Talk:Swedish Empire

Empire in English

The subject is considered an empire, not a time period, in English usage. If that is against the liking of enough users, I welcome a proposed name change to something else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing, the article is explicitly defined as a time period in the article and is the direct equivalent of stormaktstiden. What sources actually define Sweden 1611-1721 as an "empire"? Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No use discussing with anyone who reverts before talking here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A move request from Swedish Empire was closed as declined due to strong opposition un 2012 and nothing has changed since then. The revert-upon-revert made now is arbitrary POV, to try to put it diplomatically. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made a move request or argued for a title change. The discussion regarding the move (proposed by you) is clear that everyone considered this the name of a period, not a former state or political entity.

So I'm not sure what it is you're actually opposing here. Peter ^Isotalo 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No that is not clear. I am opposing several recent arbitrary, undiscussed changes in text, reverted and immediately reverted back, removing the word "empire" throughout, and the only suggestion I've made is that anyone who does not want the word "empire" in the text should follow through with a move request. As long as the article has its current name (which I support), it's obvious that the word "empire" should be used in the text, rather than just "time period" (which is an irrelevant translation from the Swedish as far as established English usage goes). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Locating sources for the current title

I've been browsing the references used in the article and I'm having difficulties pinning down where the current title has been taken from. Which cited sources actually use the term "Swedish Empire"? Peter ^Isotalo 23:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A quick search shows the much used (in the article) reference Dumrath, Oskar Henrik (1911). "Sweden". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 188–221. as an immediate answer. Similarly a search of English language books reveals a number of titles which use the words "Swedish Empire". The term is also in use by the Swedish government at [1]. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired, can you specify the pages? Just so I understand which wordings you're referring to. Peter ^Isotalo 16:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

[2], then edit find "empire" reveals 18 or so uses of the word empire, of which only two (from memory) refer to something else. There are two hits for the precise term "Swedish Empire".

The google books search [3] gives plenty of titles that contain the term "Swedish Empire". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Google Books searches in of themselves aren't going to get us anywhere since it says nothing about how the term is defined or the quality of the sources. The first three hits in the search for "Swedish Empire" are either self-published or from publishers like Eken Press which we'd never accept as reliable sources. The risk of citogenesis is also very much a thing these days.

The word "empire" isn't a well-defined term. It can mean a lot of things and is often used in the more general sense of "A political unit, typically having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations (especially one comprising one or more kingdoms) and ruled by a single supreme authority."[4] Dumrath does not at any point actually define what the "Swedish Empire" is, just that it refers to Sweden at some point when it was a "great power", which it also uses. EB 1911 is also a source which by any standard would be considered dated, or at least not one Wikipedia should rely on entirely.

The issue here is what "Swedish Empire" is actually supposed to mean and what it means for the scope of the article. The definition of an article topic should not fluctuate over time. Unless an article topic is very obscure, it shouldn't be a problem finding works that explicitly try to define its meaning. This meaning might vary between sources, but at the very least, the meaning should be clearly and intentionally stated. Peter ^Isotalo 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your view the word empire does not have a clear definition. (Incidentally, is Wiktionary an RS – surely it is not for the same reason that Wikipedia is not. Nevertheless, Wiktionary's definition seems reasonably OK.) The Oxford Dictionaries definition is quite clear, and it would have been clearer still to a Britannica editor writing in 1911. This might be why the term is not defined in the source as it is regarded as obvious.

The point taken from the Google books search is that the term is quite common. There are many more than three hits. Add that to the Swedish government website using it in their history section and there is no way that one can say that the term is not used. Do any of these writers define what they mean by "empire"? You would have to look – but I suggest that many of them might think the term is so well understood that it needs no explanation. In the article, the map is a pretty good definition. (All empires of this sort have geographical boundaries, however fuzzy the edges may be.) Perhaps more text on the matter is needed, perhaps not.

If you think that Dumrath is outdated, check the current version of Britannica. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see the link to the Swedish Institute at first. That's not a "government" position, though. SI doesn't have anything to do with historical research and isn't tasked with defining Swedish historiography. That's what Swedish universities do.

Since there are no clear-cut sources to support the title or it's scope, I'm going to float the idea that "Swedish Empire" might be something that Wikipedia has pushed too far and that might be just one of several terms for the period that Swedish historians call stormaktstiden. It wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened. Peter ^Isotalo 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired: That's not the definition used in this article. Here it is claimed that the term stands for an era. It's like saying that the British Empire and the Victorian Era are the same thing!

Andejons (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right that the article currently gives a definition that goes against the usual main usage of the word "empire". That leads into what I suggest is the origin of this whole discussion, which deserves a new thread to the discussion, so is added below in the outdent. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that we have one user who does not like what the empire long has been called in English and wants to change everything in the article's text to remove that and adhere instead to what the Swedes call this in Swedish, but without moving the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove the references to it being a kingdom instead then? Since it was an empire?

For example shouldn't the text read:

The Kingdom Swedish Empire during the Empire era at its height in 1658...

2A02:1406:1:23F7:39FA:4650:1DC0:291B (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the problem:
(1) The Swedish language word (stormaktstiden) for the subject of the article is time period based.
(2) The English language term (empire) for the subject is largely geographically based.
This difference between the two languages requires slightly different handling. Therefore here in English Wikipedia, for easy conceptual flow, the article should start a definition by giving the geographical limits and then the time period. It is not my concern how Swedish Wikipedia handles the matter, but I would guess that the opposite applies there. There are further consequences of the different terminology in the two languages elsewhere in the article, but none of these are particularly difficult to solve.

As a start, I suggest the opening of the article should read something like:

The Swedish Empire (Swedish: stormaktstiden, "the Era of Great Power") extended over a large part of the Baltic region during much of the 17th and early 18th centuries. At its greatest extent, it included [concise summary of the major added components needed here]. This gave Sweden the status of a European great power. The empire is usually taken to originate in the reign of Gustavus Adolphus, who ascended the throne in 1611, and its end as the loss of territories in 1721 following the Great Northern War.

I have left the description of the major components blank as there could be extensive discussions of how to name those elements (historic versus modern day identifiers) which are not really part of the point I am trying to make here.

I feel the word empire is well enough understood not to require definition – in detail there are a number of different sorts of empire (possibly as many as the number of empires?). This article should go on to describe sufficient of the characteristics to make clear the type of empire it covers. Perhaps the lead should make more clear that this empire originated largely (?entirely?) from conquest. The second paragraph of the lead would seem to fit better into a separate section titled "Historical background". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Swedish Wikipedia, so at some point you need to accept that terms may be used differently than in Swedish. Establishing that this was more of an era rather than some kind of separate state is one thing, but there now seems to be an attempt to undermine the term "empire" in general. As far as I know in English the current WP:COMMONNAME for Sweden's era as a great power is what is currently being used. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the conceptual differences between "Empire" and "age" are large enough that they can not be handled in only one article. If the word "empire" is to be taken as a term that describe the inner workings of a state (as per e.g. Empire), the "history of Sweden as an empire" surely must begin in 1561 with Swedish Estonia, and have a rather long rump until 1815, with the loss of Swedish Pomerania. The year 1611 really is not very important with this perspective.

Andejons (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that in English the WP:COMMONNAME is "Swedish empire". I do not see any difficulty with Sweden having overseas territories outside the time period stated in the article. If that rule applied, the British Empire would still exist because of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the Angevin Empire would also continue because of the Channel Islands. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The question that started this thread was about the meaning of "Swedish empire". It was claimed that definitions were not needed, as the meaning could be inferred from the words themselves. That is one possible approach, and then we are dealing with something along the line of the British empire, with a very broad scope, starting already in the fifteenth century, and in fact ending with a section that covers the remaining overseas territories. You are now instead saying that we are dealing with a set phrase, a name with a meaning which is not quite so directly derived from the individual words. That is also fine, but suggests that Angevin Empire is a better model. In that article, there is a good deal of discussion of the term itself, including how well fit it is, and were it originated. Furthermore, neither articles are replacements for articles such as England in the High Middle Ages or Victorian era.

Andejons (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I had hoped that I had satisfactorily made the point that the detail of one empire is highly unlikely to be the same as another. Empires generally show a wide diversity of precisely how they work. (Conquest is, however, a common theme, as is the case here, with the outstanding military prowess of Gustavus Adolphus – something that seems strangely under-emphasised in the article.)
This article started with the name "Swedish empire"; that is the common name by which it is known in English, and there are a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it where a change in name might make the link look rather odd in the context of the other articles. If the article as it stands does not answer the question "what is the Swedish empire?", then it needs more work in order to answer that question. If Wikipedia does need an article that covers some other concurrent aspect of Swedish history and it cannot be dealt with here, then the solution is to start another article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

But the problem seems to be that you haven't answered that question. The Britannica has been mentioned, but it never gives a definition, or a starting year, or anything like that. The likewise mentioned Swedish Institute doesn't give any clear answer. The Cambridge History of Scandinavia does not seem to use the term at all [5]. Michael Roberts has a book with a title that suggests a different scope than the one used in the article: "The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560-1718".

Andejons (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The level at which I am answering is whether or not the article should be titled "Swedish empire" and to what extent that affects the structure and objectives of the article. The first part of that is largely a WP:COMMONNAME issue – for which there is evidence like the Swedish Institute website, but also many books, usages like this[6] which is presumably written by a professional art historian (yes, I know the Latin title of the map says something different); and then looking in academic journals we have [7], [8] – no doubt there is more to be found (I tried to skip articles that were not open access). A less clear-cut appraisal discusses the nature of the Swedish maritime empire[9].
This high level approach is to counter the implication raised here that the term somehow originates in Wikipedia – but perhaps I misunderstood the remark that made me think that.
I don't have continuous enough access to recent printed sources to go back and look for start dates suggested by the historians who use the term. I agree that the article does need a good reference for that. I suggest that it may be found outside the sources already used by the article. What I have learnt from quickly checking sources is that Swedish history does not seem to be a big topic in the books on European or, more specifically, Scandinavian history. This would not be the first time that Wikipedia editors struggle to find a source that defines a term that is widely used (e.g. Age of Sail). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thought, just want to stress that the term "empire" is not up for discussion here. It's the full term "Swedish Empire" as a proper noun that we're trying to figure out. You are trying to analyze the term based on your own views on the topic and that really just amounts to a kind of original research.

I've also started to look at more recent English-language sources about early modern Sweden, and like Andejons, I noted that "Swedish Empire" was completely absent from The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. When I search collections available through the Wikipedia Library for "Swedish Empire", I get some hits, but none that actually define the term. Judging by the context of when the term is used, the meaning varies and a lot of the uses are actually "Swedish empire" (not capitalized) in the general sense of a conglomerate of holdings across the Baltic or even its American and Caribbean colonies. There's the occasional reference to the term being equivalent to stormaktstiden, but nothing really consistent.

From what I can tell, "Swedish Empire" is just one of several terms used to describe Sweden during the height of its military power during the 17th century. This article been equated with stormaktstiden here on English Wikipedia since at least 2006[10], but it's unclear if this has been based on actual historical sources merely because individual editors thought it made the most sense. What I am strongly suspecting, though, is that Wikipedia has helped push the term "Swedish Empire" to a much larger prominence than it deserves. Not the same as Wikipedia inventing the term, but we've been promoting pretty much only one term for over 20 years. It would explain why the most prominent hits on Google Books are for low-quality sources like The Swedish Empire A History from Beginning to End while academic sources don't use it.

In my view, the only relevant scope for an article like would be the time period. Unlike the Dutch Republic or Second French Empire, there has been no distinct, separate Swedish state entity that can be called "the Swedish Empire". Today's Sweden is very different from the state that elected Gustav I as king in 1523, but there has never been a clean break with the past in the form of a revolution, radically new constitution or new form of government. Peter ^Isotalo 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo, did you spot the two academic articles linked above (with bold text immediately before them, for visibility). There are others, but I linked only the open access articles that I spotted.
Some of the academic articles that I did not link are dated to the 1940s.
The Britannica article also substantially predates Wikipedia.
Strictly speaking WP:OR applies to article content. Some exploring of the subject to determine if possible content makes sense is fine – otherwise what is the point of expecting editors to have a suitable level of background knowledge.
If Wikipedia has two choices for an article name, it can only choose one of them. What are you suggesting – that we routinely rotate between the empire and the era solutions?
I do not get the relevance of Today's Sweden is very different from the state that elected Gustav I as king in 1523, but there has never been a clean break with the past in the form of a revolution, radically new constitution or new form of government.? If that is meant to signify some sort of definition of an empire, it can be argued against with great ease – at its most concise, Sweden's empire ended on the battlefield. Any more than that and we will be back on the OR merry-go-round. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is another academic reference[11] that uses the word "empire" with reference to Sweden. Interestingly I found this when searching for stormaktstiden in papers written in English. (This one was a hit because the word appeared in the title of some references, which themselves were written in Swedish.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

For completeness, I searched for – "Era of Great Power" Sweden – and got only one relevant hit. The rest were to do with NATO or the cold war. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course OR applies to the definition of entire articles. Claiming it's "only about content" is pure ruleslawyering. We're not discussing the word "empire" either.

The point here is that there is no distinct, clearly delineated state entity called "the Swedish Empire" that is separate from Sweden. But there is a historical period that is well-established in Swedish historiography that is (mostly) recognized as the topic of this article. It's the one preceding the Age of Liberty. It's usually considered to come after the early Vasa Period.

So what we really should be looking for are English-language sources that describe the standard periodization of the history of Sweden. In other words, what English terms are used for the period of about 1611-1721? Peter ^Isotalo 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo, you are narrowing the question asked in the heading of the section. This started as a request for sources that support the title of the article. I see that User:296cherry has given us such a source in the post made below. This is Roberts, Michael. The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560–1718 (The Wiles Lectures). The word "empire" is used liberally throughout this work, but here is one extract (page 27) "Thus the Swedish Empire was, after all, an empire of exploitation and enterprise, though not of private enterprise." (It is in a comparison with other contemporary empires, a prominent theme in the book.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking quickly at another of the sources already recommended, a more recent work is Lockhart, Paul. Sweden in the Seventeenth Century (European History in Perspective). Though the term "Swedish empire" is used frequently (even as a chapter heading), there are some instances when this author uses the term "stormaktstid". (e.g. pg 1-2: "During its brief career as a European state of the first rank – a period that Swedish historians have labeled the stormaktstid, or ‘great power era’ – Sweden would never achieve the heights of literary, artistic, scholarly, or commercial sophistication of states like England, France, Spain, or the Netherlands." He goes on to talk about Sweden's ability to wage war with minimal resources.) There might be some nuances in this book that suggest that "Swedish empire" and "stormaktstid" are not exactly the same thing – this may require a bit more study. Incidentally, this book commends the work of Michael Roberts, the author of the source discussed above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning me! I agree that it definitely is not "clear" that the term "Swedish Empire" only refers to a time period. In fact, it seems most common (at least, among the English scholarly sources I've read) to treat the Swedish Empire as a state entity. The possibility of "stormakstid" being a separate term is interesting, I'll need to look into that. 296cherry (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This source seems like it could be particularly useful in our search, but I can't get full access. Might need to get it from my local library. 296cherry (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - it looks like it's more about Swedish and Finnish historiography than English.

In any case, I agree with Peter that "Swedish empire" should not be presented as formally different from "Kingdom of Sweden", as some parts of this article currently does. This is not a matter of Swedish or English sources: Sweden did of course undergo dramatic changes in the 16th and 17th century, but nothing so fundamental as for instance the Commonwealth of England (which I note is presented as a "political structure").

Sweden was of course also never an Empire in the most technical sense of having an emperor, so the word "Empire" is at best a matter of stipulative definition. One such definition is cited in Pihlajamäki, linked above: "large political units, expansionist or with a memory of power extended over space, polities that maintain distinction and hierarchy as they incorporate new people". The former half of the definition is of course opinion-based and not very useful for our discussion, but "distinction and hierarchy" is very easy to apply to the dominions of Sweden.

The way I see it, we need an article that is about the "History of Sweden 1648-1721" (there is already History of Sweden (1611-1648); a merge can of course be discussed), and we should probably have at least one that is about the attainment, ruling of and loss of the new areas. The current article has been about the intersection of these topics, but that means that important aspects are missed: the history of Sweden in the 17th century is about much more than rulers and wars and conquered territory, while the first part of the empire that was gained was Estonia in 1561, and the last part that was lost was Pomerania in 1815.

Andejons (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Swedish Empire wasn't a formal, distinct state. Instead, I'm thinking of it more as a historiographical term (for example, the Burgundian State: it wasn't an official state and wasn't known as such at the time of its existence, but historians still regard it as an existing entity).

It doesn't really matter what we believe the definitions of the word "empire" are, it matters what reliable sources regard it to be. If a plurality of scholars consistently refer to the Swedish state during this time as the Swedish Empire, then Wikipedia must do likewise. 296cherry (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The tricky word is "consistently" - many sources use the phrase, but they also use simply "Sweden". The EB, for instance, use the phrase "Swedish Empire" once, but otherwise use simply "Sweden". It also once uses "Swedish Baltic empire", and titles the segment on the period 1611-1718 "The Age of Greatness" [12]. Is that consistent use?

I don't mind the phrase per se, but it needs to be defined in some way. Either through the phrase itself, or the individual words. And if the phrase's meaning doesn't match that of the individual words, that is likely something that should be discussed in some manner (compare Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire).

Andejons (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I checked all the sources brought up in this thread and they make no claims about any separate state entity so it's good that we rule that option out. Half the sources don't use any combo of "Swedish" or "empire" (capitalized or not). Those that use "the Swedish empire" seem to refer to it mostly as "Sweden with conquered holdings", but aren't consistent in which time period they mean. Snickare (2022),[13] for example, actually refers to Sweden's colonial holdings. The only sources that specifically defines "Swedish Empire" is Norrhem (2019)[14] who simply equates it with the period stormaktstiden. Roberts (1979) compares Sweden with the empires of colonial France, Portugal, Spain, etc. but doesn't outright define the term. In the actual text, Robert uses the capitalized "Swedish Empire" exactly once (p. 27). All other uses are "the Swedish empire", even in map captions and judging by context, he means Sweden and its holdings as a great power, or during its path to becoming a great power.

Different sources on the history of nations are bound to use different terms. If we started look at sources on Swedish history in general, we'd most likely find a lot of different names depending on context and focus of the individual work. That Roberts uses "empire" in his 1979 work is because he explicitly describes what he calls "the imperial experience". The focus of his work is very much on the political and military expansionism. A work that is focused more on social, economic, cultural, etc. history might not consider the "empire" term relevant at all.

Regarding the 1648-1718 suggestion, I don't think we should try to make our own periodizations. The established periodization for Swedish history has a lot of flaws, but at least it's widely recognized. This article is already de facto about stormaktstiden and has been that way for years. I believe we should merge the 1611-48 content with this article or we'll have a cut-off point at 1648 that doesn't really correspond to any widely used period, at least none I've ever heard of. Peter ^Isotalo 08:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Which "option" do you mean that we can rule out? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That there was a separate state entity distinct and clearly delineated from Sweden. In other words, that Erik XIV, Christina and Carl XVI are all monarchs of the same state, but at different points in its history. Peter ^Isotalo 17:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has claimed that there was. The era is called Stormaktstiden in Swedish, but practically always the Swedish Empire in English. Why I do not know, but one single user's personal opionions cannot change the fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. Your "practically always" claim isn't supported by sources.

Currently, you are yourself pushing "one single user's personal opinion". Start paying attention. Peter ^Isotalo 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wording of article text

Aside from some capital E's (which should go) what should be done about this arbitrary and undiscussed reversal? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article should revert back to the "empire" utilising version, as that gives a sense supported by the sources that I have consulted. (To be clear, these are not sources currently cited in the article, but potentially could be used as such.) Without that reversion, the article reads rather strangely. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired, the wording has been reverted by a third user. I don't agree with the change but I'm not interested in discussing this tiny detail. The focus has to be on resolving the verifiability of both scope and title or the article.

We can continue the debate about individual words when we've resolved the larger issue. Peter ^Isotalo 21:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed the header for the monarchs. "Swedish Empire" was never an official thing you could be monarch of. I think some of the other changes Peter introduced also were improvements, but of a lesser degree.

Andejons (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The use of "of" there was perfectly correct English even for the time period (e.g. writers of the 20th century), but the change is OK. The word corresponds in such usage not only with Swedish av but also with från. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the "Swedish Empire"?

Not entirely sure what definition we're operating from. Does "Swedish Empire" refer to:

A) A historical period/era, doesn't refer to state structure.

B) An actual state entity (even if it wasn't called an empire at the time of its existence)

Both definitions seem supported by various sources (although I found a lot more for option B).

References

296cherry (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the topic of discussion above pretty much. Feel free to join the main thread. Peter ^Isotalo 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallery of monarchs

I cannot see how it could be an improvement to remove a gallery which is warranted in this case for concise comprehensive info to the reader about who the monarchs were during this period. It takes some work to put a gallery together (with images other than those in the text). Easy-peasy to waltz in and trash it. Reverted removal. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There are already five monarch images in the article and a complete list of monarchs in the infobox. And the article isn't actually about monarchs but a period of Swedish history.

Pretty sure that a monarch gallery on top of that is what WP:IG is referring to as "shoehorning" images. If it was a straight up list with dates and links, it would make sense, but this just looks purely decorative. Peter ^Isotalo 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted removal again. No consensus to remove gallery. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You've reverted edits by two separate users and have not attempted to actually discuss it. You're thrashing about with personal attacks and complaints about how unfairly you are being treated that borders on the immature. In the thread below, you're accusing others of "arbitrary, unsourced" claims while not providing a single source for anything. Peter ^Isotalo 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We are all supposed try to follow guidelines such as "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating" and avoid personal attacks like "thrashing about with personal attacks and complaints about how unfairly you are being treated that borders on the immature". At times, we all need to try harder.

As to the matter at hand: the personal opinions of one single user is not enough to remove info valuable to a reader from any article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Cut it out, Serge. Your concern about civility is disingenuous. You've been doing nothing but rag on my motivations over perceived slights. You're simply being a dick and crying about having it pointed out. Peter ^Isotalo 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

More personal attacks per definition. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallery heading

This unneccessary reversal leads to the assumption that the use of the word "of" is not fully understood by some editors from Sweden, where the Swedish word av can be distracting when writing in Engish. In both examples "Authors of the United States" or "Authors of the Elizabethan era" the English word "of" is used quite correctly. The heading, as currently worded after this reversal, now makes the gallery look irrelevant. I will reverse this unless someone can give us a good reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing, these are just personal musings about that virtually all native Swedish-speakers are less competent in English than you. How about you join the discussion above and present or comment on sources like everyone else? Peter ^Isotalo 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Please comment on the issues, the article, without attacking any particuar user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please comment on the article, not on any other user. When it comnes to language, try to be knowledgeable as to who's who and who knows what. One good idea is to find out who has what language as a first language, if that's relevant to article content. Whatever is not relevant to article content, if it concerns another user's behavior, belongs on that user's talk page or in a report about the user's behavior for administrative attention, not on an article talk page. Article talk pages are not for irrelevant animosity and bickering among users about their behavior. We all need to try to remember that and act accordingly. It's not always easy, but at least we should try --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You've been firing off snippy personal comments aimed directly at me in most of your comments and edit summaries for the past few weeks. As far as I'm concerned, you're engaging in low-level harassment while contributing absolutely nothing relevant to either the article or this talkpage. If you think I'm being unfair, take me to AN/I. Peter ^Isotalo 19:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I have not. Article talk pages are not for irrelevant animosity and bickering among users about their behavior. We all need to try to remember that and act accordingly. It's not always easy, but at least we should try. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Charles IX of Sweden

I oppose the arbitrary, unsourced inclusion of King Charles IX as a monarch of the Swedish Empire. He was not that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Country infobox for a historical period is actively misleading

I removed the infobox. This article is not about a former country but a historical period. There's an ongoing dispute about the scope of the article and there are exactly zero sources to support the idea of a separate state entity called the "Swedish Empire". The infobox is attracting all kinds of facts of dubious relevance, especially the idea that a 17th century state of any kind had "official" flags, languages, currency, etc. Claims like this are assuming that official standards existed at all hundreds of years ago.

On top of this, the presence of the infobox is skewing the article towards the unsupported claim of a separate, distinct state entity that supposedly popped into being at one point and then disappeared.

I don't believe the article can be described as neutral as long as it includes a former country infobox. Peter ^Isotalo 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We definitely need to hold some kind of RFC as the previous discussions over this topic don't seem to be going anywhere. I think the main problem with these discussions is the absolute lack of sources on this topic as a whole. It's a shame we have to rely on sources published over a century ago or sources written in Swedish language only. 296cherry (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to an RfC as such, but what are we supposed to ask about? The only scope that fits this article is the time period called *stormaktstiden*. That's what the lead has stated for quite a while and there's no other sourced topic that actually fits the content.

To provide a hypothetical as illustration: if someone started filling "Great Power Period" or simply stormaktstiden with content, wouldn't we just consider it an unnecessary content fork? Peter ^Isotalo 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What we do have is definite frequency where the period in English is called the Swedish Empire by a majority of academic sources. The rest is, and is likely to remain, unclear. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Provide a summary sources to back up your claims, please. That's what the rest of us have been trying to do in the above discussions. Peter ^Isotalo 15:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Why repeat what others already have done, upon which I think we can rely? Isn't this discussion loing enough already? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User:TwinBoo: please explain how the useage of infoboxes in other articles justifies the one here. The infobox you introduced contains erroneous statements about how Sweden was governed, an "official language" 300 years before one was adopted, a very anachronistic ISO code, as well as details that were only true for parts of this period. There is template:Infobox historical era that seems much better suited here that does not have this king of superflous and misleading details, apart from the navigation box.

Andejons (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you insist that a country infobox isn’t suitable for any historical entity and that it shouldn’t be used on any pages, despite the fact that such is used for pretty much any historical country page, such as:

• First French Empire, even though it theoretically wasn’t much different from the ever-changing first republic.
• Furthermore, the Bourbon Restoration in France is just a period of time in the Kingdom of France and has its own infobox.
• The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has its own page and infobox despite the fact the modern United Kingdom is a rump state with no large difference.
• Pretty much every dynasty of the Byzantine Empire has their own pages, with, you guessed it, infoboxes, eg. Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty, Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty or Byzantine Empire under the Isaurian dynasty.
• There is also what I’ve previously mentioned, like the Kingdom of Hungary pages, most of which are really the same country, but each have their own infobox.
• I could go on and on, but you get the point.

I realise now that some of the details in the infobox I created had inaccuracies, but Wikipedia isn’t about reverting anything that you don’t agree with, but trying to help each other. I will fix those that you have mentioned if they haven’t been already; also, next time you’re correcting someone, try to be a little less condescending. I’m not sure if it was intentional but a few of your comments were quite aggressive. —TwinBoo (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)