Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Names of Kings of Sweden


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete both. Content can be restored to userspace on request. Sandstein (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

English Names of Kings of Sweden

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The content of this article is already present in articles such as Monarchy of Sweden, List of Swedish monarchs, Anglicization, etc. Although well-intended, it doesn't seem to centre around a cohesive topic that isn't covered at either List of Swedish monarchs or Anglicization. The article simply is not an encyclopedic article and I suggest that the article be deleted and moved to the user's space. Charles 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum: The reference given for the article is the main editor's own work and as such this may constitute original research. Note also WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT with regard to comments below. Charles 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating this article as well, considering that mistresses are usually only encyclopedic when discussed in the context of the kings they "served" and therefore usually require articles if they are indeed notable (rather than lists without sources). Send to user space if necessary. Charles 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating this article as well, considering that mistresses are usually only encyclopedic when discussed in the context of the kings they "served" and therefore usually require articles if they are indeed notable (rather than lists without sources). Send to user space if necessary. Charles 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete article and move information to User:J T Demitz/English Names of Kings of Sweden. Charles 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensiblekid (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is an odd list without obvious usage. I agree with Charles, move it to the user space.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom, and no objection to userfying if someone wants to keep this content.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, has unique info needed for oral reading and education E Eikner (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not a vocabulary. If there exists an article about Swedish king then it is an appropriate place to put the IPA. But not here.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Better to look at 60 different articles to find out about name forms in English rather than see one complete list plus all that valuable explanatory info on the collected subject under one clear heading? Wikipedia can do better than that for its users without being what you call a "vocabulary" (suppose you meant dictionary). E Eikner (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is somebody's personal view on how to anglicize the names of Swedish kings. The names used in Wikipedia are in some cases idiosyncratic and out of touch with anything used by historians, but this "article" explains nothing and solves nothing; it just adds more idiosyncracy. It looks more like the essays I have seen as "subpages" of people's user pages, and that may be a suitable location for the text. Olaus (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The source bibliography referred to in the article precludes the validity of any allegation like Olaus's. All those libraries and many more would not have elected to include such "personal views" in their collections. Why is Mr Demitz's distinguished research and generous contribution being insulted by all these anonymous people? Who are they to say such things? Would anyone objective and knowlegeable about English name forms care to comment here? Such as people who have an excellent knowledge of both English and Swedish as synonymous languages, as this author often is appreciated for? He bilingually edits theses for the Royal Caroline Institute and City of Stockholm. Please show him the respect he deserves, i. e. normal such! E Eikner (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article only refers directly to a book by someone who, apparently, is identical to the author of the Wikipedia article. This book appears to be self-published (I can explain why if anyone doubts me) or in any case published with a very minor, non-academic publishing company. The one review mentioned in the article is published in Dala-Demokraten, a provincial newspaper covering the same region where the book was published. Are there any reviews in academic journals? Olaus (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The academics are in the bibliography and the inclusion of the reference book in all those libraries. Those librarians are not all idiots. I can only repeat the request for some objective and knowlegeable input here. How many reviews has Olaus had of his bilingual material in "academic journals"? I venture to say: none whatsoever "(I can explain why if anyone doubts me)" as Olaus writes. Dala-Demokraten is a very respected old, large newspaper in central Sweden that doesn't deserve to be defamed. Mr. Demitz must be getting very uncomfortable by now with Olaus knowing so much (or thinking he does) about him. All we know about Olaus is that he uses that pseudonym and has a page of his own with nothing but a big woodcut showing a drinking bout by Olaus Magnus (1490-1557), who was an entertaining chronicler but by no means a reliable historian. I ask again: for what personal reasons is it so important that this valuable article be deleted from Wikipedia? E Eikner (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to filter the views of real experts through a self-published book of no obvious academic standing. Articles should reference experts directly. And I have to point out that citing a self-published book of your own is bound to put you in the situation of getting your qualifications questioned. As I am not the one doing this, my credentials are irrelevant. Olaus (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: It is insulting to write about "real experts" like this to the exclusion of this author. Since Olaus keeps ignoring the crucial word bibliography which is what justifies the standing of the book in question as a valuable reference, I have now scanned p. 188-189 from the book, which I am proud to own a copy of. These pages (of the 8 pages of bibliography in there on p. 181-189), have the expertise listed and the sources of research used re: name forms. Please find the scanned listing below! The book is neither original research nor self-published. Eleven sponsors who financed it are listed on p. 332. The largest were three well known organizations, Ericsson Telecom, ABB and the Swedish Postal Service, all of which took a careful look at the book before it was accepted for sponsorship and the money was paid to the printer enabling it to be published. Ergo, those companies made the publication possible after deciding to support it. (They all gave it to their foreign VIP guests.)

Bibliography listed on p. 188-189 (Demitz speaks and writes his first language, English, plus Swedish, German, French and Spanish, and reads Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian):

Nordische Personnamen in England, Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910

Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times, Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916

Norsk Isländska Dopnamn och Fingerade Namn från Medeltiden, E H Lind; Oslo/Upsala/Copenhagen, 1931

The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book, O van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937

Nordisk Kultur (VII); Personnamn, Assar Janzén; Stockholm/Oslo/¬Copenhagen,1947

Det medeltida Västergötland, Ivar Lundahl; Upsala/Copenhagen, 1961

Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire, G Fellows Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968

Svenska förnamn, Roland Otterbjörk; Stockholm, 1970

Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, E G Withycombe; Oxford, 1977

Svensk etymologisk ordbok, E Hellquist; Lund, 1948

Svensk uppslagsbok, G Carlquist, J Carlsson et al; Malmö, 1947 1955

Thesaurus Nummorum Sueo Gothicorum, E Brenner; Stockholm, 1731

Sveriges Historia från Äldsta Tid till Våra Dagar J VI), Montelius, Hildebrand, Tengberg, Boëthius, et al; Stockholm, 1877 1881

Den svenska historien (2), G Grenholm, et al; Stockholm, 1966

Sweden: The Nation's History, F D Scott; Minneapolis, 1977

Gillesboken, Helga Lekamens Gille; Stockholm, 1393 1487

Regenter och regeringschefer i Norden, A W Carlsson; Malmö, 1982

Sveriges monarker, S Duhs; Hudiksvall, 1986

Kungar & Drottningar i Sverige, L Lidbeck, B Berg; Stockholm, 1993

The Monarchy in Sweden, Weibull, Palmstierna & Tarras Wahlberg; Stockholm, 1981 & 1995

Danmarks Historie, hvem, hvad, hvornær, B Seocozza & G Jensen; Copenhagen,1994

Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe, D Williamson; Exeter/London, 1987

Europas Kungahus, L Schubert, R Seelmann Eggebert (K W Avraham); Stockholm, 1995

Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten (I II), W K Isenburg & F Freytag von Loringhoven; Marburg, 1965

Stammtafeln Europäischen Herrscherhäuser, B Sokop; Vienna, 1993 Nationalencyklopedin, K Marklund, C Engström, et al; Höganäs, 1989¬-1995

The Statesman's Year Book 1994-95, B Hunter et al; London, 1995

Siebmacher's Grosses Wappenbuch (I II), J Siebmacher; Neustadt an der Aisch, 1978 & 1981

Heraldisk Tidsskrift (68), Copenhagen, 1993

E Eikner (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One most note, in consideration of the sources, that a Swedish source, or Swedish derived source, is more likely to prefer a Swedish name than an English one. Charles 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Now that we have a milder tone (thank you, sir!) please be more careful! And be fair now! Oxford is in there, so is London (twice!) and a number of other non-Swedish sources. Carl and Maria are the only names Demitz uses (rather that the versions Charles and Mary) when warranted, as modern English names nowadays. All the others in his article are as English as any name ever was, and it took a huge research effort to find all the legitimate versions, so that reading would be as smooth as humanly and legitimately possible in English. E Eikner (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Without knowing what material came from those sources, we cannot determine if it is true as to whether or not English sources are using English or Swedish names. As it stands, practice is to use English names for most sovereigns. The article as it stands speaks of Swedes and "non-Swedes", hardly a neutral set of groupings when discussing what are the appropriate names in English. Charles 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: You are quoting out of context, sir. That part of the text deals with phonetics in general. E Eikner (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No useful (or, indeed, readable) content that isn't in List of Swedish Monarchs.  Tevildo (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the English names of monarchs list; Keep the list of mistresses. I don't see the point of the "English names" article. Any encyclopedic information in it can be combined with List of Swedish monarchs. I easily see the point of having a list of mistresses of the Swedish monarchs: the topic coheres well and serious researchers (or even people just confused about which mistress was which) would find the list useful. Usefulness is a good justification for lists, even if it isn't for articles. And the subject couldn't be covered as well with a category.Noroton (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is repeated from elsewhere in this article consists mainly of the Swedish name forms corresponding with the English ones, most of which are not found anywhere else in Wikipedia. To make the lists complete, known name forms are also included for some of the kings and queens of later centuries. Should we list only those monarchs that had name forms that are less known and exclude the others from the complete list? The information presented to clarify the need for improved knowledge about the legitimate older name forms is based on the lifelong experience regarding problems and solutions of a bilingual and bicultural writer. J T Demitz (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In his last entry below (now hidden as a personal disagreement - good idea!) editor Charles wrote re: one of the issues at hand "Carl is an English name but it is not retroactively applied to historical fingers [sic, s.b. figures, I assume] where English usage gives a standard English name." On behalf of many people, Scandinavians and Germans as well as 100% English-speakers, scholars and non-such, young and old, teachers and pupils, I would like to register this emphatic, constructive objection to such a policy, if it really represents the last word from Wikipedia on the matter. All kings of Sweden should be called Carl in English in a modern world which definitely evolved once and for all with the ascension of King Carl XVI Gustaf to the throne in 1973. Carl is a standard English name for use in 2007. E Eikner (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't speak for the masses, I am afraid. "Should" is a matter of your own personal opinion which is not reflected by common English usage. That is what matters. If the best interests of Wikipedia are in mind, are you prepared to make the same argument for Spanish, French, German, etc kings? Charles 04:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Methinks you and I are equally prone to propound and even profess our personal opinions, to be fair. You may not be alone in your opinion about this item. I know I am far from alone in mine. You ask a very good question. It took Demitz some 40 years to find the right answers to some such questions and when I interviewed him about these things, he said he changed his mind in some cases as times and names developed. He feels Carlos is an American English name today, just as well as Charles and Carl are. I think I've seen that English Wikipedia already prefers Louis to Lewis and Louise to Lewissa, so there the old established English names have already been abandoned in favor of French. Why spell Friedrich Frederick in German when that spelling is unheard of there and would only cause trouble for German readers? We could go on for kilometres here, name by name... There are a lot of royals to cover! Believe it or not, the objective here is to try to avoid trouble, not cause it, for the readers of English. E Eikner (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is, whether I agree with convention or not, it is convention and has been for centuries. We do not determine comment on Wikipedia based on what Mr Demitz alone believes. Also, speaking of non-native speakers of English, what do they call the historic Swedish kings? We are not writing for Swedes, Germans, etc, to suit their spellings, we are writing and following a set of well-establish English conventions and usage. Simple as that. Charles 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Old conventions often had old reasons, very often totally obsolete ones as we develop our communicating risks and skills. That is the case re: this item. Please stop ridiculing Mr. Demitz, Charles! It should be obvious to you by now that it isn't what he "alone believes". All those admirers of his research are in there with him. He worked very hard to try to document these legitimate and helpful solutions. And many experts think highly of him for it. Why can't you respect that? Do you think Ragnvald Knapphövde makes better reading in English than legitimate Reynold Knobhead? Olov Skötkonung is easier to read in English than legitimate Olaf Scotking? Ragnhild smoother to read and hear than English Ragenilda, Aun den gamle better than Edwin the Old, etc?. That's what you are campaigning about (aside from the odd Charles/Carl item which is not the main issue). And please don't close with condescending and arrogant words like "simple as that" or we'll be back to arguing. Trying to determine the best way to disseminate factual information and wondering how to best educate the young is anything but simple. E Eikner (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * KeepThe attempt by the author himself to give to Wikipedia his respected results of many years of name research deserves better than these "arguments" by Charles et al. Looks to me and a few friends like something personal rather than rational (sorry!), so I had to log in here. Charles et al cannot have read the article they want to trash, or else they would have seen all the helpful name forms that are not covered by any other Wikipedia article. I have seen the author's 40-year research and files, including the original of a letter to him where H. M. the King of Sweden compliments the material as "very interesting and educational". There are many other such impressive documents and letters that I could quote. The source review mentioned appreciated the name forms especially. Are sweeping arguments such as "rambling" and "bizarre" (see Charles's own page)valid in such a context? Most Swedes do not want any of their kings or princes referred to as Charles anymore. Nor do any modern experts. Wikipedia (so far) has (only) the current king as Carl and should improve in that regard. The article explains why with excellent motivation and also clearly defines the importance of all this information to vocal reading and to the education of the young. I have tried to come up with some rational reason why “Charles” would want this article deleted. The only thing I can think of is that Charles's request stems from a personal wish of his to continue to impose his own name on a number of historical persons where that can no longer be justified. E Eikner (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You should read up on assuming good faith and civility. Sorry, but we do not cater to Swedes or anyone else. This is English Wikipedia and no one dictates the use of English except Anglophones. You, my friend, need to check your attitude at the door. My name is Charles, not "Charles". Charles being my legal name, of course, although I have a German grandmother who calls me Karl. So much for imposition of a name. Need I mention this incivility on the administrative noticeboard or elsewhere if it is expected to continue? Charles 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Sorry if my theory offended you. Sincerely. It was the only thing we could think of. Really. Give my best to your grandmother, who is probably a very nice lady. I have German roots, too. Most Germans don't want their kings and emperors und alle anderen Fürsten called Charles in English either by the way, when Carl is such a good English name in 2007. What makes you an "Anglophone" - won't you please identify yourself as such? Demitz gets paid huge sums as one, on special projects for organizations that need quality work. Civility, you are asking for? You mean like calling for the deletion of an article because it is (quote you) "A sort of bizarre article ... has a rambling sort of intro"? If we have been lacking in civility, you got that ball rolling, dear sir. Go ahead and "mention" whatever you want to whomever you want. As long as your person takes it as attempts to "dictate" to you when caring people are trying to disseminate knowledge, there's not much I can say. If that's the way Wikipedia works, we newcomers will be happy to trot on off into the sunset and leave you Anglophones in total control of the range. E Eikner (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but it really does not matter what Germans or Swedes want, it is what is English which matters on English Wikipedia. I would be the very last person to complain about whatever the Germans and Swedes want to do on those respective Wikipedias. If Mr Demitz gets paid huge sums of money for his work, that is fine. That doesn't mean it is suited for Wikipedia, however. Again though, is this a vanity article of the author's own work? It could also possibly be considered original research. At any rate, the naming of the Swedish kings is best suited in their respective articles and in parentheses following their listing at List of Swedish monarchs. I also have to call into question WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT given your expression of personal familiarity of with the author who is presenting his research here. Charles 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: "Vanity article"? So much for civility Mr. Charles. There you go again, and civility went right out the window. And then you put the screws on your civility with "WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT". Nice! It is important to you personally that this article be deleted. Why don't you be a real civil gentleman and admit it? You are British, I am pretty safe to assume. And you will never admit that Carl is a name in English nowadays, because you just want that Charles of yours in there as the only real way to put the name in English. Guess we better change Carl XVI Gustaf back to Charles ... again to suit you? He's a Swede, so you don't care about him anyway. With all due respect (to someone I know nothing about at all), I'll bet Demitz is more of an Anglophone that you are, sir, regardless of pay. (Sorry I was vain for him and mentioned that!) He is trying to tell you about easy-to-read and easy-to-hear legitimate English names for all these individuals. He's an American citizen, and yes - should I be ashamed to admit that many of us here in Stockholm and all over the world know of him and know his fine work? Will it hurt our cause with the article if you do some sleuthing and manage to confirm that I have met him? Heaven forbid that people should stick up for each other! Go ahead, Mr. Charles, and use that against me and this article, too! I'm about to give up on you anyway. On your page, you complain extremely bitterly about all the people that you think have been nasty to you. I wonder why? And you threatened to stop editing royalty. That was a very good idea, if you want all English to be British or not at all. Wikipedia in English is meant to be able to be used by all the people in the world who can communicate in and grasp this fabulous international language. And a vast majority of the ones that have English as their first language haven't been situated on those gorgeous British Isles for quite some time now. My company has all the statistics on that one. E Eikner (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A few notes: I didn't nominate this article because I am personally insensitive to any singular group. I respect what Swedish Wikipedia does but I am concerned with what English Wikipedia does. You make many, many assumptions. Carl is an English name but it is not retroactively applied to historical figures where English usage gives a standard English name. That my name is Charles is merely a coincidence; I personally would love if everyone in Germany accepted me as "Karl" in Germany or as "Carl" in Sweden. Really, I would. Do not make bets, this is not a house of gambling. You could very well lose if you had any idea of what you were making assumptions about. If he is trying to tell us about easy-to-read and easy-to-hear legitimate English names, he would be more than welcome to contribute to the individual articles on English kings, provided there are sources and no original research. I do not have the time --- or the desire --- to play the bit of detective and determine what sort of relationship you have to Mr Demitz. The only concern is disruption to Wikipedia and the breaking of policy. If you want to talk about people being nasty to me, you are more than welcome to post on my talk page about the matter and I will discuss it with you. My main problem is one thing that a user perpetuates something to use against me (like you are doing, bringing up the past), which another user will probably bring up later, but now with your bringing up my past added to that and so on, forever and ever presumably. But not here, it is not on-topic to the matter at hand. Also, since you note content on my talk page, I suggest you read a little more. Wikipedia in English is meant for everyone who speaks English and wishes to read it, not just Swedes who speak English. Charles 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Charles is attempting to use the fact that a distinguished author wants to give some of his respected work to Wikipedia as an argument for his (Charles's) deletion campaign. The same bias is prevalent in the other far-fetched complaints above. The deleters that have signed in below are just as likely to be Charles's personal friends. How do we know with all this anonymity? Is it detrimental for people to identify themselves like gentlemen/women here? Why is everybody so anonymous? E Eikner (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the article about names. My chief concern is the fact these deletion suggestions were joined together, imo artificially and improperly. Therefore I join my opinion also. Of course, it would be nicer, were the "translator" to add aspects and reasoning about those names and research of them to appropriate articles of names. Henq (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the article about mistresses. Notable knowledge, and there is enough connection because of historical treatment. Besides, fulfills the criteria of a List article. Henq (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the article about mistresses. Reasonably factual. All these persons are known to history, though the nature of the list would tend to make absolutely reliable source material a utopian desire. The heading might appropriately be changed to add "Alleged and Recognized..." (I don't know how to do that). A list like this is always educational and inspirational toward more research. J T Demitz (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.