Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden

Section/para about the death of Descartes

I will stop editing the section now, until it is discussed openly here.

There is now a major discrepancy between the section here and the section about his death in Descartes' own page. My suggestion is that we have to somehow combine the best and the most reliable sources on the subject, and bring the two pages/sections into some type of synching at the end of the debate. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My own view is that the section as it is currently written there best summarizes all possible views on the topic, but I didn't want to just copy the paragraph from there into here. Somehow, the paragraph has to be more extensive and complete there, including all available RS sources, and here it should just summarize exactly what is said there. This is my view/suggestion, anyhow. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The final goal, as I said, should be to bring the two pages into some type of stable synching on the circumstances and possible causes for the ailment and ultimate death. That's my view, at least. again. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr Warshy, whatever that means. It is obvious that it is wrong to talk about the "harsh" or "inhospitable Stockholm" climate in 1649-50, because the winter was mild, Severity of winter seasons in the northern Baltic Sea between 1529 and 1990: reconstruction and analysis by S. Jevrejeva, p.6, Table 3 and February 1650 seems to have been very nice. I did not read Theodor Ebert: Der rätselhafte Tod des René Descartes. Alibri, Aschaffenburg 2009, S. 163, but if we fix it here, some could be moved to the Descartes article, which I will read now. Taksen.Taksen (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The sources do not say it was only the inhospitable climate. They say it was a combination of the climate, the specific chilly conditions/environment at the Queen's library, and particularly the strict schedule of the Queen's studies very early in the morning. And they say Descartes was not used himself to any of these conditions, including the unusually cold (for him, certainly) Stockholm weather. Now, to put an analysis of the climate conditions in Stockholm at the time of the philosopher's death as a source for the causes of death is not only completely unwarranted, since the supposed source does not mention anything related to the subject and or his death. This is really just Original Research. I will repeat: the goal is to make the two pages somehow synchronized in what they say, using the best reliable sources used so far in both pages, and perhaps even other reliable sources on the subject, not used in either page yet. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the "inhospitable climate" is completely non sense, and not based on reliable sources, but on prejudices, and repeating what others wrote. Original research or not, I don't like exaggerations.Taksen (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• In my view, unless we have very strong sources linking his death to her actions/wishes/schedule (proper, reliable, secondary sources, beyond mere speculation or extrapolation) then there's no need to mention his death in this article. Mention his role with regard to her, without speculating as to her role with regard to his death. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Some sources mention Descartes caught his pneumonia from a French diplomat, named Dejion A. Nopeleen (which doesn't sound very French), and not while it was extremely cold. The French ambassador though was Pierre Chanut, living on Vasterlanggatan. I think D.A. Nopeleen is a joke.Taksen (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Diplomat" is not the same thing as "ambassador" of course - he could have been some non-notable junior diplomat. If that's what sources say then it probably doesn't belong in this article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources, at least I could not find any reliable one. If you "google" D.A. Nopeleen they all mention the same sentence, but not of them has anything specific on Nopeleen. I was the one who changed ambassador in diplomat, as Chanut was the French ambassador. There can have been only one.

• Every website, many books mention the relation between Descartes and Christina. A superficial article is not my goal; there are already too many.Taksen (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not querying the relationship, I'm querying the relationship between her and his death. If there wasn't one then while he should be mentioned, his death would be irrelevant to her article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Bertrand Russell Christina send a warship to pick him up from the Netherlands. I couldn't find the name of the ship and Russell did not add a reference, so there is no proof. After his death Christina seems to have laid stress on the fact she was innocent. (I don't think she was a saint.) I am busy adding at the article on René Descartes; there you can find new details.Taksen (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

it would be easy to find a source that says he died of pneumonia. why didn't you do it? on the other hand, the doctor Johan van Wullen wrote Descartes had blood in his urine, not particular is a sign of pneumonia. Most authors did not witness his death, a citation needed, does not make it more reliable.Taksen (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that English is not your first language. No problem. I just think it should have a citation or two saying that pneumonia was believed to have been the cause of death. With time I can probably find some, but why not have someone else add it in the meantime, if they have it more handy? If there are sources that say that, as I am sure there are, they should be cited, instead of just having it there without citation. What is the problem with that? warshy ^(¥¥) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! I've read it and the whole matter is much clearer to me now. It makes sense that the French sources would be much better about anything concerning Descartes than the English ones. This source clearly says that the official version has been pneumonia throughout the years, based on the Chanut letter to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia from February of 1650, a little more than a month after Descartes' death. With time now I will try to read the Descartes page on the French Wikipedia and see if the English article can also be improved a little bit from it... Thanks. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

LGBT history cat

SergeWoodzing, I checked talk as you said, and I see a conversation from 2012 where you were the lone voice opposing any sort of LGBT category, claiming that there weren't any sources. But this is clearly incorrect, and other editors pointed it out to you at the time - sources are cited in the article and there are many more existing that are not cited. Moreover, the "history" category is frequently used when there isn't a consensus of historians as to the person's sexual orientation or gender identity but where contemporary perceptions of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity and/or the historical discussion of the issue is significant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not known whether Christina was a virgin queen, had one or more lovers, and, if so, whether they were male, female or both. There is enormous speculation; and speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, but we can note that many reliable sources have speculated and the direction in which they have speculated. I'm okay with anything that actually appears in a reliable source, rather than the thoughts of a WP editor. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that speculate that she was an LGBT person of any (of those) kind(s), but plenty of academic sources that state she was/is not known as any such. - "contemporary perceptions of the person's sexual orientation or gender identity and/or the historical discussion of the issue is significant" ~ there are no such perceptions and no such significance except among very persistent gossip mongers who should not be encouraged by WP in any way, not even historically. Christina as an appropriate subject for LGBT studies LGBT history or is just a no go, except to such gossip mongers. This has been going on for years now. Why don't people just stop? Wanting someone to be homosexual doesn't make it so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to show that there is a single reliable source for this article which can be cited to substantiate the alleged perception of her sexual orientation and significance of historical discussion of that issue purported above. Page number & wording of the source please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge, you need to look at the sources before you make these kinds of declarations. A tiny selection of sources: encyclopedia of lesbian histories and cultures, chapter on Christina's transgressive reputation in Spain of that period, several pages in biography on possible intersexuality, [1] on the relationship of her sexuality to her arts patronage as regards her reputation, [2] one of many sources regarding how she is portrayed on film, "Was Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors that view." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr Woodwizing is acting as a sort of policemen here, for years, even if he added very little or few facts. His main concern: keeping up Christina as a catholic icon, which is questionable also, as is the immaculate conception. There is little proof. May be the reason for his stubbornness? I assume he dislikes LGBT´s. (Luckely the present pope is more tolerant.) Taksen (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks of that kind aren't contributing anything of value to this article. (Your assumption is wrong and very insulting. Your accusation about my "main concern" is ridiculous and couldn't be more inaccurate.) What I (always) want to see is specifics quoted from the cited sources, specifically supporting the existence of controversial speculations worth mentioning (of any kind, on any subject) in a WP biography. So, where are the page numbers and quoted wordings from the sources under this article? That's what we need to see, and if we do, I'll gladly give up my position, because then these allegations will be reliably sourced. Only then. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge, I gave you links to the specific pages in these books, and even one quotation noting that this is a consensus view of biographers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My objection concerns sources now cited under this article, nothing else, and the lack of reliable such to support therse allegations or the existence of speculation worth mentioning about them. Your introducing more and more new stuff, without relating them to my objection at all, is not helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so perhaps you could add some of these new sources to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth don't you, rather than reverting the work I did on specifying for you and others what needs to be sourced with page numbers and text quotes?!?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You added frivolous tags for stuff that literally already had inline citations. I think the existing citations are fine, but you don't, so I've provided more for you. Since you're the one who doesn't think what's already there is enough, you could add the citations that I've done you the favor of finding. Please stop editing disruptively - I have no idea what you think you're accomplishing here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing frivolous about pointing out exactly where specific sources quotes are needed. I'm not interested in labelling Christina a lesbian, only because academic experts like Sven Stolpe clearly have stated she was not. If you are interested in labelling her a lesbian, get to work on refuting him and all the other academics sources that do not agree with your POV! Specifics, please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if only to end this idiotic game of chicken... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

More personal slurs won't help us here. It is customary in WP work, I believe, that if someone questions certian source citations and wants to see more specifics, such as page numbers and text quotes, that is done, not objected to, resisted, reverted and refused. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There. I'm sure this is only the beginning and you'll shortly add citation/quotation requests for things like "she wrote love letters to people whose writing she admired", too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How about we just stick to the subject here, and scrap the sacastic comments about me?

Here "Most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime.<ref name="crompton">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TfBYd9xVaXcC&pg=PA357 |first=Louis |last=Crompton |title=Homosexuality and Civilization |year=2009 |publisher=Harvard University Press}}</ref>" you have now made English Wikipedia the first encyclopaedia in the world to definititely label Christina a lesbian, but without a single page number or text quote as requested. Consequently the source is insufficiently quoted for such drastic labelling, and I will be removing that unless you improve the reference. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is literally a page number. This is tedious and disruptive, Serge, and you should stop now; it seems like you're trolling rather than trying to improve the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Buckley source

Conjecture and speculation and broad, sweeping generalizations and assumptions and personal opinions by/of author Veronica Buckley, in turn completely unsourced by that author in her own work, are beginning to dominate important aspects of this article regarding Christina's sexuality (about which we actually know absolutely nothing whatsoever), and I find that lacking in necessary balance for a Wikipdeia biography. If there are reliable eye-witness accounts of sex acts (not just close friendships) in which Christina participated or admitted to herself, or admittedly pined for, let's source that more properly! If not, let's get a grip on ourselves with the labelling and cut down on it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about this topic and am coming here in response to a post at WP:LGBT.

If the source is presenting a fringe theory then the fringe information should be presented as such. Is it broadly believed that these are minority views? Has the Buckley book or this view been criticized as fringe?

The weight in the Wikipedia article should reflect the weight in reliable sources, of course. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is perfectly valid. Serge seems to believe that without physical evidence of a homosexual relationship, no such relationship existed. That is, of course, impossible given that we're talking about relationships from the 17th century. Serge knows full well that such a standard is impossible to meet, but he also knows that such a standard is well beyond that which is required by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. We don't analyse primary source evidence (of the sort demanded by Serge) anyway - that would be original research. We simply regurgitate what reliable sources have said about a thing. And in this instance, those sources say she was either a lesbian or bisexual. Some are more speculative that others, which is no surprise given they, too, don't have access to 350-year-old physical evidence. But the overwhelming consensus drawn from a combination of her contemporary sources and our contemporary sources is what is reflected in the article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not true, and what Blue Rasberry contributed to this discussion should be taken much more seriously. No serious expert on Christina such as Sven Stolpe or Royal Society of Literature member Georgina Masson or Åke Ohlmarks or Debrett's David Williamson or Ragnar Sjöberg or Lagerqvist & Åberg or Ragnar Svanström or Carl Fredrik Palmstierna or Nils Forssell or Jacob Truedson Demitz or even very recent feminist biographers such as Moa Matthis label Queen Christina a definite lesbian in such a way as has now been done by English Wikipedia, based on the opinionated findings and unsourced conjecture apparently (?) published by Buckley.

Furthermore, there isn't even enough detail given in the Buckley and Crompton sources for us to determine whether or not they have been cited accurately, and my requests for such detail keep getting arbitrarily reversed, most recently called "trolling" (only one of several personal attacks leveled against me in this infected mess). People have been writing about Christina for hundreds of years. Nothing new had been found in the last few decades that would warrant this definite label as worded now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge seems to have found a lot of biographers who have never discussed this aspect of this person's life. If those biographers have not mentioned this, but only a few have, then this might be a minor part of the person's biography and be overly weighted now. If there is a contemporary source which is respected by other researchers and it is giving a new perspective, then I think it deserves some weight in the article. What options exist for reconciling all the reliable sources? Are there multiple proposed versions of this article? Also, is there any complete challenge to the Buckley source to have it taken out entirely, or is the complaint that this source is just being overly weighted? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's overly weighted, just as you so correctly perceive, and it also has not been cited in a way that makes it possoble for us to check if the citations are victims of personal POV interpretation (tendentious rewording) by WP editors, as I suspect (always glad to apologize if I end up wrong) or if they actually categorically label Christina as a lesbian, for the fist time in history. I will be addressing that problem (rather than having my citation requests removed over and over again arbitrarily and continuing to be called a troll), by starting a separate section here for each citation that needs better clarity. Later today. LOWP (Life Outside Wikipedia) need me right now for a few hours. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

PS Several of the biographers I mentioned, foremost among them Prof. Stolpe who was a great authority on this queen, have in fact addresssed her sexuality, in his case thoroughly. It has been suggested that she may have had lesbian interests, but never asserted that she in fact was a lesbian. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Serge, you're defining "fringe" as "outlandish to me personally", but its actual definition is "an outlier in the scholarly literature." I've presented you with a tiny fraction of the sources on her sexuality that are out there. You need to stop taking this so personally and respect the sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What I need is less bombastic orders from you. What I also need is for you to stop being personal in each and every comment! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the standard practice is to credit those sorts of claims to individual authors and sources rather than have them in "Wikipedia's voice". But the article does basically do that now. The article doesn't call her a lesbian, it says, "most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian". There are two qualifiers there - "most" and "modern" - and at no point does the article say, "she was a lesbian" without qualifiers. Yes, you've listed a couple of biographers who either haven't addressed her sexuality or have disagreed with the mainstream. That's fine - that's why those qualifiers are there. It's not clear to me why Stolpe should be given any more weight than anyone else. There have been plenty of advances in terms of sexuality and gender studies since 1959 when his dissertation was published. So much so that we might not even include him in the qualifier "modern". He wasn't a historian of note, or a sociologist, or an expert in sexuality. He was a writer and literary scholar and while his views are worth including, his inexpert views on her sexuality aren't enough to dismiss the inexpert views of others. I would also point out that he was a 1940s convert to Catholicism and an adherent of the Oxford Group which necessarily raises questions about how clouded his judgement of such things might have been. Given that her sexual history almost certainly included at least one sexual relationship with a Cardinal (to which there are "eye-witness accounts" from her contemporaries) the willingness of a Catholic convert (who adheres to the "moral absolute" of "purity") to delve into her sordid past has to be questioned. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry ! I'm truly sorry that your neutral attempt to help us here is being totally ignored by the others and getting no respect at all. I also apologize that I haven't had time yet to specify what is needed in source details, as I said I would last night. I will try to get to it this evening. When dealing with people whose personal views are strongly involved in a campaign to label someone this or that it's necessary to be very meticulous, and that's extraordinarily time consuming. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Noted passion"

The source given for Christina's "noted passion" having been Ebba Sparre is Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II, Psychology Press, page 292. On that page the only thing I can find that relates to this is "The passion of Kristina’s youth was a woman, Ebba Sparre…"

This is an example of what I mean by tendentious interpretation of a source text (not to mention original research). It's a considerable step to take from one author with a vested interest (for the sake of h book's subject) offering the opinion that a woman was another woman's "passion of her youth", to making that youthful passion "noted", which to me would have to mean that at least 2-3 more scholarly authors describe Sparre as Christina's "passion". The word "passion" is too strong to be bandied around that carelessly, based only on it's use by one single special-interest author, while several other experts (correctly) describe Christina's attitude toward Sparre as normal for her way of expressing herself about many people and for regular close friendship (whether lesbian or not) in those days. The wording, early in the article, sets the stage for a script (by Wikipedia!) skillfully crafted to convince the reader that Christina was a lesbian, but not for a balanced encyclopedic text.

I'm reinstating the cite tag there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, dozens of sources note this. It is disruptive to cite every single one simply because a tendentious user refuses to believe it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

So cite at least two more, rather than just calling me disruptive! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most modern biographers believe that she was a lesbian;
her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime."

The only source given for this catgorization of Christina as a lesbian, i.e. believed to be such, and for her "affairs" with women is Crompton, Louis (2009), Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University Press. No page number mentioned in the source cite. When following the link to check the source, we find page 357 of that book, and on that page only this relating to the sentence in question: "Was Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors the view."

This is another example of what I mean by tendentious interpretation of a source text, equalling original research, as well as a falsification.

There is not a word on that page about any "affairs with women".

I do not believe it is accurate for Wikipedia to describe one single author's cited allegation that consensus of modern authors favor a view as "Most modern biographers believe". The diffence may seem slight, but to me the tendency is clear; the intention of the WP user who carefully worded that is to convince our readers that Christina was a lesbian, not that (as is a fact) that we don't know that, but she may have had lesbian interests.

Professor Stolpe, whose unbiased accuracy has never been questioned by any serious, objective critics, writes on page 74 of one of the most authoritative and respected biographies of Christina (1974) this: "There doesn't seem to be any truth to the opinion given in many popular renditions - such as Princess Lucien Marat's scandalous and tacky La vie amoureuse de Christine de Suède, le reine androgyne - that the queen actually was a woman lover, who had an instinctive aversion toward the man, as such. Christina's relationship to her fellow women is certainly a problem - it's obvious that she felt strongly drawn to beautiful women - but there is nothing that suggests that she went any further in that, than to a certain infatuation, an aesthetic admiration, and certain sentimental emotional involvements, in themselves not extraordinary for a young woman with the unconventional upbringing she had. Christina loved men, was attracted to men, spoke openly of her lust for men." Compared to what our WP text now has, we are at a serious loss for balance, and I find the assertion that more modern techniques in analysing a woman who died in 1689, as if she were a credible psychiatry patient today, nothing less than a bizarre notion out of the Wishful Thinking Department.

Moa Matthis's much admired feminist biography of Christina's mother (2010), the first ever, where Queen Mary Eleanor's only child Christina as a person is covered thoroughly, makes no claim, allegation, inference or mention whatsoever of Christina as a lesbian, a believed lesbian or even a possible lesbian. Those notions are archaic, the opposite of being modern as an opponent of mine on this page has claimed.

I am reinstating the cite tags re: "Most modern biographers believe" and "her afairs with women were noted during her lifetime" because the wording is too slanted to be appropriate in a WP bio. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording has been adjusted by another editor and is now satisfactory, in my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Crompton spends several pages on this subject. Once again: it's necessary to read the sources and acknowledge WP:RS, rather than decreeing that no source which doesn't agree with your own personal view can ever be reliable and/or formatted properly. (Others have already pointed out the weakness in Stolpe's source, viz. that he has no credentials and no background whatsoever in the topic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Woodzing, when are you going to add something substantial, improve the article? The balance is gone. Taksen (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• So your complaint, Serge, is that the article employs an almost-word-for-word quote from a reliable source which drew a conclusion you disagree with? Again, you're entitled to your opinion but in this instance (and in every other instance here at WP) your opinion carries zero weight compared to those of authors like Crompton. In his opinion, the consensus is that she was. Our article reflected that. If you disagree with the opinion of reliable sources, you find sources to counter those opinions. You don't outline your opinion and call the use of an almost-word-for-word quote "original research". It isn't and you know it isn't. Honestly Serge, you've been trying this on since 2012, first edit-warring and side-tracking talk page discussions to remove LGBT categories from the article, and now mindlessly making the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for removing well-sourced almost-quotes. We all have a pretty comprehensive understanding of your view of homosexuality and your distaste for sources that don't align with your personal view of the world. You need to drop the stick, mate - the horse is dead. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And the quote you provided confirms just how weak your argument is. Even Stolpe (who I would argue nobody has bothered to contradict, rather than deferring to his unquestionable expertise) agrees that Christina's alleged lesbianism is the subject of, "many popular renditions". He doesn't agree she was, and that's fine, but even he acknowledges that it is the mainstream, popular view. But when Crompton suggests the same, he's suddenly an unreliable source because the conclusion he drew (the "popular" conclusion) is different to Stolpe? Nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should a cited source include what the article has where the citation appears in its text?

Facts:

1. The information (main section heading above) is not found on the only page referred to in the source citation.
2. The discussion as it looks today claims that it is.
3. The discussion is severely infected and personal slurs are more and more rampant.
4. The cite tags keep getting removed and the sentence restored with no action whatsoever taken on fixing the citation.
5. We need neutral editors to help us here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Legobot brought me to this discussion. From what I can tell of the discussion, the source in question is Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization. In this source, "Most modern biographers believe that she was a lesbian" is very clearly supported by the source on page 357. it does state that she courted women in another source in the article, Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to World War II. I can't find a source that refers to her interactions with women as as "affairs", but except for perhaps that one specific word the sources already in the article do support the content, as far as I can see. - Aoidh (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Crompton uses "attachment" for Christina's relationship with Sparre (which he discusses on subsequent pages, including noting that it and the queen's sexuality generally were remarked upon by people of her own time) - how does that term sound to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Serge, please note that RFCs must include a neutral summary of the dispute and also be comprehensible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't weigh in on this; I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, and although I am a historian, Christina isn't in the period I know most about. Clearly, however, a source citation should include a page number, which that in the article doesn't. If, as Aoidh says, it's on p. 357 of Crompton, the note should say so. Incidentally, I notice the article still contains a quotation from Christina's "autobiography," without a note giving the source. I gather from the discussion in "talk" that the "autobiography" is purely fictitious; if so, the reference to it should be removed. Wallace McDonald (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, this isn't an RFC - it's a summary from an editor with a particular POV and a demand that others agree to his POV. Not even close to neutral and should probably just be closed as such. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, it comes from an author who changed at least half of the article here in the past six years. From being an almost childish article it is now full with information nobody else was able to add. I added portraits by Dutch painters and other pictures. If you see a Dutch, German, French or Spanish name it probably comes from me. If there is a link to a geographical location, an Italian composer, musician or palace, the same. I rewrote the lead, changed references into footnotes recently.. Taksen (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) By the way I was the one who changed agree in believe. Roscelese can confirm.Taksen (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Say what? The RFC was started by Serge, not you. I've only ever wished that you would be more careful. You've made some great contributions to the article, but you've also had some shockers because you rush into things excitedly and (in your own words) aren't interested in "the rules". That can be very frustrating (and you know that, and I've said as much) but only once or twice has your excitable nature progressed to something disruptive. You've been open about your sexuality and your interest in adding interesting things to the article. Both explain your editing. Serge is just POV pushing and this RFC is nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• • We have an "expert" now that did not read this Script? This article with at least ten sources on each page is quite amazing; it contains precise details, I had never seen before. Taksen (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In my point of view British and US Wikipedians have a poor knowledge of continental history. (They hardly know where Copenhagen is on the map.) They speak or read no foreign languages and are not able to check outlandish sources. There is plenty to do for a Wikipedian that understands Dutch, German, and French.Taksen (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am cordially asking neutral editors to continue addressing the issues of this Rfc and to try to overlook (1) all the personal slurs and (2) the inappropriate constant bickering of two non-neutral editors which practically hijacks the whole page. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that you've breached policy by failing to provide a neutrally worded question for your RFC is not a "personal slur". St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your concescending tone, sarcasm and personalized unfriendliness toward others is so obvious on this page that I'm surprised (or am I?) that you have the audacity to object. Please stick to subject and lay off all this WP:Unacceptable and WP:Inappropriate behavior which serves no purpose at all but to create a very unpleasant working environment. Please stop it!!! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no "sarcasm" and while some have been frustrated, there's no "unfriendliness" either - you're pushing a particular POV and are using this obviously invalid RFC as a means to continue edit-warring in the article. Nor do I "object" - it simply isn't a valid RFC and as a result, there have been few (like, zero) formal oppose or support contributions. You've made no attempt to listen to others and you have an obvious agenda, one you have made little attempt to conceal. Those few editors brave enough to venture a comment at your non-neutral RFC have disagreed with your POV anyway. So your consensus-of-one is a pointless exercise. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers have now been added to the citation, also now adding pages 358, 359 and 360 (besides the linked 357) to what we are supposed to believe is relevant to the citation, but those pages are not available for verification. I do not believe there is any confirmation there that Christina had "affairs" with women that were reliably noted in her lifetime. I do not believe either that it is fair to say that what's on page 357 clearly substantiates such a definite statement as "Most modern biographers agree she was a lesbian". That would be an inappropriate exaggeration of what's on the page: "The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors the view". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Roscelese/Stalwart111 that this RfC looks more like one side of a dispute resolution statement rather than a neutrally presented RfC. It also is unclear in presenting it as a fact list. The best way to attract opinions of uninvolved, neutral editors is to very briefly summarize both sides of the dispute and reduce it to a simple question. We can find the details of those arguments, but it's helpful to have a starting place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope I have now added an acceptable tag "{{verify source}}" (as per User:Rhododendrites's constructive edit summary suggestion), and I apologize for using the wrong one several times before. I'm not very good at this, and any constructive help is much appreciated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bedmate

From her "autobiography" I quoted the following sentence. "My sexuality is often questioned; I have a longtime bedmate of Ebba Sparre. Although bedmates are common at this time due to our cold climate, Ebba and I share a long time intimate companionship.16 We exchange much correspondence with each other and it is apparent that I have great affection for her. Ebba marries but I never will.17 I was engaged to my cousin Charles but backed out of the union"

Someone from Lapland told me recently it is possible in this cold area to marry at the age of sixteen. In most other European countries the age is eighteen? This guy told me it is mainly because of the long, cold nights that they are allowed by the Finnish government to marry early. It explains why Christina slept with Ebba in the same bed. The castle was cold, the bed warm.Taksen (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Her relationship with Barre has to be explained and this is the best, very convincing.Taksen (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Descartes should have looked for a bedmate also. It would have helped to survive a fairly mild Swedish winter.Taksen (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a few things missing here:

1. The relationship doesn't have to be explained and the situation won't be helped by explaining it using questionable sources.

2. The source is most definitely questionable. It almost certainly isn't her autobiography - it has citations which include texts written hundreds of years after she would have written it. And an autobiography with citations to external sources seems illogical anyway - why would Christina in the 17th century need to cite Stolpe writing about her in the 20th century, for example? And how could she possibly do so?

3. You're confusing modern laws relating to age of consent and permission to marry with what would have been in place during the 17th century, when girls were married as young as 12. And we have directly relevant evidence from one of Christina's contemporaries, living in Europe during the 17th century that she would have had personal contact with.

4. "This guy told me" isn't a reliable source.

I'm removing that problematic claim until we can verify it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You make the same mistake as Woodzing, if you don't like it, it can be removed immediately? It is a very good explanation! Then you could remove all the references from that source, which would be stupid. You did not, so some explanations you like and others that don't suite, should go out? I will not forgive you; it would be going backward. It is a satisfactory and elegant explanation.Taksen (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Even if the source is a bit problematic, but I will find, as usual.Taksen (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you have a WP:BURDEN to ensure that material you add is properly verified. You can't simply add unverified claims or claims with terrible sources (which this one clearly is) and then edit-war to keep it there on the basis that you like it. Unverified claims can be removed and should. Your bold claim has been reverted and now it is being discussed. That's the WP:BRD process. It goes until it is verified, rather than that is stays until it is verified. It is not an "elegant explanation" at all, it's original research and its original research with absolutely no basis in logic or fact. Sorry Taksen but you did the same with photos of another noblewoman and with suggestions she was intersexed and with your suggestion she be referred to as "King" Christina. You really need to think about what you're adding before adding it. The BRD process is quite clear and I'll be removing that unverified claim again. Reinstating it will result in a report at the 3RR noticeboard. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Stalwart, it comes from a university, don't be foolish. I changed what is true. Again, is it about who is the boss? Taksen (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The author knows more about the subject than you. You did not change in the article what was wrong (about her names), about bed mates. Taksen (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC). It is obvious the author, who ever it is, has more knowledge about Christina than you.13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would hope so, but you still haven't addressed the actual issue - whether or not it is a reliable source for the purposes of verifying the claims you have made. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Foolish? What are you on about? As pointed out, it's a fictional sample written by a university lecturer. It's not an academic text. It is published in the personal space of a lecturer and isn't an official publication from the university. Even if it was, it would still be fiction and not a reliable source for confirming historical facts... because none of what is written there is historical fact. Are you seriously struggling to understand the context? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Christina...

Quick one - "youth bedmate" doesn't make any sense. Those two words together don't mean anything. I presume you mean "described by Christina as a 'bedmate' during her youth", which would be okay. Want to have another crack at that one? If you can, use the cite template (not critical, just helpful). Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, edit-conflicted. I wasn't "deleting references" - I undid the edit. I'm not actually sure those are her words. That would seem to be a fictionalised or dramatised account of her life, written as an autobiography but sourced to texts written long after her death. Not sure we should be using those quotes as quotes. What else do we know about that source? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

None of that sentence makes sense now because that section was inserted into the existing text. I think you'll need to re-write that bit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is from a university. It looks like an autobiography. I quoted it several times as it has useful information, including "bedmate". Unluckily it does not give much information about the original text. Taksen (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an autobiography. I think it's a creative writing project; a fictional account. Otherwise, Christina was writing it and citing sources (for her own autobiography, which would be weird enough) that were created hundreds of years after she "wrote it" (even weirder). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It can't be fictional, it has too many precise details, which I did use in the article.Taksen (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC) We have to find out more. Some quotes seems missing, I don't understand what they did.Taksen (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The style is unusual, but this "autobiography" is very good and has a lot of references to books, and articles. One of the more interesting is Martin Lowther Clarke, used by many authors writing on Christina. Taksen (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you genuinely believe it is an autobiography written by Christina herself? Why on earth would she (and how on earth could she) write an autobiography about herself in modern academic prose with citations that include modern texts written 350 years after she died? That's just illogical. If you genuinely believe it is an autobiography then that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. And a trip to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no, this is not an autobiography, the website clearly indicates that it's a sample of an assignment to write a pretend autobiography of a historical figure for a class. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is clearly indicated that it .... I looked all over.Taksen (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The host site, which is the page of an undergraduate professor and links to this document as a sample of the "Write a diary, script, or a journal of a famous or a fictional woman" assignment in the syllabus. It is plainly not a proper source. "It cites reliable sources" is an argument for consulting those sources, not for using an undergraduate homework assignment as a major source in our article! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is written, definitely not by a student, in an usual style, but it is well sourced, and very useful. I will change it, but not now as I have to do some other things first. I could not find out who is Alexander Tangran, one of the authors in Women in World History, may be someone else can?; also M.L. Clarke wasn't easy to find, but he is cited in many books or articles.Taksen (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you change it? You are the native speaker, I am not. According to the Oxford Dictionary a bedmate is someone who you share your bed with. It doesn't include a sexual relation. The source come from http://www.clarku.edu. According to you unreliable? I am surprised. It is usually something like: what I have never heard of, cannot be true. I understand we have a new policeman here, since Woodzing is keeping his mouth. Isn't all about ego's, isn't it?Taksen (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you on about? You're inserting comments into the middle of discussions and simply aren't reading what others have written. Nobody is suggesting the educational institution isn't notable, just because one single text is something other that what you have claimed it is. You have a history of confused editing with significant amounts of original research in the mix. Your insistence on using a source that clearly isn't reliable (the text itself) is disruptive. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And you (quite frustraingly) continue to ignore comments and questions from other editors, driving head with incomprehensible nonsense. Please address the concerns of other editors rather than blindly reverting and edit-warring. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel we don't find a truth, but we produce a truth. He was right, isn't he?Taksen (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't a Wikipedia editor, that's for sure. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)