Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years

Article improvement
Here's a quick checklist of things that could improve the article:


 * Make sources more specific. E.g.:
 * "Scandinavica 36: p.283. 1997." needs an article title and a doi number (if available)
 * ✅ (article title, content & editor) SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "doi" mean in this context and how would that be acquired (am going to check for an article title and content there)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a better link would have been to Digital Object Identifier. If it's a minor journal it might not have one, but in any case knowing the title and having a rough idea of why it is being cited is important, I think.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would love to know how to obtain that DOI # for that article or mention. For now I have emailed the Scandinavica people to try to find out more exactly what's in that mention. Also ordering it at the National Library here that has the publication on file. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Anders Winroth in Nya Ludvika Tidning 1997-02-25 p. 13" needs an article title, and possibly a quote from the article. Same for the other newspaper sources
 * ✅ (titles & quotes added from 3 newspapers) SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "book’s pp. 181-189" needs a full citation to the book using cite book
 * (clarified). SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All claims in the article that could be contested should be backed up by a reliable source. For example:
 * In the first sentence, saying it is "the only original book ever written especially for English readers about the kings and queens of Sweden" seems dubious. I can't find any books at Google Books to disprove this, but that statement needs sourcing.
 * ✅ 2 references SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You generally shouldn't link to categories or include ISBN numbers in the article text
 * both. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider re-writing the first paragraph in news style
 * ✅ (I think). SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article expands any more, split it into sections
 * No need for further expansion as I see it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If you can clear the sources up a bit we can think about adding it to WP:Did you know and getting a link on the front page. We would need to nominate it before May 6th though, as they have a strict 5-day deadline after creation.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great thanks! I will look at these things later today and do what I can.
 * One question re: one edit - how can it be OK that the ISBN # given in the book itself is different than the one given in this article? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. They use a different checksum algorithm, so the last digit is different. You can check the source out at WorldCat to see for yourself. There's an explanation at WP:ISBN if you're curious. Good luck with the article!  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am not doubting your reply at all. Should it be mentioned, to avoid confusion, that the book's printed ISBN # is different than its actual number, or do you think anyone to whom the # could be important might susptect that anyway? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and fixed a couple of other things too. In my opinion it is ready for a WP:DYK hook. We still have a day or so, so I'll post some suggestions and we can submit the best one.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the ISBN number, could you post the number that is printed inside the book here? If we know the number in question then we can check what's going on.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful work you did. The ISBN # printed in the book on page 2 is 91-630-5030-7. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the same ISBN-10 number as listed in WorldCat. The only reason it's different is because I used ISBN-13 in the article. No problems here.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 13:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No notability, just a self-published book
Woodzing's own favourite, but this fails Notability (books). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting the guideline:
 * The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * Removing notability template as per text on the template itself - reasonable objection to it as per guideline. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that the cited newspaper reviews would be good proof of notability. Of course this does depend on the reliability of the newspapers themselves, of which I have no idea.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dagens Nyheter Dala-Demokraten is a provincial (Dalecarlia), but a highly respected newspaper in Sweden often quoted and referred to nationally in Swedish media and literature. Its ed in chief is a very popular speaker, TV expert and panelist nationally on all kinds of topics. I have never seen it or Borlänge Tidning or Nya Ludvika Tidning questioned as anything other than reliable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Corrected my own error. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsens. Dagens Nyheter is one of the leading newspapers of Sweden (or even the leading), but that paper did not publish anything about Demitz' book. This book was only noticed in Demitz' local newspapers. Besides, book reviews are not enough to satisfy Notability (books). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles are specifically cited as being acceptable evidence under Notability (books) - SergeWoodzing even quoted it for you above. The problem would seem to be that the book was only reviewed in local newspapers, which definitely makes it a borderline case. Might there be any more evidence of notability that we can find?  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These are just short announcements in tiny local newspapers of a work by a person from the region, preserved in Woodzing's collection of press clippings. Also, the page says: "It should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or another interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"short announcements" is just not true - all 3 articles are 3-column, specially illustrated 1/3- to 1/4-page articles. Kuiper is not neutral in this case. If we had such input - and truthful such - from a neutral user it could be taken seriously. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"tiny" is also a non-constructive exaggeration, Dala-Demokraten is one of the country's largest provincial papers. The Chicago Tribune is also a local paper. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am an "interested party" only in so far as I have been asked to try to see to it that neutrality is the main principle by which all the Southerly Clubs contributions to Wikimedia projects, in text and image, are handled, without bias by anybody (including me). I think I have shown many times that I try very hard to do just that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dala-Demokraten with a circulation of 16,300 is definitely not one of Sweden's larger newspapers; there are dozens of newspapers in Sweden that are larger. Nya Ludvika Tidning says it had a circulation of 9,100 - hardly comparable to to the Chicago Tribune. On Commons, Woodzing releases copyrights of images made by Demitz. See for example commons:Category:Ristesson Ent, the publisher of just this single book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you both have valid points, but I don't think using imprecise language, implying bias, or in general not sticking to the facts of the matter will help here. Pieter, if you feel strongly about this, you should take this article to WP:AFD. We can debate all these points there, in their proper place. I'd also like to remind both of you to avoid personal attacks, as it seems you have a past history of disagreement with each other. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try to note who mentioned the user name of another user first here and made this discussion personal. I did not do that. I never do. I am not the one who always does that either. I never do that.
 * You (Mr. Stradivarius) are the only fully neutral person participating in this so far, and more input is needed by such persons, not by people with well documented animosity and histories of stalking who swoop in on rare occasions, often only to cause trouble like this, as I see it.
 * Nobody ever inferred that Ristesson had published more books.
 * I am hardly an "interested party" just because I am entrusted with the mechanics of uploading many valuable images by several Southerly Clubs people to Commons.
 * Nobody said Dala-Demokraten was "one of Sweden's largest newspapers". This type of derogatory twisting of words is going to lead nowhere, expect perhaps to a very unpleasant, necessarily personalized discussion as to who always does that kind of thing and who never does anything like that, and my either having to write decimeter upon decimeter trying to defend my WP reputation or give up and let it be soiled by such behavior. Again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook suggestions
We have until May 6th to nominate this article for WP:DYK so that it can appear on the front page. Before then, let's put suggestions here.

Did you know...


 * ... that Throne of a Thousand Years was the first ever book written in English to give a historical account of the kings and queens of Sweden?  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As the article's notability is disputed, we can't submit a DYK nomination, per the DYK rules.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad that this is the result only of a doubly occasional appearance on English WP by a person warned and even blocked on Commons for a lack of civility and with a long and well documented history of stalking me with insults and personal attacks on 3 Wikimedia projects, though he has been asked and warned (by other neutral users) to leave me and my work alone. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

 * 1) In Ristesson's files there are letters from all 3 historians, which I have seen, and also written orders from the book stores mentioned, but it would be hard to get any published sources for those items.
 * 2) ...mostly from the author’s own 500-volume library, reveals the width of his historical and etymological reading and research as a layman - do we need a citation about the author's book collection and research or about his being a "layman" (by which I mean that he is not a professional/academic historian)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Original comment here  —  Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For number one, if there aren't any published sources, then it shouldn't go in Wikipedia - you know the rules. If anyone can gain access to these letters, then it might be ok, but it's definitely borderline. Number two seemed a bit POV-ey. I think the fact that he is a layman and not a professional historian is important though. I think I'll move this to the intro and strip it of non-factual language, if that's ok.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the letters can be scanned and uploaded somewhere public, I'll have to check that with Ristesson, maybe tomorrow.
 * Why mention the book collection at all and the 9-page bibliography in the book where the book collection is mentioned, if not to substantiate the research done and the kind of books involved (history and personal name etymology)? There is a quote in another newspaper article about those books, but I won't have that till tomorrow. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was by Serge to take a look at this article. Unfortunately, I don't have the language skills needed to really evaluate the sources, especially in light of the issues raised by Pieter, but I totally agree with everything Mr. Stradivarius has said on this page, though I would note that the sourcing issue could also probably be resolved through RSN rather than AFD. I would recommend to Serge that if he could dredge up at least one unambiguously-reliable reference, preferably in English, that it would probably end any speculation about notability and would cause other editors to be more inclined to assume reliability as to the non-English ones. On the other hand, this seems to be a well-formed article and though I'm a bit of a deletionist — and some might say that it's more than just a bit — I wouldn't be in any rush to AFD it, myself, which is one reason why I might prefer RSN over AFD. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with taking this to WP:RSN rather than WP:AFD. I had been forgetting about it, and it seems like a very good way to avoid the drama that often comes with deletion discussions.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 17:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ristesson is not willing to release the personal letters to Demitz from Carlsson, Svanberg (certified email) and Nordberg to the public. They would rather have the article deleted than have to do anything that "undignified". They are willing to email copies to anyone interested privately, but not publish.
 * I still intend to check the importance of the Scandinavica source, and then cite it here in more detail, when I visit the National Library tomorrow (couldn't make it there today due to family issues).
 * I thank you both for your helpful input. However, I must continue to maintain my honest opinion which led me to use them in the first place: each of the Dala-Demokraten, Borlänge Tidning and Nya Ludvika Tidning articles is an "unambiguously-reliable reference". I find it nearly monstrous, if you'll pardon me (please!), even to suggest that any of those fine newspapers could be ever deemed unreliable by anyone. Tomorrow I will cite another 2-full-page article about Demitz in one of them, by another journalist, as to his book collection and research. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed this § from the article's text since the owmer of private lettters which could substantiate that content is not willing to publish them: The facts about Carlsson, Svanberg and Nordberg have only been published on p. 190 of Throne of a Thousand Years itself with other background, including positive influence by Stefan Anderson which was vital to the book's existence. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Royal name format for Throne of a Thousand Years was partially altered in 1989 on the advice of Professor Emeritus Sten Carlsson of Uppsala University, and before publication the book’s contents were also reviewed without prejudice by Swedish historians Professor Jan Svanberg and Dr. Michael Nordberg. The edition of only 1,000 copies sold well once bookshops such as NK and the Sweden House Tourist Centre were stocked with small supplies of the book, and it has been out of print since 2001.

AFD or RSN?
I considered the advice on what forum to take this to. The book itself is not a reliable source for Swedish history, as it is a self-published book - there are no other books by this publisher Ristesson Ent. But WP:RS is not really the issue here. This is about notability, whether this book has received significant attention. And the bigger issue is authors/publishers/managers/whatever using wikipedia as a promotional tool for their books, blogs, bands, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the book is "a reliable source for Swedish history" should preferably be determined by someone familiar with its bibliography and better at judging that than the journalists who have reviewed it.
 * I am not aware of anyone connected with this book ever "using wikipedia as a promotional tool" and have never seen any evidence of that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Serge, I don't think Peter is just talking about this particular case. It seems reasonable to believe that if another author or publisher sees an example of promotion on Wikipedia, then it may give them the idea to upload their own publicity. In this case, the article itself seems to adhere to NPOV; it is the article's notability which will ultimately determine whether or not it is being promotional. Pieter, with regards to the choice of AFD or RSN, I am actually in two minds as to which of these would be better. If the issue is just to do with the newspaper articles, then I think RSN would be better, as we are more likely to get specialist help to judge the sources, and an AFD discussion would revolve around getting specialist help for these sources anyway. However, if there are more factors involved, then AFD may be more appropriate. One thing that I have noticed is the claim that the book is the first historical account of the kings and queens of Sweden. If this is accurate then it would also support a claim to notability, in my opinion; however, at the moment that argument is circular, because the statement cites the newspaper articles in question. I would be inclined to wait until Serge finds more info about the Scandinavica source, as it may be a more concrete thing to base a notability argument on. However, I certainly won't judge you whichever of the options you choose.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 13:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Scandinavica source has now been fully investigated and the results have already been documented in the article. All we found out about there, that we didn't know already, was the selection process used for naming the book there and that a British Library person did the selecting.
 * Regarding "promotion" I dearly hope you will allow for finding me confused, rather than snide, in reminding you as cordially as I can of this discussion, which as you know led me to create this article in the first place. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took my message in that discussion to mean I think all book reviews in minor newspapers are enough to prove notability. My comment was intended for that particular book, in those particular circumstances. It was my opinion then that the article would survive any deletion discussion, but that is no guarantee of what would actually happen. The critical point in comparing these two cases is: is the Austin Chronicle more reliable than the Swedish newspapers here? And the answer is: I don't know. We need to find a third party who can appraise the sources to get a better idea. In both of these cases I have just been trying to follow the notability guidelines as best I can, and you shouldn't read anything deeper into it than that. As for the Scandinavica reference, from what I read it seems to be a simple listing of the book with no critical commentary (correct me if I'm wrong here). If this is the case then I'm afraid we can't use it to help prove notability. Also, I think I should point out that Pieter is perfectly within his rights to question the notability of this article, as is any other editor. It's just a shame that this much went into it before it was challenged. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius   on tour♫  08:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Stradivarius on tour (talk • contribs)
 * I clearly brought up the previous book discussion only in regard to promotion not at all in regard to notability, so, with due respect, I don't really understand why you replied this way.
 * Nor do I understand why you feel you need to point out another specific editor's rights to me. I have never questioned them. Has anyone? I only mentioned his well documented lack of neutrality when it comes to my work, and I have thus stressed the need (as you and I agree) for third party input here.
 * I would greatly appreciate if you would refrain henceforth from writing here to me about him or to him about me. The book would seem to be the issue, not him or me or our rights or opinions of each other. . SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm sorry, it seems that I misunderstood your complaint about the comment to which you linked. Now I'm the one who's confused - I'm really not sure how you took my comment as encouraging you to create this article. In any case, it has been written now, and I think it should be judged fairly on its merits and by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, it seems as though you are beginning to doubt my neutrality, which means it is probably time for me to remove myself from this debate. As you say, it should be about content, not commentators. All the best. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 14:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Libraries

 * ''When donated to selected institutions, the book fulfilled collection requirements as a reference work and has been included as such at more than 180 libraries. These include the national libraries of 73 countries, regional libraries of all areas once ruled by the Swedish kingdom (such as Delaware and St. Bart's),

Since WorldCat has only 31 listings for this book overall, and the Library of Congress does not list it as a reference work (it does possess a copy, as it does of most works copyrighted in the United States), the claim that 180 national libraries count it as a work of reference (whatever that is supposed to mean) requires much substantiation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "claim that 180 national libraries count it as a work of reference" in the article so that complaint is hard to address. The libraries that do are listed as per ref link. The websites of all those libraries reveal in their online catalogue that the book indeed is a reference work at most of them. Also, I do not find the term "work of reference" anywhere in this article, so what it means would seem to be irrelevant. What "reference work" means is of course reference work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is still unsourced and dubious; even if substantiated, does it mean more than that libraries, presented with a free volume, have not yet deaccessioned it? (What, incidentally, is a "regional library" of the State of Delaware? The Delaware State archives, which are on WorldCat possess no copy.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First question: yes, to my knowledge, libraries very rarely deaccession books that they have decided to include among their reference works. Second question: State Librarian Mary L. Chute accepted the book on behalf of the State of Delaware on Nov 1, 2001, and placed it in the reference collection of the Wilmington Institute Library. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no substantiation, so I removed the paragraph about how this book is in so many important libraries. No reliable published source mentions anything about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The published catalogues of the libraries could hardly be more reliable as sources. They are all easily accessed online. I am reverting as frivolous the latest edit by an obviously biased editor and asking him again to stay away and leave this discussion and article to editors who are neutral and fair. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy with the bias is Woodzing, who is acting as the agent for this book (evidence: his release of copyrights for the publisher in commons:Category:Ristesson History). What I removed is WP:OR, even if it were verifiable by checking hundred online catalogues. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Online catalogues are independent publications and citing them is no more OR that citing any other independent publications. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Serge, I'm afraid that this does count as original research. The catalogues are reliable sources, yes; the information is verifiable, yes. The problem is that when you look up the items in the catalogues and count how many libraries the book appears in, that is you doing research. To include this type of information in the article, we would need someone else to look up the information in all the catalogues, and then write something like "The book is found in x number of libraries" in a journal, a newspaper article, or a book, etc. Doing this work yourself and then writing it up on Wikipedia is an obvious example of OR. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 14:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Advert tag
I find it unreasonable to place an advertisement tag - including a speedy deletion option (why?) - on a book which has been out of print since 2001. What is being advertised? Other experienced literary editors have worked on this article and did not find it an advertisement. I am removing the tag. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * advert is appropriate - the style and tone is that of a publisher's blurb; I undid its removal by the agent/author/publisher. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Agent/author/publisher" is a false accusation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then how can Woodzing release the copyrights on images from the book on wikimedia commons? Asking for a third opinion is silly: it is the agent against two neutral editors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any connection between Serge and the publishers, the advert tag is not appropriate. The tag is for indicating the tone of the article, and has nothing to do with its author at all. You probably want one of the measures listed at WP:COI instead, although personally I don't see any huge problem here. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 14:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the 3rd opinion request, as there are now more than two editors involved. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 14:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As I wrote above: the style and tone of the article is that of a publisher's blurb. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) On reading the article again, it still seems neutral enough to me. I think saying that it reads like a publisher's blurb is a bit harsh. The fact is simply that there are too few sources to write much of consequence. The only thing I am still a bit unsure about is the sentence about the 9-page bibliography "reveal[ing] the width of [the author's] historical and etymological reading and research as a layman", which seems a bit WP:PEACOCK-ey, but this doesn't seem like enough to justify an advert tag, and would be much better solved through some quick editing. In fact, I think I'll go and edit it now. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence in question, as the source appeared to be talking about Demitz himself, rather than the bibliography. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As said above, the tag was intended to bescribe the tone; it is improved now the article has been shortened.

Another example was:
 * The Demitz Collection of Historical-Biographical Literature has been accepted in advance for posthumous donation to the Folke Bernadotte Memorial Library at Gustavus Adolphus College (named for King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden), which made the owner-author a member, as of 2005, of that university's Gustavus Heritage Partnership''.

Shaking out the pomposity and irrelevance, the substance is that the author of this book has left his library and papers to a small Minnesota College.

Both bombastic and off topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional claim
"the first English-language historical account of the kings and queens of Sweden" ... published only in 1996? That can't be right. Volunteer Marek 21:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. You can try to find an earlier one, but you will not. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lagerqvist's Kings and rulers of Sweden (1995) is earlier. Whether it counts depends on the definition of the term 'historical account'. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Category removed
I believe it is appropriate to include the category "Swedish Monarchs" here since the book is exclusively about them. Thus I am reversing the removal of the category now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is not a Swedish monarch. I would fit better under a category about the Swedish monarchy.RicJac (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is not about the Swedish monarchy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I do not believe the category "Swedish Monarchy" is inappropriate for articles on reference books concerning Swedish Monarchs, though this book does not address the governmental situation to any considerable degree, so I would support your proposal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced accusation
The same user I'm involved with in the previous section (and several places elsewhere right now) has added "amateur historian" to the name of the author of this book. I believe such a POV accusation needs a source and have thus removed it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably shouldn't even be used then. Consider WP:ALLEGED. Amateur, while a valid term for someone who does not make a professional living doing something, has been used in a pejorative manner in the same way as "alleged" and "purported". As such, great care should be taken in using the description. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please add ref
I am prevented by recent conflict of interest agreements from editing this article. Please, after the words "... factual story," add this ref:. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fyddlestix (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Unfortunately, I screwed up the cite format and the ISSN now loooks like an invalid ISBN. Can't figure out how to fix it either. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference points to a list of 167 recently published books. It contains very few facts. I do not see why the ref should be inserted at that place in the text. /Elzo 90 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, does it verify the content it's used as a source for? Serge, can you share what it says about Throne? Fyddlestix (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that is has ended up misplaced after previous (old) edits. It should be at the end of the "Reception" section. Please add a final sentence there: "It was listed in Scandinavica as select bibliography. " I must assume that's why John Vandenberg added it the first place, years ago. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused now - have you looked at the ref yourself or not? Before I insert the text you're asking to have added, I need to confirm that the ref actually verifies the content in question. We need to know what the ref actually says about Demitz's book. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - and sorry aboout the confusion. The book is on a list called Select Bibliography of Books Recently Published in non-Scandinavian languages. There is no review or other info, just the inclusion on that list. Apparently John Vandenberg found that worth mentioning. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)