understanding of an open-source encyclopedia project is to challenge conventional notions where they might not be completely accurate. Otherwise ... what is the point? Oliviaactress (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but please don't aim just to satisfy me! We are all supposed to satisfy WP guidelines and rules. That's all I ask of you. You and "a lot of other people" may believe what you choose. We all have that right. But we do not have the right to deceive people by publishing our personal beliefs as if they were facts, when they obviously are not. There is no basis whatsoever in fact, genealogical or otherwise, to claim that any extramarital descendants of a king legally deposed over 200 years ago have any right to call themselves royalty or assert claims to any thrones. It is not really "mean-spirited" of anyone to correct such blatantly false information (that's what a hoax is) and complain about false claims on Facebook where people are posing as something they absolutely are not. I will phone Riddarhuset tomorrow and find out about what you are claiming now regarding that institution. Shall I quote them here after that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I shall await confirmation which satisfies your sensibilities. I am told this is to be taken up by Riddarhuset - perhaps that satisfies you as credible. Until then, reporting their site to Facebook was mean spirited, and you know it; calling their claim a hoax in your document was mean spirited, and you know it. I believe their claim to be true and so do a lot of other people. Knowing, as we all do how history books can and have been manipulated with great bias, it would be ignorant to assume it to be an impossibility. Look, when I studied there, people referred to the seated royal family as "immigrants" - it was not, I am English. I have my reasons why I don't like injustices in history, and in this case there is much more to the whole story than appears in any of your 500 books. I shall leave it be ... for now. I shall not even challenge what is "reliably source based" as most so-called history books are riddled with false and half-truths. Kindly, Oliviaactress (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- In response to the above: Under what authority do you have to decree that you, alone are correct in all that you know, SergeWoodzing (talk)? How do you know that said Facebook page is a hoax? Have you studied in Sweden? Have you conducted primary research in Sweden? Do you know anything about these people? Because I have. History is written on the shoulders of conquest and often contains great bias. It would seem that the goal of an open-source encyclopedia project is to explore both sides of an issue and to CORRECT history, not just bring the same half-truths forward from previous publications. Just because it was previously written somewhere DOES NOT make history true. In your private comments to me you said, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." You failed to mention it is an OPEN SOURCE project, and not "The History according to Serge." Who are you and what gives you the authority to determine right and wrong here? Oliviaactress (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Son-in-law not in family?
User:Surtsicna does not want the man who just married a princess, one of the daughters of the King of Sweden, to be included in that king's extended family, the so called kungafamiljen. Media has been full of the wedding news and both the bride's and the groom's articles are well sourced in the matter. Obviously, if one's son or daughter just married someone, that person would be a member of one's family. Can we be reasonable here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since I feel WP should have reasonable, common-knowledge info as soon as something definite occurs, and should never be embarrassed by being less that up to date re: what's obvious, I have found several reliable sources that include O'Neill as a member of kungafamiljen. One - Svenska dagbladet - should suffice. Reinstating again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is so unreasonable about conforming to a basic Wikipedia policy? O'Neill's status is so peculiar that it is most definitely original research to claim that he gained any status by marriage - except if that can be sourced. I also feel that your feeling is very wrong. If the official website of the Swedish monarchy can afford to be "less that up to date re: what's obvious", why can't Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia actually supposed to be based on sources such as the official website? Or is it the other way around? Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since you asked, in my opinion, you were very unreasonable, and stubborn to have your way which was not productive, in refusing to recognize the obvious, as sourced by all the news about the wedding: a man's son-in-law is always a part of his extended family, which in this case is called kungliga familjen. That is called common sense, sourced or not, and using common sense is one of the pillars of Wikipedia work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you are engaging in grossly insulting personal attacks, which is not something I am inclined to put up with. I did not ask you to tell me what you thought of me, but that obviously meant nothing. Anyway, the greatest pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability, not what you may or may not consider "common sense". There is a reliable source that clearly lists people who belong to kungafamiljen > the source does not list a certain person > Wikipedia should not list that person. That's what I would call common sense. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the link to the source that allegedly confirms that O'Neill is a member of kungafamiljen is broken. Therefore, the reference is completely invalid. It should be either fixed or removed. Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since you asked, in my opinion, you were very unreasonable, and stubborn to have your way which was not productive, in refusing to recognize the obvious, as sourced by all the news about the wedding: a man's son-in-law is always a part of his extended family, which in this case is called kungliga familjen. That is called common sense, sourced or not, and using common sense is one of the pillars of Wikipedia work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- What is so unreasonable about conforming to a basic Wikipedia policy? O'Neill's status is so peculiar that it is most definitely original research to claim that he gained any status by marriage - except if that can be sourced. I also feel that your feeling is very wrong. If the official website of the Swedish monarchy can afford to be "less that up to date re: what's obvious", why can't Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia actually supposed to be based on sources such as the official website? Or is it the other way around? Surtsicna (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Surtsicna! I didn't even get a chance to repair that link until you reverted again. I'm sincerely sorry if I've unintentionally offended you, but you are now in violation of WP:3RR here and I think you should fix that or be blocked for it. Lucky for you (?), I've never had to report anyone for that before and I can't figure out how. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Knowledgeable editor! Please help me enforce the 3RR rule! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- SergeWoodzing! I did not revert anything after you inserted the link and everyone can see that.[1][2] Such a claim and this "report" are obnoxiously untrue. Lying and slandering are not very nice things, SergeWoodzing, and they really make me doubt the sincerity of your apology. Unfortunately for both me and you (?), I have had a chance to report a user for personal attacks and I don't find it very hard to do. Surtsicna (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You don't seem to know the rule! Better have a good look. I think you actually reverted O'Neill entries 4 times during one day, removed him after another user or I added him out of common sense. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- And that is yet another untruth that everyone can debunk. You either do not know what a revert is or you are not aware that people can actually count how many times I reverted. Once again, I do not appreciate lies and slander. For what it's worth, removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) does not even count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR. Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- You don't seem to know the rule! Better have a good look. I think you actually reverted O'Neill entries 4 times during one day, removed him after another user or I added him out of common sense. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Surtsicna arguably reverted a grand total of four times since every revert counts, not just reverts of the same specific edit: [3][4][5][6] On the other hand, attributing O'Neill's status to the newspaper is not a revert. That said, you should both ask yourselves if adding O'Neill to the extended family right now instead of in a few days is really that important an issue that you need to edit-war and insult each other over it. On the issue, I'd say the current way of attributing O'Neill's status should be an acceptable compromise. Huon (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Huon, thank you for stepping in. I cannot agree about the revert count, however. Not all of those edits were reverts, and those that were would not count due to the BLP exemption. Anyway, the core of this issue appears to be whether verifiability should have priority over "common sense". I am strongly in favour of the former, especially when it comes to BLPs. Restoring unsourced and clearly contentious information about a living person cannot be justified by "common sense". Surtsicna (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Surtsicna arguably reverted a grand total of four times since every revert counts, not just reverts of the same specific edit: [3][4][5][6] On the other hand, attributing O'Neill's status to the newspaper is not a revert. That said, you should both ask yourselves if adding O'Neill to the extended family right now instead of in a few days is really that important an issue that you need to edit-war and insult each other over it. On the issue, I'd say the current way of attributing O'Neill's status should be an acceptable compromise. Huon (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 | You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access. |
[[User:|Huon]]
Thanks very much Huon, especially for the diff's, but I asked for help with Surtsicna's violation of WP:3RR, not with helping us argue the content issue, since I can't figure out how to deal with the 3RR problem myself. Sorry I don't seem to have made that clear last time. Is anyone able to help with that - 3RR - or are 4 reverts in one day OK because the content issue is arguable? Didn't see that in the rules. May I also do that then? Please reply to that! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- No violation of 3RR occurred here. The diffs do not show four reverts, merely four edits of which less than three can be considered reverts. Even if they somehow do count as reverts, none of the edits actually counts as a revert for the purpose of the 3RR, per the last of the exemptions listed here (removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR). Finally, I have to say how sad it is to see a user call for block of another user 12 hours after the dispute ended. Blocks serve to prevent further disruption, not to provide vindictive users with an opportunity to spite others. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
PS: Might I add that I never had no time provide one of the many sources I was preparing, trying to find the most reliable one, no time because of Surtsicna's quick, repeated reverts? I still believe that's what WP calls "edit-warring" and that 3RR is supposed to put a stop to antics like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, please. I believe the acronym "LOL" would be by far the best reply to that. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
A word of caution to all... 3RR is not engraved on stone, nor is it a right. It's a guideline - going beyond 3RR is definitely not advised, but there is no right to go to three. Beyond three lies danger. But edit warring can start at one revert. When in hot pursuit of a vandal, five and six reverts are allowed (but it's safer to get help...). This does not apply to content dispute. Can I suggest that when someone is adding content, that they have their sources ready to put in with the text? Then, if there is a revert, they can both go to the talk page. To discuss, not to fight. I'm saying nothing about the rights and wrongs of the content dispute. Just making a point about Wikipedia procedure and proceeding as a team. Peridon (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Peridon. SergeWoodzing and Surtsicna, by now you both seem more interested in bickering and wikilawyering than in improving the article. Is either of you unhappy with the current version of the article? Apparently not.
- Some comments on past conduct. WP:3RR says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." All of the diffs I gave above show Surtsicna undoing other editors' actions in whole or in part, so that's four reverts. Arguably removal of unsourced contentious claims about living persons is an exemption, but the guideline also says: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." On the other hand, the claim that SergeWoodzing couldn't add sources because he repeatedly had to immediately re-add the unsourced content seems rather unconvincing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- The place to report 3RR violations would be WP:AN3, but firstly the content dispute seems resolved, no further reverts occurred and there's no edit warring to be stopped any more, and secondly, Surtsicna clearly acted in good faith and may well have been within the bounds of the BLP exception. Reporting him may well result in a WP:BOOMERANG.
- My advice to both of you would be to take a step back, look at the article and check whether its coverage of O'Neill now is appropriate, and if not, to discuss the problems here on the talk page. If it is, so much the better; we're done here. Huon (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This [7] says that Christopher O'Neill is not a member of kungahuset if that´s still an issue. He intends to remain american citizen and keep his businesses, and so will not have any titles or be considered a member of kungahuset. Svenska Dagbladet, usually an RS, is wrong in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, strike that. I bow to the person quoted in Svenska Dagbladet. And I believe that O´Neill´s membership in Kungafamiljen can be stated as a fact with that source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but he cannot be listed among those who are "officially considered part of the King's extended family" (the source for that being the official website that does not include him). Surtsicna (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- True, Tarras-Wahlberg is trumphed by [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose the problem is that, unlike in the Netherlands for example, there is no precise legal definition in Sweden of who belongs to the Royal House or the Royal Family. That same confusion has arisen with respect to whether Princess Madeleine's children will be "princes/princesses of Sweden" or not, and whether they will be in the line of succession to the throne or not. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous legal definition, the best we can do is to go by of what the Swedish Royal House official website says and, as you can see, it does not list Mr. O'Neill as a member of the Royal Family although it mentions him as Princess Madeleine's fiancé. I don't know whether the website will be updated or not to include Mr. O'Neill now that he is already married to Princess Madeleine, but, until that is done, I don't think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to list him as a member of the Royal Family or the Royal House.161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Source: http://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen.4.1c3432a100d8991c5b80002606.html
- Members of the Swedish Royal Family are quite simply the princes and princess who are in line to inherit the throne, as defined by the Swedish Government's official annual publication Statskalendern, plus their wives and husbands who are not in line to inherit the throne. Whatever titles have or have not been given, for whatever reasons, to the individuals in the latter group makes no family difference, in my opinion. But as long as Stockholm Palace itself continues to confuse everyone about this in such a sloppy and vexing manner, by still having O'Neill mentioned on the family list in the Swedish version of their website, but omitted in the English version, who can say anything with certainty? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Source: http://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen.4.1c3432a100d8991c5b80002606.html
- A distinction is made between the members of the Royal House and of the Royal Family in the Court Directory (hovkalendern) which is annually published by the Office of the Marshal of the Realm. Statskalendern is less comprehensive and is published privately since 2011. Elzo 90 (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! When and how do we access Hovkalendern for 2013? I see that the one for 2010 lists Prince Carl Bernadottes widow as belonging to the extended royal family. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- A distinction is made between the members of the Royal House and of the Royal Family in the Court Directory (hovkalendern) which is annually published by the Office of the Marshal of the Realm. Statskalendern is less comprehensive and is published privately since 2011. Elzo 90 (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended family
I made a BOLD edit and removed Chris O'Neill and the brother-in-laws, since according to the source [9] they are not members, extended or otherwise. The brother-in-laws are mentioned by name in the source, but it´s clear that they are not members (only the king´s sisters). I know common sense indicates otherwise, but common sense isn´t always right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Common sense indicates that officials know about this matter more than we do, and that we should follow reliable sources rather than engage in original research. I agree with your decision to remove them. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"it´s clear that they are not members" seems to be GGS's personal POV but that is not born out by the facts (the source). I can thnk of no reason to mention those two men by name there unless they are considered members of the King's extended family. The Palace is now aware of the ruckus caused at Swedish and English WP by the omission of O'Neill and says it will address that matter soon on the website. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Personal POV? Are you joking? You are accusing Gråbergs Gråa Sång of POV-pushing because he made the article compliant with the source, while you are the one claiming that "common sense" is more important than verifiability! I cannot believe you are being serious. Anyway, be sure to tell us what C.G. thinks. He must be worried sick about Internet disputes such as this one. Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The source says basically: "member is princess X, married to mr Y." Not "member is princess X and her husband mr Y."
- It also says "Further members of the royal family are the kings sisters." Not "sisters and their husbands".
- This makes it clear to me that you can´t use this source (which can of course be updated, then we can too) to claim that the brother-in-laws are extended family (current family in the case of Mr Hohenzollern). Call it POV if you want. I don´t know why the gentlemen are mentioned by name, perhaps courtesy/traditional reasons, they did land a princess after all.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Continiung problem re listings
In total disregard of what was clearly established at Talk:Line of succession to the Swedish throne#RFC one user, who we can assume is aware of what was resolved, continues to make edits like this anyway, listing Crown Princess Victoria merely as "The Crown Princess". I really wish that would stop now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended family, again
I made a poor edit removing Chris O´Neill again, since I forgot that the kings own brother-in-laws are also currently represented in this article in a way that is not supported by the source [10]. I understand the desire to mention them by name, but they are not (unlike Daniel) members of the Royal Court or Extended Family, merely (hmm) married to people that are. I think that the way to mention these inlaws is to copy the way of the source, for example, under "Current members" it would read "HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland (the King's younger daughter), married to Mr. Christopher O'Neill". OR we invent the category "In-laws not considered members" and put Chris, Hohenzollern and the others there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- At the only reliable (!) source we have, which you linked to, O'Neill is mentioned in Swedish under a heading which could infer that he in fact is a member of the Royal Family, but in English not mentioned at all, as neither are the King's 3 non-royal sisters or those brothers-in-law mentioned at all in English. Until the Royal Court elects to clear up the confusion it has caused by these contradictory and sloppy listings, I think we'd just better leave this alone now. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we could just replace the whole section attempting to list who's who today, with something like
- Nobody really knows who is royal and who is not or who is a part of the family or the court or whatever, because the Swedish Royal Court is such an amateur entity nowadays that they don't seem to know how to inform us clearly about the most fundamental things. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason not to comply with Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion. We are not supposed to infer anything from sources. We are supposed to report what sources say - as simple as that. Surtsicna (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- SergeWoodzing, as in the previous discussion, I think you´re wrong here. Compare how Daniel and Chris are mentioned in the source. That makes your "could infer" very weak in my opinion. Any interpretation other than "Daniel in - Chris and other in-laws out" is not supported by this source and requires more than sky-is-blue OR. The current version singles out Chris in a way that is worse than before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- O'Neill is mentioned by name in Swedish in a section where that section's only purpose is to name the members of Kungafamiljen - the Royal Family. That makes it rather obvious that the intent could be to infer that O'Neill belongs there. We just don't know because of the sloppy work, so far, at that website. How about let's give this a rest now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again, disagree. "That section's only purpose" is your interpretation. My reading is that, like with the kings brother-in-laws slightly below, we are just informed who the princesses happen to be married to. O´Neills name was inserted like the names of those men, clearly not said to be royals: "Kungl. Familjens övriga medlemmar är Kungens systrar:". Again, Daniel is different, he was actually, well, royalized. I am not willing to let this rest yet, since the current version is bad, what does "nor as not such" mean? It´s clear that both you and I think we´re obviously right, so we´re unlikely to agree on this. We agree that the source [11] is reliable, that´s something. I´d like to see a consensus on this, so I´ll ask for more opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- "nor as not such" in Swedish is "inte heller att han inte är det". You cannot base any rational discussion, here or elsewhere, on a source that is too unclear for you, me or anyone else to interpret rationally. And you are I do not agree that that sloppy source is reliable, only that it is the only available source we can use. That's the problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Again, disagree. "That section's only purpose" is your interpretation. My reading is that, like with the kings brother-in-laws slightly below, we are just informed who the princesses happen to be married to. O´Neills name was inserted like the names of those men, clearly not said to be royals: "Kungl. Familjens övriga medlemmar är Kungens systrar:". Again, Daniel is different, he was actually, well, royalized. I am not willing to let this rest yet, since the current version is bad, what does "nor as not such" mean? It´s clear that both you and I think we´re obviously right, so we´re unlikely to agree on this. We agree that the source [11] is reliable, that´s something. I´d like to see a consensus on this, so I´ll ask for more opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- O'Neill is mentioned by name in Swedish in a section where that section's only purpose is to name the members of Kungafamiljen - the Royal Family. That makes it rather obvious that the intent could be to infer that O'Neill belongs there. We just don't know because of the sloppy work, so far, at that website. How about let's give this a rest now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- SergeWoodzing, as in the previous discussion, I think you´re wrong here. Compare how Daniel and Chris are mentioned in the source. That makes your "could infer" very weak in my opinion. Any interpretation other than "Daniel in - Chris and other in-laws out" is not supported by this source and requires more than sky-is-blue OR. The current version singles out Chris in a way that is worse than before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Removing O'Neill completely creates a problem
It creates a problem for English Wikipedia as a credible source of information, in my opinion, to remove one of the King's sons-in-law from the article as if he does not exist. Readers are apt to wonder if he's dead or what happened. I have attempted to create a reasonable mention of him, which I am now reinstating. I ask that it be edited, rather than his existence being totally blitzed here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It´s better than when I last looked at the page, but like I wrote above, the best way to mention him (and the three other in-laws) is to do it the way the source do it: next to their spouse, in the spouse´s category. That way he is not singled out like some unique occurence, and we don´t have to speculate.
- HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland (the King's younger daughter), married to Mr. Christopher O'Neill.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing reasonable about a OR or synthesis. He should be mentioned the way Gråbergs Gråa Sång proposed, i.e. the way the source mentions him. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that the three of us are the ones that are interested enough to discuss this for the time being, not great for forming a consensus. SergeWoodzing, can you accept my suggestion as ok for now, until better sources present themselves? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- So edited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that the three of us are the ones that are interested enough to discuss this for the time being, not great for forming a consensus. SergeWoodzing, can you accept my suggestion as ok for now, until better sources present themselves? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Uneven HE-ing
From where do we have that two of the King's in-law aunts - both countesses - are excellencies? I'd like to see a source, or let's remove that. And how should Princess Kristine Bernadotte be listed then, who actually is a princess of nobility (and thus higher in rank than the countesses, I believe)? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- She shouldn't be because the source does not list her. WP:MOS would suggest getting rid of all Majesties, Highnesses, and Excellencies. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it does, she´s the last one: "Prinsessan Kristine Bernadotte (f. 1932), född Rivelsrud." SergeWoodzing, I agree about the HE:s. They may very well be correct, but they´re not in the source, so chop them, leaving us with two countesses and one princess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the Swedish version mentions her. My apologies, SergeWoodzing. In that case, I change the question to: why isn't she mentioned yet? Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- She is, last under Extended family. Called princess, as in the source. That maybe a different kind of princess though, since her husband was Prince (Furste in swedish) of Belgium (WP tells me). I´m quite happy not looking more closely at that, so "princess" is fine with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thinking a little more, since the swedish source don´t call her "furstinna", there´s absolutely no reason we should change how we mention her. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's a title of nobility in this case. Her husband was not a (royal) Prince of Belgium but a prince of the Belgian nobility. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the Swedish version mentions her. My apologies, SergeWoodzing. In that case, I change the question to: why isn't she mentioned yet? Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it does, she´s the last one: "Prinsessan Kristine Bernadotte (f. 1932), född Rivelsrud." SergeWoodzing, I agree about the HE:s. They may very well be correct, but they´re not in the source, so chop them, leaving us with two countesses and one princess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Language versions
OK, I made another rather time-consuming effort to get this article's listing to conform exactly to the cited source, but most of that effort was trashed within minutes. Sad.
Now, a reader of English cannot follow a link to the English version of the Royal Court's website, because that version does not reflect what our article shows.
Why would it be a good idea to direct readers of English to the Royal Court's website in Swedish, and then when they (probably) switch to the English version of that website they will find that what's in the article isn't on the website in a language they can read?
I don't get it, and I don't understand why, in this case, a few text lines in the article about a source, which I added to clarify the article to readers of English, should be called unencyclopedic.
There are hundreds if not thousands of text clarifications about sources in Wikipedia's articles and in other encyclopedias as well.
I also do not understand why we cannot discuss these matters on this page rather than deciding things on our own and dictating our wishes to other editors in the edit summaries.
What's the use of trying to get this fixed right? I guess I'll just give up and let the English readers be as confused by this article as they are bound to be now, but would not have been if a few lines about the contradictory language verfsions of the source could have been left in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because spotting a few names does not require any knowledge of the given language. In a vast majority of cases (Swedish included), Latin script is enough. For God's sake, the reader does not even have to speak English! If our readers are literate, they will do perfectly fine with the Swedish language version. If they are not, this is all a moot point. The clarifications you refer to as being in other articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia. The ones I removed were not. Correct me if I am wrong, but you did not discuss this matter on this page before deciding things on your own and dictating your wishes to other editors in the edit summaries; you just went out and added the "clarifications". Once again, spotting a few names requires no knowledge of Swedish. Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going to try not to argue mainly for the sake of arguing, but try to arrive at some kind of reasonable consensus, it would seem obvious that a normal reader of English who does not know Swedish will be less interested in trying to spot names on the Swedish version that in switching to the English version, where many of the names you'd like h to spot will be missing. Didn't you have that problem yourself on that website a number of times, or have I misunderstood you above? If that website did not have an English version which does not source this article, it would be different. In any case it's a rather serious problem (with the cited source) as I see it, and I think it needs to be addressed constructively, not just just dismissed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Weren't you about to give up and let the English readers be as confused by this article as they are bound to be now? Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going to try not to argue mainly for the sake of arguing, but try to arrive at some kind of reasonable consensus, it would seem obvious that a normal reader of English who does not know Swedish will be less interested in trying to spot names on the Swedish version that in switching to the English version, where many of the names you'd like h to spot will be missing. Didn't you have that problem yourself on that website a number of times, or have I misunderstood you above? If that website did not have an English version which does not source this article, it would be different. In any case it's a rather serious problem (with the cited source) as I see it, and I think it needs to be addressed constructively, not just just dismissed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Third Opinion: Is it inappropriate or appropriate to explain, in the artilce's text, language version inconsistencies on an exclusive source website? To that question my answer is: I agree with this edit and the reasons given by the editor making the change. [12].-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)