Talk:Bridget of Sweden

message: Article really should include more information about how highly politically Birgitta was. Her visions were often opportune, to say the least; for instance, she specifically opposed Albrecht von Mecklenburg's succession of the Swedish throne. --Johan L 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: also on how the detail of her vision of the Nativity had a major influence on the depiction of this in art. Generally more detail needed on her writings - ie what they said Johnbod 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The title of this article, "Saint Birgitta", is mixed-language crap of the highest order.
Since this in English Wikipedia, the title should be fully in English, "Saint Bridget".
In Swedish, it is "Sankt Birgitta", "Heliga Birgitta".
But not MIXED. I have to wonder who have been those analphabetes who christened this in semi-Swedish. - 213.243.157.114 19:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Barf

message: Shouldn't there be something about recent years discoveries that points to the fact that she was an epileptic,
and that her visions are more likely to be the results of spasms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.248.190.175 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not "discoveries", nor is this a "fact". It's an attempt to explain the phenomena surrounding St. Bridget in scientific terms, for the purpose of discrediting the substance of her visions. However, visions with highly detailed content (as opposed to an "aura" or a feeling of heightened reality) are not a symptom of epilepsy.  Deborah64554 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical state 

message: She must have had a different reason for going to Rome.  In 1350 no pope had set foot in Rome for forty-six years.  Pope Clement VI was in Avignon and never gave any indication of returning to Rome.
When Ulf, the husband of Bridget was deathly ill following a journey to Compestella,"Bridget was greatly comforted by a vision of St. Dionisus that consoled her exortting her to make a pilgrimage to Rome. (Itinary of St. Bridget of Sweeden from Rome to Jerusalem, Sabino De Sandoli, C. 1991 Franciscan Printing Press, intro." 178.214.65.29 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome 

message: I've retouched the :File:Heliga Birgitta på ett altarskåp i Salems kyrka.jpg image, here is the difference:
File:Heliga Birgitta på ett altarskåp i Salems kyrka.jpg
File:Heliga Birgitta på ett altarskåp i Salems kyrka retouched.png
Watch the images in full size for best comparison. The retouched image might seem a little blurred in thumbnail view, but that's just Wikipedia's PNG thumbnailing software.
I can see the charm in using the original picture, so I'll leave this up for discussion. What do you think? --Beao 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!- J.Logan`t: 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retouched image 

message: I have here in A History of Sweden by Herman Lindqvist, page 72, that Birgitta was made patron saint of the European Union rather than Europe. As these are tow different things, does anyone have a source of saying she is patron saint of Europe? - J.Logan`t: 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  patron saint 

message: The neutrality of this biography leaves much to be desired as far as Bridget's actual historical person and her impact on her times is concerned. She is also known as the person who in her "revelations" so viciously slandered King Magnus and his family, for political reasons, that his name still today bears an undeserved smudge on it. Something of this propaganda aspect of Brriget's works must be mentioned in this article if it at all it is to be considered neutral, encyclopedic work. I am adding a POV template until that has been done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just fix it yourself?  An experienced editor like you should be WP:BOLDly solving problems, not just tagging the page and hoping someone else will fix it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken. And one I have made myself at times. In this case I thought I'd let people with a special interest in "Holy" Bridget have a go. Will try to get to it myself as soon as I can get the references lined up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with the POV:ing. It's not quite the fact that there's a clear opposing view against her, it is more like a general historical cold neutrality towards here in the modern Sweden, since the concept of an upper class Saint fighting for the rights of the nobility against the king before the collaps of the nation Sweden, isn't the very least compatible to any known modern Swedish mind set. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surfing a little, but it appears it is really really hard to find anything written by a Swede (see f.ex. Libris) about her. It seems she is mostly a topic for a continental European symbol. There's some very acrid and unbalanced Swedish criticism against her, properly referred on the Swedish Wikipedia, that might or might not be usable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The most serious criticism I've seen of her is based on her having created an international career for herself by knowingly slandering and libelling her relative the king and his family. I'm not sure if everyone who knows that about her belongs to the vast Swedish majority of aetheists, or if even people with a "do-unto-others" attitude feel that way. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

text: It's not up to me. The article is not neutral, that's neither my fault nor my responsibility. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

text: If you wish the tag to remain it is your responsibility to make some effort to fix the article, or suggest how it should be fixed. William Avery (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me that WP guideline! I am unaware of any such "responsibility" here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added enough balance to remove the POV template. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problem 

message: New scholarly sources have shown how Bridget operated politically and personally. If info about this is added, duly sourced, it should not be softened, censored or quashed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to say against this, and these statements are still in the article. However, they should be referred to as statements of certain sources and attributed to them as claims. I was also a little bit surprised at the word choice of "mud-slinging" in an encyclopedia.--Medusahead (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The word (and worse) has been used several times about Bridget by respectable authors. Swedish: smutskastning. Research about her, what is shown, not just claimed, has not resulted in glorification only. The church was rampant with political manipulation and corruption at that time, as I'm sure you know. Bridget was smart and used the tools she acquired to get her way. A martyr she certainly was not.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism