# Talk:Midvinterblot

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

What does nr mean?
Img captions, write years of the version.
The word "monumental" is a glorification
"It is Sweden's most debated painting ever." Can an English ref be provided, so i can verify this.
Tone issues: informal tone, not so encyclopedic, rather a glorification at time. Stay just the facts, not the views. Copyedit needed.
"Through perseverance and industriousness",
"it is not surprising"
"The criticism, which excluded that an artist had any artistic freedom to give a personal interpretation of a distant historic event, could just as well have been levelled against a major part of the historic paintings of the 19th century. Still, the anonymous criticism would set the tone of the criticism against Midvinterblot during the following years"
"but this was hardly a sincere statement"
"the painting became a survivor from a time past and it could not meet the modernist ideals of the new century" view, not fact. Who says
"For Carl Larsson, the controversy concerned his personal prestige and the ideals that he stood for, but his contemporaries would turn more and more indifferent to these ideals. The events embittered his last years and he declared in his autobiography that the controversy broke him down and that he admitted it with anger. It is clear that he began to identify himself with the work and it is possible that he also identified himself with the sacrificed king, as he primarily saw conspiracies and bad intentions behind the opposition" tone, who says
"many people who had been critical changed their minds. Most of the 300,000 visitors wanted it to remain in the hall"
The source quote is not in English, so i recommend indirect speech. The translation may be objected to. "It is all surreal like an opera, you don't believe in what is happening, you don't feel for what is taking place [...] Midvinterblot is an eerie display of dubious historic truth and it concerns us modern Swedes hardly more than a scene of cannibals in darkest Africa. (Svenska Dagbladet, November 6, 1913"
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what I can do to fix your objections, but I don't think monumental should be interpreted as a "glorification". The term is simply used because the painting belongs to a category known as "Monumental art" and which is intended to serve the same function as statues and other monuments.--Berig (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to fix the article according to the points you raised. As the English language reference I am afraid I can't provide any. However, there are several administrators who know Swedish and who can verify the online source for you, such as user:Haukurth, user:Fred J, user:Henrik and user:Bishonen.--Berig (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Berig, can you approach anyone of them to verify:

"It is Sweden's most debated painting."
The translation of opinion of Svenska Dagbladet, November 6, 1913 is right.
I will wait for a reply.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted a request on Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board.Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked user:Haukurth to have a look. As an Icelander, he understands Swedish very well and as he is one of the main contributors on Norse mythology articles he is familiar with the topic of the painting.--Berig (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't vouch for fine shades of meaning (unreal/surreal etc.) but, yes, Berig's use of sources seems appropriate here and I'd certainly trust him better with Swedish than I'd trust myself :) Haukur (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The painting is in Goteborg, not Stockholm. 209.86.72.186 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


### Translations
As for being "Sweden's most debated painting" it is supported by the sours. It's actually even in the headline. "Sveriges mest omdiskuterade målning" translates to "Sweden's most debated painting". The claim "Brunius considered the painting to be surreal, unbelievable and not very relevant for the modern Swedes of the early 20th century." is supported by the quotes "Det hela är overkligt som en opera, man tror icke på vad som sker, man känner icke för vad som sker." (The whole is unreal like an opera, you don't beleive what's happening, you don't feel for what's happening.) and "Midvinterblot är ett kusligt uppträde av tvivelaktig historisk sanning och angår oss moderna svenskar föga mer än en människoätarscen i mörkaste Afrika." (Midvinterblot is a spooky expression of dubious historical truth and considers us modern Swedes little more than a cannibal scence in darkest Africa.). May be some WP:OR here, perhaps replace with the actual quote. Especially "surreal" seems to be unsupported by the source. // Liftarn (talk)

I don't know if it's OR to translate "overkligt" as "surreal", but "unreal" is a better translation.--Berig (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
PASS.Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :)--Berig (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The folder from Nationalmuseum indeed says "Midvinterblot - Sweden's most discussed [debated] painting" in its title. While Nationalmuseum is a serious, government-run museum that could probably be seen as a RS on Swedish art, this source is a folder on this painting rather than a source on controversial Swedish art in general. To be a bit picky, the statement is found only in the title while the body text states is to be Carl Larsson's most debated work + the additional controversies in the 1980s. I would therefore suggest that it would be more NPOV to write "It has been called Sweden's most debated painting" (which is completely true given the reference) or something similar rather than it is.As to the 1913 ref, IMHO it is not so much the matter of the translation of individual words in their 2008 usage, as to convey a resonably correct impression of a review written 95 years ago, probably with an educated and affluent audience in mind. That requires a lot! Tomas e (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any painting that has been more debated in Sweden, so I prefer the present phrasing. However, if you change into your preferred phrasing, I will not change it back.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)