Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden

message: An image has been added to this article showing Christina with Cardinal Azzolino but without mentioning him in the caption. I added that but it was reverted - can't imagine why. I will add it again unless someone can explain why not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing new image

message: New rewording about Christina's early relationship and her mother's feeling for her father has been added. As far as I can see, there is nothing to substantiate any of it, and in one case it goes against a cited reliable source. Needs to be cleaned up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After all these years I am not so interested in a discussion with you. It is clear the article on her mother - which is not very encyclopaedic - needs attention too. No critique on Christina, and now her mother. If someone comes up with bad references on her art collection you don't do anything. It seems you are protecting her holiness. Meanwhile, I like to think Christina was as unstable as her mother. Have a nice X-mas, byebye Taksen (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We are required to be interested in basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What we "like to think" is irrelevant. Please stop adding your personal opinion and slant to article text. We are all supposed to follow the basic rules here. Writing to your talk page seems useless. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New POV added

message: As far as I know there is no source for any claim that Maria Eleonora was considered "insane" by anyone back then, yet that keeps being added to the article as what appears to be the personal opinion of one Wikipedian, not discussing it here but handing out an order in an edit summary. I am reverting this again and writing to the editor again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After all these years I am not so interested in a discussion with you. It is clear the article on her mother - which is not very encyclopaedic - needs attention too. No critique on Christina, and now her mother. If someone comes up with bad references on her art collection you don't do anything. It seems you are protecting her holiness. Meanwhile, I like to think Christina was as unstable as her mother. Have a nice X-mas, byebye Taksen (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We are required to be interested in basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What we "like to think" is irrelevant. Please stop adding your personal opinion and slant to article text. We are all supposed to follow the basic rules here. Writing to your talk page seems useless. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Insane?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Christina, Queen of Sweden →  – This is the only article of a Swedish queen where the title is styled this way. Compare to the other queen regnant Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden. Interstellarity (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Support - Policy is neutral on this one as state by Tim O'Doherty. There's no other notable Christina of Sweden, and the other Queen regnant of Sweden uses the {Name} of {Place} format. In any case, ngrams appear to weakly support the proposed title . estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been several other very notable women called Christina of Sweden, most by marriage + the current king's youngest sister. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case there's none so notable that the queen is not the primary topic. I don't know where all  the opposition based on NCROY comes from since the guidelines are completely neutral. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 May 2023 

message: The quote is wrongly contextualized, it appears to mention on the initial arrival at the city: "the Pope refused to receive her, and pasquinades were pasted up all over the city, describing her cruelly as a queen without a realm, a Christian without faith, and a woman without shame". My own wondering on it was to understand the degree of the profanity: no faith and still considered a Christian, or beyond, having had the direct experience and in no need of holding a faith (as the core of the credo, we hope to assume; and, as well, should be added the Pope and others could had reached such degree of certainty) as it was already a given fact for her. Why she picked Rome, retirement there. How was her decision process and perception of the numen, as evolving through the conversations with the different people whose presence she shared at the Vatican and around.
Not to create polemics here, neither promote one version over the other: if she was there only to "wait until the French take Naples" why she stayed for that much longer un her own demise. Was our Queen held ransom? A political prisoner of the Vatican, under false pretexts. Is her own library there accessible? Those are open questions to stir up debate, not an expert on it neither. Hard enough to research on much more recent events: any cues on how to move on and clarify further are welcome. Picture us as Wikipedians entering that place full on single-mindedly asking about this. Go through her correspondence, clarify and settle the issue a bit further.
How to achieve so? As, how to enter as well. New line of research offline and in this text, as simple as it gets.
On my own end vouching to rework the article, add more on her stay and relationships while there. No doubt on not leaving those lines intact, those are misleading including the link provided: it takes too much time to find the source given the mistakes. It would be lovely to point straight to "Christina, Queen of Sweden: The Restless Life of a European Eccentric" by Veronica Buckley, the whole sentence as it appears quoted now in the entry comes from there instead. In fact, the reference in that book is wrong and points at the source of the quote book as "Buckley, Veronica, Queen Christina of Sweden, the Restless Prize of a European Eccentric, Fourth Estate, p. 30". Not saying the passage on the Queen at "The history of Loot and Stolen Art" has no value, if needed I myself would pick more information from there and double down on aspects such as the silver mask (is that a darker silver than usual?) and the love affairs of hers, including all artists and knowledge itself.
:The rest of us must presume, whoever you are (unsigned), that you will make no changes at all (none) without reliable sources attached to them. Christina left Sweden because she had severely abused her position and knew it. She tried to come back, but was turned away, She ruined her reputation in France with her Fontainebleau murder, and had made a few friends in Rome, which was close to Naples, which she hoped to take over. Then she got old. There are a few well-sourced facts for you. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the "a christian without faith" quotation and reference 

message: This article makes little sense in language and feels like a article defending her actions et Al (after the king criticized her) "but she defended musicians and artists" and Christina's financial extravagance and Her unconventional lifestyle and occasional masculine style of dressing have been featured in countless novels, plays, operas, and film. In most biographies of Christina, her gender and cultural identity play an important role. And Gustavus shared Maria's interest in architecture and her love of music and "grief suggests mental instability." Is a suggestion also what is the "most learned" even mean •Cyberwolf•talk? 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think et al [sic] is what was meant, where it should have been etc. User calls her parents Gustavus and Maria which were not their names. Nonetheless, Christina was one of Sweden's worst monarchs (sad for Garbo), and we should be careful with pro-Christina bias. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Gustavus Adolphus works Taksen (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that or Gustav Adolf or Gustav Adolph, not just "Gustavus" alone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely biased? 

message: I was looking to this page because I'd love to help get it to a GAN and ran it through a compulsory copyvio search on detector. It popped up multiple pages with directly copied or closely paraphrased content, the most blatant being https://www.papalartifacts.com/portfolio-item/39041/ and https://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/creating-new-europe-1600-1800-galleries/born-on-this-day-queen-christina-of-sweden. There may also be some smaller segments such as from https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Pope_Alexander_VII/Montor_bio*.html (which seems to be directly quoted with quotation marks and no attribution). 
I hope to work on this some myself, but wanted to make it known/tag the article. The bit from the papal artifacts website is most prominently featured in the article's lead. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked a little bit closer and it's possible a lot of what was tagged further down the line is direct quotes from primary sources. The first flag though (from the Papal Artifacts site) is significant. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the copyvio might go the other way. The article at papalartifacts.com was apparently published on May 8, 2020. If you compare it to a version of this article written before that date, say from Feb 2020 (link to Earwig's) you still get a copyvio warning. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh interesting! Did not think to check the timing that way, forgot that people can copy wiki content too ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Removed the tag. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio discussion