Talk:Monarchy of Sweden

?

The link Swedish monarch at present merely redirects to List of Swedish monarchs. Though that is intented to provide a more extensive article on the Swedish monarchy and provide part of the historical structure.

Historical institutional structure (up to 1974):

• Swedish monarch (currently redirecting)
• Privy Council of Sweden
• Riksdag : Riksdag of the Estates

Present constitutional structure:

• King of Sweden
• Government of Sweden
• Parliament of Sweden

-- Mic 05:24 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Requested moves

King of Sweden → Swedish monarchy - "King of Sweden" is a bad title because the rules of succession to the Swedish throne allow for female succession to the throne. The current heir apparent, Crown Princess Victoria, will therefor be titulated Queen of Sweden. See for example British monarchy. /Jebur 01:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Jebur forgot to establish the discussion. 132.205.45.148 17:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• OPPOSE if King of Sweden is moved, it should be moved to Swedish monarch or Monarch of Sweden. The British monarchy article is totally different, and speaks of the monarchy, not just the monarch. 132.205.45.148 17:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Monarch of Sweden is a proper title, for king and queen. Mikkalai 19:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE If the issue is a gender specific title, simply neutralize it as suggested. That's all that's needed. siafu 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

House of Westling?

When Crown Princess Victoria has children, will they be of the "House of Westling" so named after her husband, or will they adopt the surname of her maternal father and be of the Royal House of Bernadotte?

Previously discussed at Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden#Last name as married - dynasty change?. —JAO • T • C 12:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Konselj

The sv:Konselj meetings of cabinet and monarch should be described in this article. /Urbourbo (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchy of Sweden

Thanx for good work on the article! With this edit though, the top got screwed up: a big blank space to the right of the infobox and under the hatnote. I don't know how you did that, or how to fix it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! However I do think it is rather sad that the article in question is so short and lacking sources - for it really is topic in which there's clearly a lot to write about - while, for instance, there are corresponding articles such as Monarchy of Canada where the authors quite egregiously strive to make a hen out of a feather (not to mention the blatant monarchist-POV). I suppose that best road forward-looking course of action is to translate and incorporate elements from the Swedish WP article, which I think is fairly balanced in the sense that it expresses neither monarchist nor republican POVs. RicJac (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Titles of Norway

Monarchy of Norway#Titles and styles needs to be expanded by an expert to the standard of Monarchy of Sweden#Titles and Monarchy of Denmark#Style. Help needed.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

State vs. Government and Kungl. vs. Kungliga

SergeWoodzing has reverted a few of my edits. But none of his assertions are factually correct in either case.
First, state and government are not interchangeable terms as the ignorant Woodzing apparently believes. The English language divide makes this issue particularly tricky in this case as ”government” in US English refers to what in Britain and Europe is known as the state (Swedish: staten). Furthermore, the use of Caps in English and Swedish are not symmetric. It is ironic that Woodzing frequently complains about other editors’ poor use of Swinglish, when he has little knowledge about English capitalizations rules more than his gut feeling. The Use of Caps for State and Government when referring to official institutions or organs is consistent with the usage of those terms in the English translation of the Instrument of Government published by the Riksdag, which is a reference on the article page. Again Woodzing should pay attention to the official translations of official Swedish terminology by consulting "Utrikes namnbok", published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which is also made available free of charge on the Internet. The European Union also has similar materials about their manuals of style in all their official languages.
Second, as to Kungl. Vvs. Kungliga: Kungl. is merely a short form for Kungliga, nothing more and nothing less. In case of doubt, why not have a look at the Swedish Academy’s SAOB ([1]), and the note the usage of the term in the law from 1921 about guardianship of royals below the age of majority.
Has Woodzing at any time ever contributed to Wikipedia by adding reliable or verifiable sources to any of his edits? Otherwise I suspect that he arbitrarily makes his edits simply based on personal preferences and substance be damned. RicJac (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You have succeeded in making insulting slurs and a grand personal attack against me here. I might want to take action on that if you keep it up. Note: this is not svWP.

The official Swedish name of thre Royal House, according to the Royal Court, is "Kungl. Huset" and nothing else.

Other than that, I see no need to comment on all your Swenglish errors (such as referring to me as a plural), here or elsewhere. I learned English at English schools, not from a Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Sweden) or such, and I'm quite happy with that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You don’t have WP:OWN of this or any other articles concerning Swedish royals on EnWiki. None of the so-called ’’sources’’; an unsourced Wikipedia page linked in the ’’page history’’, and an inconclusive Swedish language page from the Royal Court; proves me wrong. Since you either so miserably failed to understand, or simply did not care responding to my constructive criticism above, I will have no choice but reverting your factually incorrect edits. It doesn’t matter whether English is the first or thirteenth language or of any editor, or where one went to school, or which academic credentials on has: what truly matters on EnWiki is WP:VER and WP:NOR. You may laugh in solitude at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I very much doubt that you’re an ”auktoriserad translator” under the supervision of Kammarkollegiet.

Issuing empty threats on a talk page says a lot about your lack of character, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s on SvWiki or EnWiki. My criticism stands firm: you rarely provide sources, and the few times you do it’s invariably WP:SYNTHESIS.RicJac (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit is what is correct (see State and source now provided). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia page is never a reliable source. If you can’t do much better than this, don’t even bother.RicJac (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your attitudes toward precise Swedish terminology and toward correct English are unfortunate and your accusations against me cannot be substantiated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What is unwarranted is your sense of entitlement and superiority. You are the one who, while claiming to possess expert knowledge above reproach, never provides any verifiable sources for your edits, other than what fits your own personal preferences. And when the going gets tough you start attacking other editors and claim that, they have harassed you (or something similar to that effect). Shame on you! RicJac (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Swedish Royal Court's official website is a source often used under WP articles. It clearly gives the Swedish term for the Royal House as "Kungl. Huset", and in doing so intentionally uses the abbreviation rather than spelling out Kungliga.

Of course, I have never used the enWP article State as a source, but it clearly shows anyone, who objectively understands the English in it, that your interpretation of Swedish staten as English the State is not accurate. Elsewhere you wrote that government in English (only?) means regeringen in Swedish (which is the Prime Minister and his cabinet and staff). That is not accurate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Kungl. vs. Kungliga, it makes no factual difference, as I explained above. However, if you can show why the short form is more correct, without resorting to WP:SYNTHESIS, then go for it and I would be first to applaud the effort!

On the second matter, you’re misinterpreting what I wrote before above and on User talk:RicJac#Trying to help. While there are broad general meanings in the English language for words like state and government: there are unique definitions of those words in certain given contexts, in this particular case Swedish constitutional law (Swedish: statsrätt). What is unfortunate is your cavalier attitude towards this. Since you directed me to State, I cordially invite you to read the intro of Government about the several broad general meanings of this term, which differs in the US from much else of the world. No hard feelings I hope. RicJac (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources" does not apply in this case. Nothing has been combined. An often used source has been used again, this time to verify what the term actually is in Swedish.

We're not per se discussing all the meanings of the word government so I won't go further into that. In this article and in the context where it is used here, your use of the State is unneccessarily confusing (compare to states such as Missouri or Schleswig-Holstein) because most readers here do not know about that common Swenglish association of the term to mean what normally would be called the Swedish government. People here do not know that Swedes call their government the State or that states of a union, as most readers here know them, are not involved in the Swedish monarchy. Careful translators from Swedish to English do not do this.

Other than thanking you for your concern, I won't comment on "hard feelings" yet. You've been pretty hard on me, on the personal level, and I'm still trying to get over it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard definition of the terms "State" and "Government" in Customary international law and scholarly works in general can be found in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. I am right and you are wrong. RicJac (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The standard Swenglish error of equating exactly the Swedish word staten with the English words the State is one of the most common of all. It is almost always inappropriate in English Wikipedia texts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My arguments are not based on Swedish language sources at all. As soon as you run out of factual arguments you immediately resort to your pet-peeve, whining about Swenglish. RicJac (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That was a personal attack. If you keep that up you'll be reported. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not attacked you! My interest is solely to improve this article and I assume nothing but good faith efforts from any editor, including User:SergeWoodzing. If you cannot engage in a civil debate about the original topic without making counter-accusations and uncivil remarks, then I humbly suggest you stay out of it. RicJac (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Read before you link. And don't start frivolous deletion requests on Commons for revenge against people you don't like. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you, User:SergeWoodzing, bothered to check out the online Oxford English Dictionary entry of "State (noun)" under its section 26 (requires login).

26. Usu. with the and capital initial.
a. The body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government. Hence: the supreme civil power or government of a country or nation; the group of people collectively engaged in exercising or administering this

There are in total 34 different meanings of that singe noun, but I am almost certain that you will pompously dismiss it, as their editors are surely prone to "Swenglish" too. RicJac (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate external link?

I'm questioning the fact that "Rojalistiska föreningen (Swedish) - Swedish royalist association" is an external link under this article. As far as I know, there is nothing official about that club, it has no governmental, academic, literary or other legitimacy and would tend to get an undue distinction by it's inclusion here on the coattails of this WP article. It's sort of like a fan club of amateurs and I've never seen it taken seriously in all my years of dealing with matters royal in Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It’s meant to balance the inclusion of the external link to the Republican Association. Much like that other association, Rojalistiska föreningen also have members of the Riksdag in their board of directors. It is unfortunate though, that they don’t have a short description of their aim and cause in English, as the others do. RicJac (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I missed the Republican Association. Both are inappropriate since nothing in this article is about the pros and cons or about supporters or opponents of the monarchy. I am thus for removing both. If you or anyone else would like to add such aspects, well sourced, to the article's text, I'm sure that would be a welcome addition. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that the issue in not yet raised in the article, but before it eventually gets included, at some point, I happen to think that is quite appropriate to add such links. I think you are clearly the wrong person to take issue about “amateurs” riding on the coattails of whatever negligible fame WP might bring. RicJac (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are a member of that Royalist club, I apologize for offending you by calling you amateurs.

If you want to continue to try to discuss/attack/out/insult me personally, please do so on my talk page and be clear, not insinuative, and be civil. I have no idea what you mean by including that link to that book here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is all of expansion subject relevant?

Recent expansions have added a lot of info which, albeit valuable and factually accurate, seems to branch off into subjects irrelevant to the topic of this article, such as too much detail on reign accomplishments of certain kings, particularly Gustav I and Gustav II Adolph, while there is not a word about several equally important monarchs, such as the 3 Wittelsbach kings of the 17th century. I removed just a bit of that extra stuff now, along with some exact redundancies, etc. Wouldn't it be better to stick more strictly to topic? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It’s is a work in progress as Wikipedia is at large. Mr. Woodzing, could you at least once add some original material of your own to this article, rather than acting as the self-appointed magistrate. RicJac (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The "work in progress" in this case is adding too much material which is not really relevant to the article, material which belongs in the articles about those kings, where I believe we already have most or all of it. It's as if I picked out a few favorite presidents and added material at length about them to the U.S. Presidency article. That's the issue here, not your personalized and sarcastic slurs against me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with the article President of the United States is misguided. The history section that I aim to create is more along the lines of what can be found at Monarchy of the United Kingdom (prime example because of all references) or over at Monarchy of Norway. To write an historical overview from the institutional perspective of the Crown does not lessen the individual articles on the various monarchs, on the contrary, it adds something that wasn’t there before. As to the other ancillary and miscellaneous symbols that relate to the monarchy, my source of inspiration at Wikipedia is several of the Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles. Monarchy of Canada is too large and arguably overdone, but Monarchy of New Zealand is about the right size.RicJac (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm answering the post of WP:3O but find myself unsure about the dispute at hand. 3O requires thorough discussion between both sides and the above discussion isn't adequate for me to understand the dispute clearly. Could both of you please continue your discussion so that I can provide a 3O? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and see below! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note the extensive and excessive amount of irrelevant personal criticism and mud-slinging which my opponent constantly hurls at me! What makes dealing with h so trying is the fact that h/s is not able to refrain from doing that, and to a such an almost overwhelming extent. Totally trashing h opponent, without any substantiation of the multitude of personal jibes and jabs, seems to be the main thing, and I am sincerely sorry that 3O helpers need to be subjected to decimeter after decimetar of that kind of argumentation (see below!). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What truly is difficult when dealing with Woodzing is the double standard: he is incapable of doing anything wrong; it is always someone else’s fault. Some humility and a degree of introspection are qualities that would serve him well.RicJac (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the truth it that I am well known for admitting my mistakes, appreciating help in correcting them and apologizing if I've ever offended anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My point precisely: Can't argue with Elves RicJac (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Position of SergeWoodzing

My position is that the article now recently has had rather extensive irrelevant material added to it, which is not about the article's subject Monarchy of Sweden but detailed information about the reign accomplishments of certain monarchs, but not of those of many others. My opponent clearly disagrees, alleging that all the info h/s has added is relevant, and intends to keep adding more such (what I consider) irrelevant material which does not belong here, but belongs in the articles about those monarchs (where most or all of it is already covered). It is hard for me to understand how anyone could read this article and find that all that biographic material about monarchs, which does not touch in any way upon the monarchy itself, and has nothing to do with the subject Monarchy of Sweden, could be relevant, and that more such irrelevant info should be added to make the article swell out even more drastically beyond subject range.

Since I am the only person who at length has corrected ("Notes to self") my opponent's rather extensive Swenglish in this article, which one often needs to know Swedish to be able to fully understand and correct well, my attitude toward that is that I always will be glad to help out when relevant info is added to any article, but it feels very tedious to be burdened with making extensive corrections when added material, as I see it, is not relevant. My opponent has also shown anything but appreciation for my courteous efforts in that regard, so anyone could easily be tempted to quote Streisand and ask oneself "Why bother?". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to give an opinion here about the expanded content. I'm not sure if I'm too late to be of any use (assuming, that is, my comments would be useful, anyway!).

I don't know enough about Sweden's monarchy to say anything about the history section here. I'd say, though, the history should confine itself to moments of importance in the institution's past/development, rather than including more tangentially related histories of individual monarchs.

Other than that, I don't see much here that could be considered excess. Maybe only the section on royal residences goes into too much detail about the residences, detail that's (presumably) covered at the articles on those palaces. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Position of RicJac

I see very little merit to this second round of a third opinion, but here we go again… It is difficult to argue with an opponent who deals with sweeping general notions and never in specifics. It would be prudent for an opponent to make his share of due diligence before levying broad criticism. As I mentioned in the thread above, my intention has been to write a history section much in the vein of what can be found over at Monarchy of the United Kingdom and Monarchy of Norway. As to the other aspects of symbols, residences etc., my main source of inspiration in the possible scope of expanding the all too brief “Monarchy of Sweden” has been the articles written about the various commonwealth realm monarchies, such as Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of New Zealand. The history sections of the latter articles cannot of course be used as a fair comparison when writing a history section for this article, naturally given that their temporal scope is much shorter. One possible method of benchmarking other “Monarchy of N.N.” articles (and other monarchical heads of state articles) is by measuring the article sizes. This is a list of the approximate sizes from last week (assuming they have not changed too much):

Article	Size
Monarchy of Canada	159 kb
Pope	126 kb
Monarchy of Spain	114 kb
Monarchy of the Netherlands	102 kb
Monarchy of the United Kingdom	85 kb
Monarchy of New Zealand	70 kb
Monarchy of Australia	64 kb
Monarchy of Sweden	55 kb
Monarchy of Norway	48 kb
Emperor of Japan	40 kb
Monarchy of Belgium	39 kb
Monarchy of Denmark	29 kb
Monarchy of Jamaica	28 kb
Grand Duke of Luxembourg	8 kb
Monarchy of Liechtenstein	7 kb

The scope of these articles varies considerably and it is quite difficult to adjudicate on the spot what is the proper content in such articles and what is not. The size of this article in question cannot be characterized as excessive by any standard. I would rather contribute to the articles than to engage in these largely pointless meta-debates, and it is telling that my opponent has contributed very little himself to this article. And yet he seems to care a great deal about it. I highly suspect that the real intent of this new third opinion is spitefulness and vindictiveness at its heart, in light of the last third opinion where his case did not prevail. Because for all the pride and posturing there is a conspicuous lack of concision, despite the occasional verbose blast. It is surprising, perhaps paradoxical, that one who poses as an infallible paragon of virtue in mastering the English language stands on such thin ground. As to why, I will not further speculate. Even though I have many times encountered similar situations on enwp, since I began in 2005, whenever editing articles where the reasonable presumption is that native speakers of either; French, German or Swedish; have primarily edited those articles, I would never imagine berating and belittling other users however “truthful” it may be. It is simply not done. The perennial complaints of Swenglish have become the eternal pet peeve of SergeWoodzing (an observable fact by looking at his contribution comments and at his talk page) and a prime vehicle of baiting other native Swedish language users to cross the line of engaging in personal attacks: often a self-fulfilling prophecy, indeed. I shall not induce myself to his lowbrow manners and uncivil behavior, however tempting it may be. Nevertheless, I would like to finish my remarks by mentioning a trope from my laughing place, tvtropes, namely Can't argue with Elves which at its core might be the most germane description of the debating style of my opponent.RicJac (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've gone through both the above sections and honestly, it's really hard for me to provide a single 3O post to answer this like how I usually do. I do get that this dispute about content but everything is still all very vague to me, being a uninvolved editor who is also not familiar to this subject. However, I can try to make you both move forward in improving this article. For that we need to go back to the drawing board and discuss each specific change here in an orderly manner.

Before we start, I'm going to assume what was discussed below with e ripley is over because if that user cannot help you on it, I doubt I will. I recommend higher forms of dispute resolution like WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Also, even if any one of you two disagree with my method anytime can consider those dispute resolution methods instead.

I need the person who objects with the specific content to mention that over here along with only the reasoning why. Please keep it as short as possible. Then the other can discuss their reasoning for inclusion. If possible, a compromise can be reached and if it gets stuck, I may have to provide a 3O for it. Then we can move on the next object of discussion. If we all keep good faith, keep away any personal comments and discuss content only this can all go smoothly and quickly--everyone else can follow it more easier. So shall we begin? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I’m willing go ahead with this method under the conditions you may impose. But SergeWoodzing would have to take the first step as it is he who made the objection in the first place. And perhaps a new section should be moved to the end of the talk page as the current order is inherently confusing. RicJac (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ugog Nizdast! Before I reply, which I will be glad to do, I feel it is necessary to clarify again that E Ripley did not address or comment on this issue at all, so it is totally separate from what hes addressed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Brief account of my position

The article now contains a fairly extensive amount of material about certain selected monarchs and their reigns. Other monarchs have been ignored. Of that fairly extensive material, substantial portions about accomplishments of those selected monarchs relate facts which are not about the monarchy of Sweden, which is the subject of this article. Thus, the article (1) is becoming more and more irrelevant to its subject and (2) is unbalanced in only covering some of the monarchs and their accomplishments and (3) is much longer than warranted by its subject and will be of even more excessive length if more such subject irrelevant information is added and (4) contains more and more material which is irrelevant and redundant, since it's already covered in the biographies of those monarchs and in other articles which are not about the monarchy of Sweden. I do not know how to explain the problem any more briefly or clearer than that. The problem concerns important matters such as attention span, focus, scope and topic. With all due respct, I find it hard to understand why the problem isn't obvious. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I address specific issues, I feel compelled to reiterate my statement from above, namely, that SergeWoodzing need to define specifically what is irrelevant and redundant. This is not a personal attack but constructive criticism. I propose that the history section should be addressed separately from the other sections of the article, which I assume he also objects to, based on the vague objections that unfortunately do lack a severe degree of concision. RicJac (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think RicJac has it right here. I have known that you had a problem with content expansion in certain areas since your post at 3O. But what I had asked of you is to simply state examples (correct me if I'm wrong, the History section right?) where you think are areas of concern. Yes, the topic at hand is a broad and covers multiple subarticles, thus it should cover it briefly per summary style. So why don't you state your first example and we can discuss it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have read the article, and you truly feel there is not extensive material in it that is off topic, I feel there is not much I can add. Because of the relentless personal slurs in this discussion, I do not intend to engage in further debate where you and other helpers yourselves do not see problems. If you have not read the article, the same uselessness in going on with this would apply. Eventually, I may just go in and remove things that I think are obviously off topic, and then we can discuss them. For now, I'm really sick of this whole thing, mainly because of the dogged occurrance of nasty little things like this. That is obviously never going to stop. Bye! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Requesting dispute summaries

E. Ripley (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Which dispute are you referring to? Confusing when you didn't add this to a certain section. I've never seen an independent third opinion section on its own before --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting that your positions be summarized so I can render a third opinion, as requested here [2]. Is assistance no longer needed? I have read through the talk page, but find that a separate section, with a request for opposing positions in brief, is helpful for me in this process. — e. ripley\^talk 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Great that you're willing to help, but could you please be more specific? I'd be glad to give my viewpoint on "terminology", would not be be glad to give my viewpoint on "various accusations" (surely you're not condoning that?!?!) and would like to know what other issues you'd like my viewpoint on, now that you've read through the talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to understand what you mean and have added some viewpoints of mine now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I see where the confusion is now. Though the textual description at WP:3O was vague, the link included there specifically went to Talk:Monarchy of Sweden#State_vs._Government_and_Kungl._vs._Kungliga, so the request for assistance appears to have been focused on an attempt to resolve the disagreement about the usage of state vs government, and Kungl. vs Kungliga. So I would like to keep the initial discussion focused on the disagreement(s) in that section, now that we are all on the same page. Given that, would you mind refocusing your answer on those two points? It may help to separate them into two items, since my personal knowledge of this subject is limited. That's not to say I can't help with other disputed items, but let's start here for now.

Regarding concerns about tone of communications or personal attacks, without passing individual judgment, there does appear to have been some heated and frustrated communication which I hope can be set aside. However, I think I probably can be most helpful here with disputes over the content of the article. — e. ripley\^talk 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've chosen not to read through all this again and live again through some very exasperating moments. That said, I may have missed things and/or may have included a few things that you do not see or do not wish to help with. Sorry, if so. Help with whatever you please as numbered! I won't be clarifying my initial viewpoints further. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Great that someone finally responded! I will offer my summarized viewpoint within the next 24 hours. RicJac (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Helper e. ripley, please note: I am sticking to my point 5 below and would prefer not to make exceptions by responding to any user who continues to refuse to do the same. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So are you getting desperate enough, now that you have marked your text below in bold? This is by the way considered as rude netiquette. Where are you manners? RicJac (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't try to bait other editors. A good rule of thumb is to keep your comments focused on article content, not on the contributors themselves. — e. ripley\^talk 19:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoint by SergeWoodzing:

1. Terminology (as per our MOS specialized Swedish consitutional terminology should not be translated literally and imposed on enWP readers at large):

a. The official Swedish name of the Royal House, according to the Royal Court, is "Kungl. Huset" abbreviated;

b. Swedish staten cannot always effectively be translated as "the State" without leading to unnecessary confusion, whereas the government is always correct and usually clearer to readers of normal English;

The most applicable usage in the two cases in question is shown in dictionary after dictionary ("Expandera allt") after dictionary where word application and usage is dealt with. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me, when a readily available and generally understandable term can be used, it would be inappropriate to use what our Manual of Style calls contested vocabulary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

c. the cabinet of ministers (Swedish: regeringen) is not the same thing as the goverment, in English, and in English usage the king of Sweden, as Head of State, as well as Parliament, the Supreme Court and other institutions must be considered part of the Swedish government.

Added a bit and bolded to clarify my position. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Pro- and anti-monarchy clubs: private clubs of no official standing are inappropriate as external links under this article.

3. Swenglish: Users whose English is noticeably effected by their own first languages (not English) should appreciate help and constructive, friendly advice from users with English as their first language.

4. Personal attacks: Users should acquaint themselves with the meaning of "personal attack" on English Wikipedia and avoid writing things that reasonably can be taken as such.

5. Getting personal: Users should try to stick to the subject of a discussion without getting personal.

6. Irrelevant expansion: too much detail has now been added to this article about the reign accomplishments of certain kings without those details actually being relevant to the article's subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoint by RicJac:

1. Terminology:

a) The official Swedish name of the Royal House, is "Kungliga Huset" with the written stylistic short-form "Kungl. Huset". This can be confirmed by the authoritative source on the Swedish language, "Svenska Akademiens ordbok", published by the Swedish Academy. However, there is no public document with an authoritative definition of what the name of the royal house is. The closest correspondent to a public document would be the usage found in the royal family section within Sveriges Statskalender (English "Swedish State Yearbook", with about the same scope as the U.S. Government Manual). Meanwhile, in the Swedish Code of Statutes (Swedish: Svensk författningssamling) terms such as "Kungliga Huset", "Kungl. Huset", "Konungahuset" and "Kungahuset" are apparently used interchangeably in laws and ordinances without any degree of precision. Even before the constitutional reform of the 1970’s, which removed the monarch as the nominal head of the executive, there was no consistent usage even before then, and there needs to be none at all, given that linguistically there is no substantive difference between them at all. In short, this is a matter of style rather than substance.

b) The State (staten) is always used in official translations by accredited translators simply because it is the only term which is an accurate description of what it is, i.e. a legal person. In the Swedish context, I refer to the first chapter of the English translation of the current Instrument of Government (i.e. the main Swedish constitutional document for purposes of this discussion) where the delineation is quite clear. This is overall consistent with how the term State is used in official documents and in academic sources from outside of Sweden. While I recognize that there are differences and some inconsistency as to how the two terms are used in the common tongue within certain polities, such as within the United States of America, the international use in the general sense is not unclear at all. The interrelationship between the terms state and government in the general international sense is found in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which has subsequently become part of Customary international law and is the key definition that is used when dealing with the recognition of an entity as a sovereign state by another sovereign state. The traditional key metaphor between the terms is the description Ship of State (derived from Plato’s The Republic), where the State is the physical ship, while the Government are the officers commanding the ship. Another example of this is that the members of the European Union are member states (permanent entity), not member governments (temporary officeholders).

c) In the Swedish context, the term Government means simply the cabinet and nothing more. The reason why I insist on this separation of State and Government is because of the Swedish constitutional reforms in the 1970’s which removed the monarch from the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the State while remaining the symbolic representative of the State with only tenuous symbolic connections with the Riksdag and Government. Conversely, the separation of the Swedish monarch from the responsibilities of state has meant that the monarch has a much freer role and cannot simply be censured and silenced by the Government of the day; unlike in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the UK, where requirement of ministerial countersignatures exist, offering binding constitutional advice etc., and other neat devices exist for curtailing monarchical freedom of action. None of this exists in Sweden, apart from a clause in preparatory works (the 1973 government bill of the current Instrument of Government), which states that there should be no daylight between the monarch and the ministry in matters of policy. However, no formal sanctions can be imposed on the monarch, short of constitutional changes, the Riksdag declaring the monarch to have been derelict in his/her duties for the latest six month and thus having effectively abdicated the throne, or a Riksdag majority slashing the annual State contribution to the royal finances. What I have posted above is not my own original research, but has been written by Swedish jurists such as Fredrik Sterzel and the late Gustaf Petrén.

2. Pro- and anti-monarchy clubs: At present there is no section concerning this in the article. It is likely that some additions will be made in this respect at some point in the future.

3.

a) Swenglish: I have no objections whatsoever to corrections of grammar, syntax, misspellings and the like. If I would not accept corrections along these lines, Wikipedia would simply not be the appropriate venue. However, for SergeWoodzing persistent accusations of Swenglish have become the operative catchall criticism and vehicle of harassment of other users within his limited areas of interest (mainly articles relating to Swedish royals) whenever and wherever he runs out of arguments otherwise. I consider this to be mean-spirited, uncollaborative and a primary example of baiting.

b) Wikipedia is about verified facts, not homemade definitions or personal preferences. I am always willing to discuss my edits and equally willing to disclose my sources. I will never accept the edits of any other user who refuses to do the same, unless there is a clear consensus from the Community to do so.

c) I resent any user who de facto claims ownership of any Wikipedia article, save for user-pages.

4. Personal attacks: Users should acquaint themselves with the meaning of "personal attack" on Wikipedia and avoid writing things that could reasonably be interpreted as such.

5. Getting personal: Users should try to stick to the subject of a discussion without getting personal.

6. See 3c. RicJac (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC); "edited RicJac (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC))"

7 Addition: I am not trying to impose any technical language to this article. I merely strive to clarify where clarification needs to be made. Wikipedia should use clear language and not use befuddled or otherwise unclear definitions where such are redundant. Ignorance is no excuse for facts. None of my propositions is in any way, shape or form inconsistent with what is found in the Oxford English Dictionary or in other applicable reference works on the English language. RicJac (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion by E. Ripley:

On the issue of "state" vs. "government"

I think there's been too much attention devoted to the Swedish meaning of these words, when what matters at the English Wikipedia is the English meaning of these words. It appears accepted that the country of Sweden, writ large, owns these items, and in English, the definition of state and government at the national level are commonly understood as interchangeable. In that regard, I don't think it matters much whether we use state or government.

Wikipedia articles can't be sources for themselves, but there are instances in Wikipedia policy where precedent does matter (for instance, whether to use the British vs. American spelling of certain words -- which states that "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.") In addition, Buckingham Palace uses the phrase "the British state" to describe ownership. It also appears that the earliest version of this article that referenced ownership used state. (However, I would oppose capitalizing "state" here. It doesn't comport with our style.)

Given that the two words' meaning in English is interchangeable, the history of the article has the use of "state" occurring first, and there is precedent for using "state" in at least one other similar article, my initial opinion is that if it's necessary to pick one or the other word, state should win out. However, I would offer as another option for discussion that if which arm of the government actually has ownership can be identified precisely (and based on RicJac's comments, it appears this is possible), then I would submit that might be a more preferable alternative. And, there is precedent for that result as well (see the treatment of ownership in White House: "The property is a National Heritage Site owned by the National Park Service and is part of the President's Park.").

"which arm of the government actually has ownership" ??? according to you (not me), shouldn't that be which arm of the state...? ~ You've completely disregarded what all those dictionaires recommend (3 links above) in example after example after example after example listed there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact I believe I mentioned prominently (and repeatedly) that my opinion was that both terms are interchangeable, and that I would be fine in general with either being used. But since you two have reached an impasse about it, and I was asked to choose between the two, that was what I did. I also, you might note, offered an alternative suggestion which I'd encourage you to consider. I did look at your dictionary links, but I was fairly clear that I thought you both have focused too much on Swedish meanings, when they are irrelevant -- what matters is the English meaning. I was fairly straightforward in my opinions and explained my reasoning thoroughly, and have now said what I plan to say about the matter. — e. ripley\^talk 03:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is how the one collaborative consensus dictionary I linked to primarily translates Swedish "staten" as relevant to this discussion:

• There is a body in Northern Ireland which is government -sponsored and -financed.
• In Swaziland for example, this accounts for up to 40 % of all government revenue
• The situation is totally impossible for Turkish society and the Turkish Government.
• Those are costs that neither national governments nor taxpayers can currently afford.
• In addition, the government of Luxembourg also contributes 1 Franc per kilowatt/ hour.
• Mergers that provide no right of veto for trade unions and government lead to accidents.
• That means realising that people are not there for countries, but countries for people.
• Here in Europe, the government tends to bear the responsibility and we rely on legislation.
• He petitioned Parliament and the German Government consequently agreed to pay.
• It has been suggested that auctions are simply a device to provide extra money for governments.
• In most countries, the national emancipation support networks are also formed by the government.
• ~ Plus a few more instances wherein the word "state" only appears one time and then in a plural context not relevant to this article.

All of that you completely ignored! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for the time you have taken in bringing about a fair third opinion. Unfortunately, and despite your valiant efforts, I do not think SergeWoodzing (given his reactions so far) will yield until a certain place will freeze over… RicJac (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but with sloppy 3rd opinions like this one and your unrelenting and insulting personal slurs, I might quit WP completely instead. Then you and your Swenglish can have all these articles to yourself. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Now there’s that pet-peeve of yours once again, brought about when other arguments have been less than successful...

As far as incivility goes, you are quite an accomplished practitioner yourself! RicJac (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of "Kunglinga Huset" vs. "Kung. Huset."

Since I haven't seen any sources in English that use either variation, I am somewhat at a loss for how to choose which is more appropriate. Turning to the MOS for abbreviations may provide some guidance. Here it says "when an abbreviation is to be used in an article, give the expression in full at first, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). In the rest of the article the abbreviation can then be used by itself." I admit this is not a wholly satisfying standard to base a decision on in this instance, because the dispute is over how to reference a singular institution. However, it may be a useful yardstick. So I suppose, under duress, I would support the use of "Kunglinga Huset (Kung. Huset)."

The issue was what the royal court calls itself (which reasonably is what we should use). Did you miss that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I will support this equitable solution.RicJac (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

General suggestion

The dispute over Kunglinga Huset vs. Kung. Huset, would probably benefit from some opinions by editors who are familiar with or at least interested in Sweden. I would suggest that this particular dispute be put to people participating at Wikiproject Sweden and see if they have some helpful suggestions.

Thank you. I hope I've been of some assistance. — e. ripley\^talk 22:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have already made a post over there. Thank you for the time you've taken with this rather overdone debate on such (relatively speaking) simple matters. I for one would rather spend my time on the Wiki contributing to the articles… RicJac (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A request for a clarification

A question on one point. As it regards the usage of state vs. government, the disputed text as far as I can tell is The Royal Palaces are the property of the Swedish government and The Regalia is government property. Are these two sets of items owned by any certain part of the government that would make it worthy of a description that makes a distinction between a portion of the sovereign nation? — e. ripley\^talk 20:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Originally the text was "The Regalia is State property" and "The Royal Palaces are the property of the Swedish State" before Woodzing unilaterally changed it. The State is the legal and fiscal entity of the body politic, except for the local authorities (municipalities) and county councils, all of whom while part of the public sector are legal and fiscal entities in their own right. The Government is merely the top executive authority of the State, i.e. the collegial cabinet.RicJac (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Even knowing Swedish, I don't understand what is meant by "a distinction between a portion of the sovereign nation". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is - does a certain part of the government own these things? The Cabinet? The royal house? Or is it simply owned by the sovereign nation of Sweden? I am trying to figure out whether its ownership is such that it deserves any kind of distinction in how it's referenced. I suspect that it does not, and that there's no reason to think it's owned by anything but the nation/government in general terms, but ask for the sake of due diligence since there is some discussion about just what certain terminology refers to in the Swedish context. — e. ripley\^talk 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically the State is a single legal and fiscal entity, the Government and subordinate authorities/agencies does not "own" anything themselves but merely holds it in trust on behalf of the State. Ultimately, the Riksdag (the national legislature) determines how State property is handled/disposed. The State authority which "owns" the regalia is Kammarkollegiet, and the Royal Palaces are "owned" by the National Property Board (Swedish: Statens fastighetsverk).RicJac (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the concept of "the State" in Sweden, the other Nordic countries and in the general European continental civil law tradition, largely mirrors what in Britain and other Anglophone common law countries such as Canada and New Zealand is known as The Crown.RicJac (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Another term, which also appears in the Instrument of Government, is "the Realm" (Swedish: riket). It is much looser than "the State" and generally means "the country" or "the State and the other parts of the public sector". RicJac (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We do not know that and I cannot find any reference which would help, which is precisely why the unspecified government ownership (which equals Swedish ägda av staten or i svenska statens ägo), is what is appropriate here. To my knowledge, having studied the English and Swedish sides of such things for over 50 years, when Swedes say "staten äger det" they mean exactly and unmistakably the same thing as Brits, Americans/Canadians, Australians, Nigerians and 100s of millions of others mean when they say "the government owns that", whereas an albeit correct literal tranlation like "the State owns that" is not likely to be perceived by most readers of English as exactly and unmistakably what was meant.

Whether or not Sweden is designated as a sovereign nation in this context I would have to find irrelevant. If a building is owned by the government of the Bahamas or of Transvaal, which may or may not be considered sovereign nations, it's just owned by the government there. Wouldn't additional and perhaps extensive research to get more details on that be a bit overzealous of us, perhaps even unsoluble?

In general use, "staten" in Swedish represents exactly the same simple and vague concept as "the government" does in English speaking countries. The same cannot be said of the general perception of a more formal, yet less distinctive/designative, term like "the State" in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please - don't comment on contributors' motives or understanding. It's really not helpful. Stick to discussing the content dispute. — e. ripley\^talk 22:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am just very frustrated by the implied belittling of my efforts made by the other contributor, as if I was making all this up or making literal translations of my own.RicJac (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thank you both, this is helpful. I'm going away for the weekend beginning in about an hour, so I probably won't be back in a position to contribute again until Sunday evening, but am hoping to have my thoughts sorted out by then. (In terms of my use of "sovereign nation," I was just striving to use neutral language to describe the general concept of a national government.) — e. ripley\^talk 22:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now read my entries very carefully 5-6 times and find nothing whatsoever to warrant your remark to me about "contributors' motives or understanding" - ??? I'm so confused now that none of this makes sense to me anymore, with new entries added above comments already made, no continuity and the whole discussion turned into a big incoherent mess. (Going away for the weekend sounds like a great idea.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No need for confusion, friend! I made an inappropriate remark and later apologized by deleting it (you can check the page history).RicJac (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That comment was directed to RicJac, but I guess he deleted his original comment (which is fine especially since it was potentially inflammatory) - so mine now hanging out there makes little sense. — e. ripley\^talk 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No that is not "fine" according to WP guideline, and the more inflammatory the comment the less appropriate it is to just remove it. Don't you even look at links we provide? What's the use of providing them? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is, in fact. It's preferable to use strikethrough instead of simply removing comments, but you're not going to find much support for an interpretation that removing something that was considered a personal attack by the person it was directed to is improper. In fact, removing comments that are personal attacks are one of the only times when it's not only acceptable to remove (or strike through) your own comments, but also those of others. — e. ripley\^talk 03:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, E. Ripley, but in all these years I've never seen any editor so blatantly profess a POV that flies directly in the face of an explicit and indubitable WP guideline (as linked to twice and still completely ignored by you). It certainly isn't what one would expect from a 3O editor. I'm flabbergasted by that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have never encountered a user who makes such strange interpretations of wikiguidelines as SergeWoodzing! Don’t take everything as a personal affront: be collaborative and cool down!RicJac (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

From the guideline which our 3O helper ignored: "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead. ... Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example: Mark deleted text with ..., or ..., which render in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). Mark inserted text with ..., or ..., which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited 12:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Mark up your edits as shown above. Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change. ... Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Two relevant links re the (now very confusing, for anyone else) format and issues in this discussion:

1. Re: causing confusion by removing one's own comments (which really threw me);
2. Re: standard usage of Swedish staten in English --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The second link is to a privately owned website financed by advertisements. Hardly an authoritative source at all…RicJac (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bab.la is a highly respected and widely trusted consensus project with content principles similar to those of Wikipedia. The many examples given there cannot be disregarded. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend this one hour long lecture by Professor Quentin Skinner named "A Genealogy of the State", filmed at Northwestern University, where the crux of his conclusion is that it is quite unsatisfactory to equate the term State with Government (for partially the same reasons I have outlined above). There is also a written British Academy lecture version. RicJac (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional and Official Role

The footnotes do not support the content they are being used to reference. For instance the Wikipedia article states that the King holds honorary ranks in the armed forces. Yet this is not what the link says. It says "He is the foremost representative of the Swedish defence establishment and holds supreme rank in each of the service arms". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The wikipedia article states that the king is immune from criminal prosecution but not civil liability, yet the website of the Swedish Monarchy states that "The Head of State cannot be proceeded against in civil causes." 121.73.7.84 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Part of government at all?

Please see my question here, asked on the talk page of our article Head of State. Well-cited clarification would be great. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monarchy of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225235411/http://www.government.se/sb/d/2853/nocache/true/a/21785/dictionary/true to http://www.government.se/sb/d/2853/nocache/true/a/21785/dictionary/true
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1982%3A270%24x
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219105931/http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1973%3A702%24 to http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1973%3A702%24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810142752/http://www.sfv.se/Documents/Kulturvarden/2013_03/Svenska_folkets_slott.pdf to http://www.sfv.se/Documents/Kulturvarden/2013_03/Svenska_folkets_slott.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426215817/http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11817/a/125035 to http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11817/a/125035

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Monarchy of Sweden

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

Reference named "EB1911":

• From Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Albany, Dukes of". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 488–489.
• From Charles XV: This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Bain, Robert Nisbet (1911). "Charles XV.". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 5 (11th ed.). p. 932.
• From Khan (title): Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Khan" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 771.
• From Stockholm Bloodbath: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Bain, Robert Nisbet (1911). "Christian II.". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 6 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 274–276.
• From Church of Sweden: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, article Sweden
• From Tacitus: Brodribb, William Jackson; Godley, Alfred Denis (1911). "Tacitus, Cornelius" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 345–46.
• From Västerås: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Vesterås". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 1056.
• From Arvid Horn: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Bain, Robert Nisbet (1911). "Horn, Arvid Bernhard, Count". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 695–696.
• From Birger Jarl: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Birger" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 3 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 981.
• From Wismar: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Wismar". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 28 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 754.
• From Bulgaria: Bourchier, James (1911). "History of Bulgaria" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 4 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 779–784.
• From Aide-de-camp: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aide-de-Camp" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 435.
• From Second French Empire: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Esmein, Adhémar (1911). "France § History". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 10 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 869–921.
• From Adolf Frederick of Sweden: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Adolphus Frederick". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 211–212. This cites:
  • R. Nisbet Bain, Gustavus III. and his Contemporaries, vol. i. (London, 1895).
• From Kingdom of Navarre: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Navarre" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 281–282.
• From Sweden during the late 19th century: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Dumrath, Oskar Henrik (1911). "Sweden". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 211–214.
• From Sweden in Union with Norway: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Dumrath, Oskar Henrik (1911). "Sweden". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 210–214.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article on the Monarchy of Sweden has several issues with neutrality. In particular, the section on cultural importance and general popularity among the Swedish populace is generally worded rather strongly against the general institution (note this is specifically the wording, not primarily the content). I also believe that when describing the institution of the monarchy, it is best to remain describing that institution, rather than the figurehead (the king). Criticisms against the king personally belong in the article describing him, rather than the article describing his role. DaisyThePug (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I stongly disagree. The Swedish monarchy has never been criticised as severely as it has duing the last few years. Like it or not. Opinionated words like "crucial" in suport of the monarchy should not be added unless they are in cited sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Swedish monarchy has never been criticised as severely as it has duing the last few years.

Interesting. Sounds like we need a section on this in the corresponding article. Monarchy of Sweden fails to address this situation. I will start a discussion on this topic there. Thank you! 2A02:1406:27:DE0E:8174:58ED:75B1:2A9D (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)