Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden/Archive 2

Grave move
According to this edit on February 2nd, either Christina's grave or that of Pope John Paul II must have been moved during the last year. I wrote to the user who made the change but have had no reply. Anyone know anything? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could have read the pope's article before posting this. Now I know. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable
This has got to be one the most unreliable, POV-pushing articles I've come across. Citation needed tags within the references? Seriously? Dubious "facts" without citation are kept in to make the article more interesting? Because they are "obvious"? Ridiculous. This is why I rarely edit anymore. There's no point to it. --Elliskev 14:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Elliskey, you are exagerating. I am quit sure the article is more reliable than a year ago. Statements by authors that were there for two/three years without references could be removed, but I moved them this morning to the references. Nobody had the courage (or the knowledge?) to add or to change. It is obvious Wikipedia is not a scientific magazine. It is used/read by school kids as far as I understand and not by university professors.Taksen (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not exaggerating. There are references in this article with a 'needs citation' tag. There is a clearly dubious "fact" in the lead without any citation of source. There is an blatant disregard for WP:CS, WP:NOR, and plenty of other Wikipedia standards. This article is pretty bad. --Elliskev 20:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way what happened to your talkpage? I see an Ichtus there, but no discussion. Your comment is suspicious.Taksen (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? What does a comment on my talk page have to do with anything? --Elliskev 20:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to be constructive then why not be clear about why you think the article is "un-reliable and POV-pushing"? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again someone with hardly any history on Wikipedia. Moved the sentence down, as I put it in the lead; it did exist already. I am not a cross-dresser, transsexual or lesbian but will look for evidence.Taksen (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not surprised it has to do with Greta Garbo and the movie, but I cannot read the whole article. May be someone else can and add content to the article? Taksen (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

prudishness
User:138.92.41.185, who made only two reverts uptill now, obviously does not like nudity, but reverted the following sentence too:

"In the twentieth century, Christina became a symbol of cross-dressing, transsexuality and lesbianism."

I wonder if it is a mother or a youngster; is he or she from the Bible Belt or is it the Vatican? This is 21st century, not the Victorian 19th century. I think it belongs somewhere in the article, not necessarily in the lead.

To me it looks hilarious to depict Christina as a 100% straight woman. It is obvious Christina was sexually complex woman. Someone removed also an internal link to Disorder of sexual development. That article does not look very good, but the topic is interesting, and needs more attention. I think this topic could be mentioned somewhere in this article.Taksen (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Christina without the sexual ambiguity is less interesting and less historically accurate. It needs to remain in. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the references I made is to Bernard Quilliet who is the author of numerous political and military histories, including biographies of Louis XII, Christina of Sweden, and William the Silent, and has won many awards from the Académie française. Quilliet has a lot of details which I did not dare to translate. When you visit the aricles on Pietro Aretino, Ars Amatoria and Marcus Valerius Martialis you get an idea.Taksen (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Christine de Suède, un roi exceptionnel, Presses de la Renaissance, 1982, nouvelle édition chez Fayard - 2007.

Squadrones volantes?
What the f***k are "squadrones volantes"? Never heard of some "mobile trouble-shooting unit" of the Vatican's in early modern times!! From the linguistic point of view, this is neither latin (as it may have been dressed up to look like) nor italian nor french. Could the contributor please specify on that, and could all who feel responsible for the article please try to figure this out? I will make no changes, because I'm really not sure, just very little confident on this particular information. User:Reminiscor 14:36, 16 Mar 2006 (CET)
 * it's the Squadrone Volante and wasn't an 'mobile trouble- shooting unit' it was more or less a faction in the vatican during Christina's time there, one of their major ideologies was to oppose Papal Nepotism. I've removed the sentence in question as utter gibberish, until I can thonk of something better to replace it with.(Johnny Copper 10:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I've readded mention of it with proper context (Cardinal Azzolino as her platonic lover).


 * This was raised a long time ago (2006) but I thought it might be worth noting that this has since been somewhat addressed with the creation of articles for both Decio Azzolino and the Squadrone Volante. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Removal of grave photo
Though I appreciate very much all the good work being done on this article, it baffles me to no end how anyone ever could entertain the idea ov removing the grave photo from a biographical article of this extent, especially when it was to be found in a section of the article called Burial. I see no justification whatsoever in hiding that image under External links and have resinstatd it where it rather obviously belongs. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely. Nice work. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting content
Hi. I think there's some conflicting content which probably needs to be addressed for the article to be considered properly "encyclopaedic". Looking at this talk page, it would seem there has been a fair bit of back and forth about Christina's sexuality. These questions seem to be sorting themselves out as the article is developed, based on newly discovered sources, discussions about those sources and historical context.

It does, however, seem strange to include statements like, "Christina had a disdain for marriage, sex, [...]" (without citation) while in the same section acknowledging she carried on a not-so-secret sexual relationship, and with a Cardinal no less. It would seem, on the evidence available, that she may have had varied sexual preferences or even that these preferences changed and were different at different stages of her life. But suggestions of asexuality or a disdain for sexual relationships seem directly contrary to the evidence available. She certainly would not have been required (under any circumstances) to maintain a non-marital sexual relationship (especially with a Cardinal) so I can't see how anyone could conclude that she did so other than by her own free will. If she really had a disdain for such a relationship, surely she would have simply not entertained one. Thoughts? Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Appearance, body, and comportment references
Okay, so further to the above, it looks like there's a bit of a problem with some of the sources being used to build on the information in this section. The following were provided as references:


 * - a listing for a doctoral thesis / dissertation only some of which is actually provided. The name of the author does not seem to be provided.
 * the name of the author is Camilla Eleonora Kandare as mentioned at the end.


 * - an unreferenced blog. The name of the author is not provided and it is not clear if the information is copyright or is even historical (as opposed to a fictionalised account) - it is simply not clear.
 * Although the article does not mention any sources, the content does not look as nonsense. it gives quite a good account of what was going on.


 * - an entry from a "Trivia Library" which has apparently been reproduced from an original source "with permission".


 * The information you left out cannot be copyrighted, it dates from the 17th century. The citation is from a French visitor to Kristinas Italian palazzo three years before her death and I am unhappy you left it out, because it makes very clear what she looked like. His name is probably César d'Estrées.

At least one was listed twice under different formats. I don't think the first two could be considered reliable sources (given we don't know who the authors are). The third may be okay but the sources would need to be clarified and cited properly.


 * It was not very difficult to find out the name of the author. You prefer to delete, rather than check the sources and adding content.Taksen (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have hidden the sections of the article which relied on these sources, but I have not deleted them. I have, in fact, cleaned them up so if the consensus is that they are okay, they can be fairly easily re-instated. This section, though, needs work and given how controversial this aspect of the article is, we need to make sure we get references and sources right. At the moment they are not.

Happy to discuss, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Have now hidden this reference also - it is an art blog entry about a photographic, fictional re-imagining of Christina as the goddess Artemis. The "facts" given by the artist (she wrote the blog entry about her own work) are not referenced or sourced. Surely this can not be considered a reliable source. Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have hidden the almost direct quote which came from the above-mentioned "source". The author's interpretation of her education is, I believe, not particularly accurate or reliable. All descriptions of her education (including the one in the biographical information in the article) seem to come from the Catholic Encyclopaedia quote: "[she was] ...brought up like a boy, and received instruction in the various branches of learning from distinguished men". Surely this does not mean her educators considered her anatomically male; just that she received a higher level of education than that usually afforded to a girl. The Encyclopaedia goes on to say that, "feminine occupations and amusements had no attraction for her". Again, perhaps slightly unusual, but it still seems a big jump from "well-educated tom-boy" to "androgynous lesbian" which is what that source suggests she was. Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hello Stalwart. Since a year I seem to be the only one who adds content here. I have not seen you adding anything, just deleting, (which is what most Wikipedians do nowadays). The content of the paragraph looks very bare again, after hours of work. I am also disappointed because I obviously had not finished it.
 * First: You left out websites which I added to make clear I borrowed a sentence. Wikipedia seems not to be about truth, but, if one can come up with a traditional, conventional reference.
 * Yes, that's right. It might suck sometimes but that's right. It's not about opinions or someone's interpretation of events, it's an encyclopaedia which has to be properly referenced.


 * Secondly you left out the quote, which is just not right without debate. I think we have to work with what there is, because the amount of books on her available in the Amsterdam libraries is limited and I wonder where you live, and how many books you could get from your library on this subject.
 * Actually, according to Wikipedia rules it's not right to include it without a reliable source in the first place. There's a note to that effect under the edit window every time you edit. I hid it because it was from an unreliable source. The source is still unreliable and so I will hide it again. Please do not re-instate the quote until you can find a reliable source. For the record, I will do my best to find one. My goal is to improve the article, not to steer it in any particular direction.


 * It will be difficult for me to translate from a book in French which has more details, but may be I should order the latest and revised edition from Paris.
 * Sure, I regularly borrow books, buy books, search online for new digitisations of books and hunt for new sources. Every reliable source we find contributes to Wikipedia. Every unreliable source we quote degrades the integrity of what is, at the end of the day, an encyclopaedia.


 * Yesterday I started to read Veronica Buckley and will add from her today. I like to collaborate, because it is nice to discover more and more people are interested in the topic, but not if your goal is to make Christina a catholic straight woman and leave out everything deviant in such a complicated topic. Taksen (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with quoting almost directly if I give a source. Anybody can check what I did yesterday on the internet. I wonder how many books and articles you read on Christina before yesterday. You left out information on her upbringing as a boy that is unquestionable, why? I don't believe Christina had sex with men in the usual way and I am not interested in mentioning here the details. But it should be very clear from the article she was an unusual woman, with lots of interest in theatre, dance, music, occultism, alchemy, obsessed with love and sin. I like to think she was used by the Vatican during the Counter reformation when buried in the Grotto.08:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not very many people in the world seem to have admittance to reliable sources and I really like to know how many books (or articles) you can get in your library on Christina, queen of Sweden. Then it will possible for you to improve the article with new information or citations and you can find out your self how difficult it is. Many people are interested, but it is not an easy subject! Taksen (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in arguing here, my English is too limited, and it takes a lot of time too. You could help me and improve the content of a lemma on a "crazy" woman I first heard of 35 years ago.Taksen (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi mate. First; more than happy to help and that was why I hid the content rather than deleting it and made it quite clear why I had not deleted it - my intention was for it to be fixed rather than for it to go away. The article has been contributed-to by many different authors, including some very well-respected wikipedians who have contributed vast amounts to articles relating to 17th century European history. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of WP:OWN - we all contribute to wikipedia and none of us "own" any of the articles, regardless of how much we contribute to them.


 * The sources I referred to still haven't been fixed and there really is no way they could be considered reliable sources. I understand there are not a lot of reliable sources but citing uncredited blogs and online trivia pages surely detracts from the credibility of the article in general. The citation you gave for reinstating the large block quote has no author, no date, no references and does not even mention the person to whom you have now attributed the quote. In fact, it says, "A French visitor to Kristinas Italian palazzo three years before her death gave a different description:". It does not mention César d'Estrées at all. Your interpretation that (in your opinion) the, "...content does not look as nonsense", is not sufficient to consider it a reliable source.


 * The trivia page might be able to be used as a source but I note the document was reproduced with the permission of the original authors. Unless there is a way to determine if that permission extends to Wikipedia then we need to be very careful about how we subsequently reproduce information from that source. And the original source needs to be cited. Information cannot be copyrighted, and it isn't. The author's interpretation of that information most certainly can be copyrighted and it has been ("© 1975 - 1981").


 * I didn't say you shouldn't quote directly - I removed an almost direct quote from an unreliable source. The quote (compared to the source) was accurate, the source itself is what was in question. I'm glad the quote and the source have not been reinstated - I think we both know it was a little bit silly to have included it in the first place.


 * I don't have any "agenda" and have no desire to see this person depicted as anything other than what the evidence suggests she was. While there are not a lot of sources, there are a few including John Bargrave (her contemporary who actually met many of the people she interacted with). Wikipedia has very clear guidelines about referencing. I removed the references to unreliable sources in a way that would allow them to be reinstated if they can be fixed. I am more than happy to try and help you fix them but it is going to require significant work.


 * Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then... So I've re-instated the large block quote and another section (exactly as I said I would) having found proper sources for both quotes. Will continue to add more information and sources. Please, though, no more anonymous blogs or trivia pages! :-) Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Library
Hello Stalwart, you sound reasonable, let's go on. It is possible I make mistakes, the Dutch (and probably also the German and the French) Wikipedia are less strict and there are ten thousand rules in the English Wikipedia. I am interested in adding to the content and care less about legal rules.

Maybe the time has come for Wikipedia to amend its famous slogan. May be it should call itself "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit on the condition that said person meets the requirements laid out in Wikipedia Code 234.56, subsections A34-A58, A65, B7 (codicil 5674), and follows the procedures specified in Wikipedia Statutes 31 - 1007 as well as Secret Wikipedia Scroll SC72 (Wikipedia Decoder Ring required). ref Nicholas Carr (2010) "Questioning Wikipedia". In: Critical point of view. A Wikipedia Reader edited by Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacs, Inc Reader #7, p. 200.[ http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/08/rise_of_the_wik.php ]

I still would like to know how many books you have found on the shelves of your library? I guess if you don't live near Boston you are limited. It explains why so many people concentrate on the rules.

It looks like some Bargraves publications on Christina have been translated speedily into Dutch. Unfortunately the print is in Gothic. It would be easier to read the original. His remarks must have been used or did I miss something?

May be you could take a look here. Quit a few sentences in the article were borrowed from there without mentioning the source. Taksen (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that sentiment and I've seen that quote before. I don't think it really shows a great understanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it should be a reliable source of factual information. If people want to share their personal opinions or cut-and-paste random things from the internet they can - it's called Facebook. On Facebook, the "facts" you share with other people don't need to be referenced. They don't even need to be facts. We have rules and guidelines because without them, Wikipedia would become a slightly-more-factual version of Facebook; full of advertising, personal opinion and a lack of regard for copyright.


 * I live in Australia, so the number of primary sources on any given topic is likely to be low; much lower than most other places. I would imagine that in Europe, your access to primary sources relating to European history would be significantly better than mine. Let's face it, you could probably jump in your car and drive to many of the places mentioned in the article or at least the libraries that hold the original documents. No such luck for me. But I make good use of Google books and I read as much as I can offline. I understand a very small amount of Italian, French and Dutch but it's enough to recognise key sections so I can plug them into Google translate.


 * Bargrave's book is available to read online (in English) here.


 * Have had a look at that link - had seen it before. Probably not as good as a primary source from a contemporary author or a referenced source from a modern author. It should probably be used with caution.


 * Buckley has come be to considered somewhat of a modern "expert" on Christina, in much the same way as Antonia Fraser with regard to Louis XIV and notable women of the 17th century. Buckley's work is heavily referenced and draws from a range of sources both modern and historical, some of which were written by Christina's contemporaries. It is still, though, one author's interpretation of various interpretations and is far from being a primary source. We should be careful not to rely too heavily on a single source for any particular section - at the moment, about 50% of the citations for the section in question are for the same source. I will have another crack at cleaning the section up a little bit but it's looking much better.


 * Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I spent some time today re-writing the section in question. In general, I've tried to organise the "ideas" into Introduction, Physical (Infant, Child, Adult, Elderly), Sexual, Anthropological ...with generally the same chronology for each part as you initiated (while that was the general framework I used while editing, I didn't think there was a need for actual, in-article sub-headings). I've moved the text away from large block quotes to a more prosaic style and have rearranged the citations so they correspond with the assertion being made. Where a controversial assertion is being made or where there are two obvious views, I have attributed each view to a particular author, eg. "Buckley asserts...", etc. Where the text is in the form of recount or reflection I have provided the source.


 * I've cut down the Buckley references and directed them all to the same citation. If we are going to rely on her accounts fairly heavily then there's no point citing specific pages, especially several in a row. So I fixed the google books link and ISBN so readers can find the cited text more easily.


 * Hope you are generally happy with the direction I took (again, with reference to WP:OWN).


 * Have also cleaned up some of the references so they are in a consistent style and so that those without links have links. Have also cleaned up this conversation here on the talk page so that future reference isn't made more difficult by the existence of multiple primary headings. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC).

Image of Leonora Christina Ulfeldt
So I thought this should probably be included in our current discussion though I note there was a previous discussion about this earlier. I understand entirely what you were trying to do with this image but it really is out of place and I don't think it should be included in the article for the following reasons:


 * 1. It's a picture of Leonora Christina Ulfeldt who, from the sources available, doesn't seem to have been in Paris while Christina was there, if ever at all. So it's unlikely her style was influenced by Christina's.


 * 2. The picture was painted by Gerard van Honthorst in 1647 (his name and the date are on the painting and you can see them in the image but just to make sure, there are plenty of other images of the same painting online) - 7 years before Christina abdicated and went to Rome and some time more before she was in Paris. The suggestion Christina was the influence for that style is a stretch.


 * 3. With the above context taken into account, it actually makes Christina's dress sense less remarkable and less unique, given that Leonora Christina Ulfeldt (from Denmark) was dressing that way for official portraits before Christina had even turned 21.

It would seem to me that the image does little to support the text or context of the article and may, in fact, contradict some of the assertions made about Christina dressing and acting in a way which challenged accepted norms. Would appreciate your thoughts, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Ulfelt and her husband received political asylum in the castle Tre Kronor, where the pregnant Ulfelt arrived disguised as a man. (Buckley, p. 195) Ulfelt seems to have been a role model for Christina. On her turn Christina fled Sweden in trousers.(Buckley, p. 226). You can decide.Taksen (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I made a lf.Taksen (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is fine but that is actually the exact opposite of what was asserted in the first place - that Christina was unique and influenced Ulfeldt. If it is the other way around then that is worth noting but any further analysis by us would likely constitute WP:OR which we should obviously avoid. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is in my point of view impossible not to make mistakes. It takes a lot of time to read and understand some of the details in the books on Christina. Wikipedia does not contain the ultimate truth, everybody knows it is an attempt.Taksen (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree - that is the benefit of talk pages. Gives us a chance to have a a look at the context of that image and decide if it means what we are suggesting it means. But that system has worked well twice - the image has been reviewed twice by two different groups and only now and we starting to get a full understanding of the context. Am still keen to find an alternate image - most sources suggest she did influence fashion but we have not yet been able to find a workable example. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

Further editing
Hello Stalwart, Buckley mentions her hat several times, but yesterday I was more interested in Christina's wig.
 * I really think her hat should be mentioned somewhere. It is an important fetish, not only now. When you open this link  you see Christina with a hat. We could only use the picture and not the text.
 * It might not be her hat, a toque with black feathers, that influenced the Paris women, but her coat, a justacorps. I am confused now.
 * It is very likely the account of two Dutchmen in Paris, Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck and his brother, has a few more details.   I downloaded the book. The travel account has a lot of details on her haircut in a men's style, when she left Paris; on Monaldeschi.
 * Buckley has a better translation of Misson's description of Christina. I hope it will not be a problem to use her translation. I finished the typing.
 * I have not finished reading Buckley, but the paragraph improved a lot.
 * I wish you got find some information in English from Bernard Quilliet. He wrote: "Christine de Suède, un roi exceptionnel", Presses de la Renaissance, 1982, nouvelle édition chez Fayard - 2007
 * I don't mind when the article has conflicting statements. I don't like one dimensional people and I would be very surprised if you had not anything conflicting.
 * I started to watch [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmE5MasQjY&feature=related ] and
 * I did not like what you made of the following: According to some historians, Christina challenged traditional notions of gender and sexual preference; engaging in lesbianism, bisexuality, intersexuality, or asexuality depending on which source is consulted.

Taksen (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Hi mate, you haven't really responded to the comments about the image (which is fine; in your own time) so I started a new section for you.)


 * Not sure what you mean by the first bit. If there's more to add about wigs and hats, let's add more about wigs and hats.


 * Buckley's quote is fine as long as it can be sourced properly. Let's not fall into the trap of simply adding everything Buckley has written because it is in her book. We are not trying to republish her book and remember her opinion is exactly that - an interpretation of an interpretation. She makes some assumptions which, while not necessarily incorrect, do tend to steer readers towards particular conclusions. It is important to note that they are conclusions some have drawn but we shouldn't accept that hers is the only interpretation.


 * Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi mate. Have again removed some references which are not really references by any reasonable standard. Again, the assertion that they "look okay" is not substantive enough to justify their use. We need authors, dates, etc.


 * The front cover of Bargrave's book might be a good image but it does not at all correspond with that section of text. The two are years apart - on in 1655 when she arrived in Rome and the other many years later when Azzolino was sent away. Bargrave is already referenced extensively earlier in that same section and I don't think it adds anything to simply cut-and-paste the google books link.


 * Have reverted the changes to the section which cites the review of Buckley's book. These are terms the reviewer used to describe Buckley's interpretation (her book), not Buckley's terms (which, I imagine, is why the review is cited at all). If Buckley uses those terms exactly then she should be referenced, rather than the review. At the end of the day, the review is an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation (and not a very good source) but if we're going to use it, lets at least get the context right.


 * Have moved a number of citations to the end of each relevant comment or quote rather than mid-sentence, especially where the sentence deals with two different assertions. Both are generally acceptable and it's more a matter of style, but it is the style people have used elsewhere in the article (see WP:CITEVAR). Happy to have a discussion about this if you wish.


 * Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have had a crack at re-writing some of the other sections which had some fairly terrible (awkward, mostly) English. Probably just a result of long-term, multi-editor editing and some quotes from other texts which have be copy-pasted rather than re-written / interpreted.


 * Have also temporarily hidden the line which referenced Curt Weibull. I'm not sure if you've read that text itself or any of the subsequent criticisms of it but my understanding is that some considered Weibull's view of her abdication a bit of a fringe theory. That may or may not be accurate - Weibull in turn made the same criticism of Stolpe who was accused of leaving out (ignoring the existence of...) different interpretations that did not suit his view. Without delving into original research, we should probably do some work to summarise the differing theories on her abdication. Have a read of this text, especially in relation to Weibull - if we're going to include his perspective then I think we need to be careful about how we introduce it, making sure to note the subsequent criticisms.


 * I'm also not sure if that particular line was a translation from another text or was an attempt at summarising a foreign language source but the wording itself didn't really make much sense. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

Reply

 * I am very surprised all the pagenumbers I added from Buckley are gone. Does this mean we should not care about pagenumbers? I would agree when the text is on line, but not when it is cited from a book. Very strange.
 * I dont think Buckley suggests Misson as the author of the description. It was Misson, quoted in Masson (1986), p. 384. Sven Stolpe is probably less accurate.
 * I will look for dabblers in her book.
 * I am very suprised you removed Weilbul. I will probably add more, because I started to read in his book. He is an interesting Swedish historian who cannot be denied on Christina.Taksen (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did give an explaination for removing the page numbers (above) and said I would be happy to discuss it. My point was that we cite Buckley so extensively that providing 15 citations with specific page numbers gets a bit silly. In reality, we are encouraging people to reference the whole book. From what I've read of Buckley's book (it is available online) she returns to concepts several times to fully explain them, so citing one page might not be particularly helpful anyway.
 * Buckley suggests it was Misson in the para introducing the quote, then references Misson. The question is whether Misson got it from someone else (the anonymous author, for his "touristy" book) or came up with it himself. It doesn't really matter - either way Misson published the quote and there's probably no need to cavas the question or get into the argument. We're getting fairly close to original research if we start making our own call so let's just cite Buckley.
 * I agree it would be better if we can find the "dabbler" quote from Buckley directly so we can lose that review reference.
 * I gave a fairly lengthy explaination for my hiding (not removing) the stuff from Weibull (above) - that text didn't really make sense and there are big historial arguments about Weibull's view of her abdication. I don't think it should be removed, but I think we need to be very careful when we include it given the controversy.
 * Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two articles
There is contradictory information in the article on Christina, Queen of Sweden, where it is stated that "Christina lost much of her popularity after the hanging of Arnold Johan Messenius who had accused her of serious misbehavior and of being a "Jezebel". Whereas in the article on Messenius it states he "accused Christina of serious misbehavior and being a Jezebel for which he was beheaded together with his 17 year old son." Not being a historian myself, I would offer that the more reliable statement is the latter, as it has some references associated with it, whereas the first does not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewelsofthought (talk • contribs) 07:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Title
I've herd that she took the throne as King of Sweads — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamika1990 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mens clothing
It is well known to academic literature that Christina occasionlly dressed, in part or in total, in men's clothing, though it is not known that she ever habitually dressed as a man. In other words, she was very eccentric in many ways, but just as with allegations of a homosexual interest in her personality (mainly based on letters to women that were quite normal in style then but not the least bit erotic), there are no reliable sources whatsoever that warrant her being classified as a habitual cross-dresser or transvestite. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If dressing in men's clothing isn't dressing "as a man," then what is? And several people have commented on the letters to women and have been struck by their intimacy and their overtones of same-sex desire...you say they were "quite normal...not the least bit erotic," well, I hope you speak Swedish and are very familiar with 17th cent. Swedish court etiquette, the rhetoric of hetero and homosexual desire in the 17th cent., and etc...Plus, you're ignoring well-documented statements of hers about her desire to be / identify as male. Clearly yours is the minority view. Sorry if you don't like it, but gay and trans people existed before the 20th century. 99.105.38.196 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The academic consensus is that Christina was "queer" in the sense of sexual orientation and gender identification. I think we need to accept that. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What "academic consensus"? There is in fact none whatsoever. Lots of conjecture, sure, but nothing substantiated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't all history simply a matter of conjecture? Can any of it be genuinely substantiated? I thought Veronia Buckley's biography of Christina was pretty sound and the conclusions there on her sexuality seem pretty robust to me. Why are you reluctant to accept such a reading? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't help but agree with Contaldo, but it doesn't really matter - the back and forth over categories is a bit of a moot argument. Multiple, reliable sources have classified and categorised her as LGBT. Our article cites those sources and suggests the same and notes that she dressed like a man regularly enough for multiple contemporaries to record as much. Whether we add the corresponding categories is neither here nor there for me. Stalwart 111  09:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stalwart - I agree with you. I'm more concerned that the main article includes some good balanced text and don't mind if we can't agree on inclusion of categories. I love the way though that some editors will happily add "Roman Catholic" or whatever religious affiliation to various historial figures, but then require no supporting evidence that suggests they were particularly pious or practised their professed in any obvious way. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Conclusions" by outsiders on someone else's sexuality must be substantiated by factual references, such eyewitness accounts (to chose a diplomatic body part), if we are to categorize someone, living or dead, as interested and/or active in certain sexual activity. In this case, we have no factual references at all. But why do a double discussion (this section is actually on cross-dressing, I believe). Let's discuss this somewhat tedious matter furher, if it really is necessary and constructive, in the appropriate section below: Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden! Thx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, why do you believe that discussion and coverage of someone's sexuality or sexual orientation is a "tedious" matter? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any subject which goes on and on and on is tedious, no matter what the issue is. Especially when some users seem to have personal agendas and won't give up.
 * Since we're asking pesonal questions, which we're not really supposed to do on article talk pages, why is is so important to you that Wikipedia categorize this woman as homosexual? Some people are (accordning to evidence), some people aren't (or say they aren't, never were, never will be), some people we just don't know about for certain. Can't you please just accept that?
 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, where we relate factual information about people and things. Categorizing Queen Christina as a lesbian just doesn't hold water. Nobody who has studied her in an academic matter says she was. Nobody. We all have to give up on what we'd wish to have written here if reliable sources won't support us.
 * Lastly: as I asked above, to avoid a double discussion could we please use the more appropriate section below? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing Christina as a lesbian or bisexual
There is no consensus, I believe, to support English Wikipedia in proclaiming Queen Christina as a lesbian or bisexual.

Since no reliable source anywhere, in any language, ever has deemed her such, and since we know absolutely nothing about her sex life, I am removing those categories again.

I ask my fellow editors very cordially to stop adding them.

There is no advantage to anyone, on either side of the fence, and no virtue at all in wanting someone to have a certain sexual disposition so badly that we force such things into the biographies of persons of history, whether living or dead, as if such wishes thus could be transformed into matters of fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PS - I find nothing in this article either to support such categorization. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * May be she was a case of intersexuality.Taksen (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not going to revert your reversion (again) but the reality is there are a number of sources that discuss her sexuality (some of them focus on it entirely) and to suggest none of them are reliable is a bit silly. I accept that, in many cases, the discussion of her sexuality amounts to conjecture and much of that conjecture is based on accounts from her contemporaries which may well have been gossip or innuendo. But our role as editors here is not to reinterpret those primary sources ourselves (which would amount to original research) but to reflect what secondary sources have said about the subject and about those primary sources. The secondary sources, whether we like them or not, or whether we agree with them or not, contend she partook in relationships beyond male-female ones. I have no particular interest in suggesting something not supported by sources and couldn't care less (from a personal or historical perspective) whether she is categorised as one thing or another - it doesn't impact on me in any way shape or form. Part of the issue might be that the terms being used (by us and by the secondary sources) do not accurately reflect social commentary at the time. Nonetheless, reliable secondary sources have reinterpreted contemporary conjecture that way and have described her as both bisexual and lesbian. Whether we agree, again, is irrelevant. Whether we like it, again, is irrelevant. It is not our job to undertake new research and come to our own conclusions. As has been discussed before, this is not the same as a WP:BLP where the person has to have outed themselves prior to it being considered okay for WP to include - simply saying we do not know about her sex life and removing content on that basis is not appropriate. Reliable secondary sources have determined there is enough primary material to make comment on her sex life and have done so. They have categorised her as such and we are reflecting what they have written. Reinterpreting primary sources and coming to our own conclusion that there is no evidence to support such categorisation is WP:OR as far as I'm concerned. Speculating that she might have been something else (without sources) would also be inappropriate. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree firmly with the points made by Stalwart111. It's misleading to say that no reliable sources discuss the issue, and we know nothing about her sexual or emotional life. There's certainly a question, based on the evidence, that her conversion to Roman Catholicism was anything but convenience, and yet she is categorised clearly as Roman Catholic. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "enough primary material" ??? - none that I've ever seen which are determinative and thus would warrant categorization. I have studied her extensively beginning in 1963. Create a category Category:People whose sex life has been commented on extensively or Category:People who might have been homosexual and I'd be OK with that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with what the secondary sources have said about the primary sources and you have studied her extensively then undertake your own analysis of primary sources, write a book and I will happily cite your work as a reliable secondary source. But undertaking you own analysis of primary sources and editing WP on that basis is pretty clearly WP:OR. You opinion of primary sources (and mine for that matter) should be irrelevant. Our role as editors is to reflect what secondary sources have said about a subject without our own analysis or opinion and without giving undue weight to any of the available material. I don't disagree with your opinion but your opinion is as irrelevant as mine. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains, however we wish to classify sources, that there is nothing in any reliable source that would warrant Wikipedia's categorization of Chrstina as being lesbian or bisexual. I'm glad to challenge anyone to show me any reliable source that would warrant categorizing her as such. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From above as requested - we don't add citations to categories so an argument about sources or not with regard to categories is a moot point. From WP:CAT:


 * Categories are simply a navigational tool to summarise what is said in the article and allow readers to view others articles about similar topics. In this instance, the article (quite clearly, I think) reflects what is available in a wide range of reliable source - she partook in relationships with men and women, she dressed (regularly enough for contemporaries to note it) like a man and by any modern definition she was bisexual. The fact that her contemporaries didn't print the word b.i.s.e.x.u.a.l. is a matter of that word not being in use at the time. The ancient Greeks also partook in activity we consider to be homosexual or homoerotic. The fact that they didn't use those words does not preclude us from today describing their relationships between men as such.


 * The fact remains that the article is very clear about what she was and what she did and those claims are reliably sourced. Whether or not we add categories is a moot point - I'm sure someone interested in her bisexuality can easily find links to other bisexual people on Wikipedia if they so wish, thus negating categories anyway. Stalwart 111  09:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again I agree with you. Sadly I've come across a remaining degree of prejudice against homosexuality while editing wikipedia articles. The argument will not, of course, make that point explicitly but inevitably it will descend into protestations of weak sources, undue coverage etc. Interestingly I've found particular sensitivity when the subject has a royal or clerical connection. The default will always be that an individual is heterosexual, unless one can prove beyond doubt that they were not. A call is made for clear evidence, and even when you cite love letters it's still not enough. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to repeat from above: "Create a category Category:People whose sex life has been commented on extensively or Category:People who might have been homosexual and I'd be OK with that."

And I also need to ask y'all to refrain from using an insulting "prejudice" argument here. It's insulting to accuse other editors of prejudice just because they want Wikipedia to contain articles based on reliable sources. There is not one reliable cource thet would justify categorizing Queen Christina as a lesbian or bisexual, under a Wikipedia article or anywhere else. That's fact, not prejudice. I could go into POV-pushing in a retaliatory manner here, but let's try not to get nasty! SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Link not working
It seems the link 59 is not working.

http://livrustkammaren.se/sites/livrustkammaren.se/files/pdf/johanna20nilsson1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.26.101 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

More POV
Her language skills were FAR from unique. Read about Elizabeth I of England and others. 4.249.3.71 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think Elizabeth I and Christina were both extremely gifted languagewise! --Kvent (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding: "She learned Swedish as well as German, Dutch, Danish, French and Italian; her talent for languages was nothing short of unique.[12]" The related footnote, #12, does not mention the word unique. As is, this wording is clearly WP:OR. Her skills may have been advanced (as any royal heir's would have been at the time), but as far as the German-language letter goes, it could have easily been dictated to her and/or edited by her language tutor or even outright copied by her from an original version written by the adult. The point is that on it's own, it's not proof of anything. I have a friend who is an executive at an international corporation who also speaks five languages (Dutch, English, French, German, and Spanish), but I doubt that even he considers himself "nothing short of unique". If there's a notation where her language skills were observed as unique by her contemporaries, please provide the reference and restore the clause. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Article traffic
On the first of March this article suddenly had more than 5,500 visitors. Does anyone have an idea why? It useally does not attract more than 200 readers a day.Taksen (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you notice a spike today, it may be because Garbo's Queen Christina was aired on Turner Classic Movies this morning in the USA. That is why I'm here. Perhaps the same thing happed in 2012. Wordreader (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)