Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark

message: Very close to a B. I am only troubled by the combination of focus on sexual information, and lack of referencing. If this were an article on a living person, half of it would be deleted outright. It's not, of course, but I would still like better references, especially for the more scandalous stuff. As is, two books by the same author are given, with no publication information, no specific references within the book, etc. Also, the article could be expanded somewhat about something besides her sexual relations. For example, "she remembered how lonely she herself had felt" - how do we know this? Did she write a diary? Whatever the source, if it was intimate enough to know her feelings, surely it said other things about her as well. Some of the spelling needs work: ingored, priaces, suspicison... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read it through, and i understand your questions. Regarding the more scandalous sexual things, they are confirmed in the cited books, but also well known in Sweden. In fact, when one reads about her in Swedish history-books, the information concentrates on the sexual problems of her marriage. I's somewhat sad, perhaps, but as the main purpose of a queen in those days was to produce an heir, the whole thing was videly and publicly discussed, as was the sexuality of both the king and queen. The whole story, about the late consumation of the marriage, about the fact that count Munck had to sexual instruct them in the "production of an heir", about the rumours that Munck was actually the father of the child that was born, was highly public rumours, discussed even in the papers in 1778; the situation was in fact caricatured; here is an image of one of the caricatures from 1778 in the article about Sophia Magdalena in Swedish wikipedia     [] - perhaps that should be included here as well? I don't know. The fact is, though, that she is mostly remembered because of this matters. A second reason for this is, perhaps, that she was a very discreet and quite person; as a queen, she did her ceremonial duties, and then withdraw to her rooms. She spent her spare-time in solitude, and disliked social life, so as a person, she has left few memories in history; it was in fact her more social sister-in-law, Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp, who were the female center of the court. I don't know if she wrote a diary-her lonelyness and isolation when she herslef arived as crown-princess is confirmed, as her mother-in-law hated her and made her own son (Sophia's husband) stay away from her, and when Sophia's own daughter-in-law, Fredrica of Baden arriwed in 1797, Sophia herself insisted to skip the protocoll to make Fredrica feel welcome- this is from the cited sources. Do you have any suggestions of information that should be there? --85.226.235.164 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You want to give better references. Wikipedia:Citing sources explains how, but basically you want to give book publisher, publication date, ISBN, and page number. It's a bit complicated, but useful, do try to read it. I'd recommend citing the pages for specific facts, not just once for the whole book. About the cartoon ... eeeurgh! (and don't look that up in an English to Swedish dictionary!) ... let me ask a few people who know a bit more about historical scandals, and maybe they'll weigh in here. My question about the loneliness was meant to suggest a place to find more information to expand the article with. Whoever said that she was lonely - she herself, or the mother-in-law, or the court historian, or? - is likely to have also said other interesting things about her. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, there was no need for you to take the image so seriously- the only reason i brought it up, was to illustrate what a large place this affair has in the historical wiev of her. I suppose that picture can be seen as a form of slander- i is merely a contemporary illustration  of a very talked about event of the period! I'm sorry if it caused so much trouble. However, Sophia Magdalena was not hated or impopular by the public; it was her husband that was the target. Of course, you are right about the references! Unfortunately, i'm sorry to say that i am too lacy to go through it all. I have at least one book that describes the whole event; "Historien om Sverige; Gustavs dagar" (In English; "The history of Sweden; The days of Gustav", by Herman Lindqvist, published by Norstedts Förlag AB, Stockholm, printed by Fälths tryckeri in Värnamo, 1997. The pages was 154-168, in Chapter 4, with the headline "How is an an heir made? The assistance of the stable-master Munck". I hope this was of some help! Perhaps i should clearify the matter, to distinguish facts from rumours? The king and the queen had not consumated the marriage, which was seen as a great problem, as the country needed an heir to the throne. They did not know each other, and did not meet in private. Munck, trusted by the king, and with a manner that won the queen's trust, was asked to instruct the couple to get close. He helped the king court the queen. The king did not know how sexual intercourse was performed, and therefore asked Munck to be present in a nearby room with the lady-in-waiting of the queen, to be avalible, if the king needed to ask him something. He was called in several times, during several of these occations, and then went in to the bed-room, and instructed the king in what he needed to do. The count describes this in his memoires, adding that he was, in fact, forced to touch them both with his own hands; he describes this in detail. In 1778, the marriage had ben consumated, and the crown-prince was born. Both the king and the queen gave the count gifts for his assistance. This is historical facts. Then, of course, whe have rumours. The gossiping court, the members of the royal family (the dowager queen, who disliked the queen, duke Charles, who had politicall aspirations), the public and the papers, all of these developed the story further, and made up storys about exactly how the instructions of the count was conducted. The storys claimed, that the count instructed the king sexually by actually having intercourse with the queen; the image is an illustration of this, portraying Munck having intercourse with the queen with his penis between the king's legs. Furterhmore, it was said that the king had actually asked the count to make his wife pregnant. This, of course, is higly questionable! There is no proof of these later storys. The wiev of historians is, that although the count was the sexual instructor of the couple, and was in fact sometimes present in the bedroom, he did surely not go so far as taking of his own clothes. I hope this was of some help! As for other things about her, i will perhaps write some later.--85.226.235.164 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That picture seems to have ben inserted now. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Much more things have been inserted now. I believe a lot, (such as the onely-thin in 1797 mentioned above), is from the famous diaries of her sister-in-law, Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte.--85.226.44.74 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the image is there now. This was it: (see  below) Good to have it! --85.226.42.150 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: This caricature was resently removed from the article: 
The difficulty with this act is, that the presence of this drawing has been well and thoroughly discussed and debated on Swedish wikipedia, and the descision was keep. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark
Here, the removal of the drawing are likely to cause much less opposition than on Swedish wp, were there are of course more people likely to become engaged and have knowledge about the subject, as it is the country native to the subject. 
The caricature was removed from here with the given reason :  it is porno, and it was first published in 1987. 
This reason was given when the caricature was questioned on Swedish wp also, and there, those reasons were voted down as insufficient. 
This is not regarded as pornography, as it is a contemporary caricature of an historic event which was much talked about when it occurred. (and, needless to say, it was not put in the article with a pornographic intent.)
It was removed from here with the claim, that the caricature was first published in 1987.  This claim was also addressed and voted down in the discussion on Swedish wp. 
No reference were given for this : the claim is referenced, not with a book, but with a claim, put in the reference section, to make it look like a reference.   
In Swedish wikipedia, were many people took part in the debate, the vote was to keep. Only one person, the instigator of the debate, wished to have it removed. The reason for the descision of keep was: 
It is a caricature made by a contemporary depicting a common wiev of a scandal that were much talked about and commented upon when it occurred. 
It is well known by people familiar of the subject, and whenever published, it is now well known in connection to the scandal. It is made by Carl August Ehrensvärd , whos drawings are now well known to be frequently used in Swedish history books to illustrate the age of Gustav III. It is valuable as it depicts contemporary wievs and opposition toward the crown by a contemporary event, and because it caricatures a contemporary event. 
Further more: the drawing has only ever been questioned by one person :sv:User:EmilEikS.
:sv:User:EmilEikS has left Swedish language wp. He was there suspected of having been the same user as sv:User:SergeWoodzing. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen/Arkiv/2009/Augusti#EmilEikS.2C_SergeWoodzing_et_consortes 
When he left, he claimed to have left his watchlist, etc, to :sv:User:SergeWoodzing. 
In English language wikipedia, : en:User:EmilEikS has been blocked for sock-puppetting  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=276769373#Requesting_wider_block_for_block_evading_sock_puppet 
When questioning this image on Swedish wp, :sv:User:EmilEikS made the very same claims to why it should be removed as :en:User:SergeWoodzing has now given to its removal from here on English wp. 
These reasons were not considered adequate on Swedish wp, but naturally, the matter is not likely to arouse the same engagement here as Sin Swedish wp, which is the nation of the event in question, so it may therefore be easier to remove it from here without drawing any attention, while it would be much questioned had it been done in Swedish wp. There, the descision is to keep; here, it has not even been discussed. 
EmilEiks was also reprimaned for his offensive way of communicating, and his emotional arguments, such as the claim that the drawing should be removed because it is offensive to the memory of the royal couple, which is not an argument in accordance to NPOV.--85.226.44.13 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted that whole edit. Maybe this was motivated by the upcoming royal wedding in Stockholm? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. This removal was indeed questioned on Swedish wp as being a violation to NPOV when it was removed there for the same given reasons, so I am glad the deletion now reverted here as well. I believe NPOV is important to Wikipedia reliability. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of contemporary caricature without discussion 

message: Quite a few  tags were arbitratily removed and an irrelevant porno drawing first published in 1987 was restored to this article recently here. The user who did it seems to have some personal interest in having this unsourced gossip and inapprorpriate drawing in the article, as noted here. I am particularly disturbed by his edit summary comment here
*something kids may remember
which was in answer to concerns about an irrelevant and inappropriate drawing like that being a part of the history studies of children using WP. 
This last action on this article reversed my edit here - please see my edit summary comment then. I believe the image is inappropriate as irrelevant to any facts about this person and that the gossip needs to be sourced or removed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Crying, crying for help again. Instead of destroying a text with tags, you could use the bibliography. Were not you boasting about your collection of 500 books about the Swedish monarchy? It should  be easy for you then to give inline references. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we even using a help tag for a content issue? —fetch·comms 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SergeWoodzing, the citation-tags are not the issue here. You have, in fact, not referenced your own claim that this caricature was first published in 1987 either. Instead, you simply put a reference tag to a written sentence put in the reference section to make it look like a reference.--85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a shame that we can't translate the long discussion we had on Swedish language wp, as the exact same issues were adresssed there. But if you look at the section above, I have tried to summarize the thoughts given in that discussion. Is it is the very same discussion, about the same matter, dealing with the same questions, so it may be of some value. The matter should be adressed in the section above: Sergewoodzing created a new section for some reason. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The purpose of royal marriages is to produce a legitimate heir to the throne. Gustav and Sophia had their problems with that. Of course, this was the subject of a lot of chatter at the time. Also, after a son had been born, there were doubts about who the father was. Munck was requested to write a memoir (not "his memoirs", that should be changed). Anyway, this drawing is also source material. Ehrensvärd was very close to these events. Woodzing is insinuating that this was produced in 1987, but that is ludicrous. Ehrensvärd was very close to these events. Thank you for the link to that book in English. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Like most people, I do not care much about royalty; that does not make me an anti-royalist. Woodzing now added about 50 citation tags to the article - significantly only to the part about the episode in this poor woman's life that is best known. If he has all those books, he should not be so lazy, and add inline notes from the books in the bibliography. Woodzing still suggests that the famous drawing was unknown before 1987, but the inventory number of Nationalmuseum clearly shows that it was acquired in 1973. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tags removed 

message: Please discuss on husband's talk page here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of son

message: Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok is used as a reference on about 55 pages. Until recently, most of these pages had ISBN errors due to use of unknown non-ISBN IDs in the ISBN. The ISBN errors have now been fixed by various editors, either by moving the unknown IDs to the ID field or by deleting the ID.  I recently noticed that the unknown ID numbers appear as part of the signature marks.  I posted some more information about this in a central location (Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok - non-ISBN id identified?) in case this affects any opinions about whether these numbers should be retained and/or how they should be documented.  I'm posting similar messages to this one on the talk pages of a few other higher-traffic articles that use this reference to give any watchers a chance to participate in any discussion there.  I will be watching the central page but not this one.
TuxLibNit (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok - non-ISBN id identified? 

message: 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 :Sophia Magdalena of Denmark'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 "Britannica":
From Frederick III of Denmark: 
From Gustav III of Sweden: 
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. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark]]