Talk:Monarchy of Sweden - Knowledge (XXG)

3275:, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px ") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited 12:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Mark up your edits as shown above. Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change. ... Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment." -- 1773:. Because for all the pride and posturing there is a conspicuous lack of concision, despite the occasional verbose blast. It is surprising, perhaps paradoxical, that one who poses as an infallible paragon of virtue in mastering the English language stands on such thin ground. As to why, I will not further speculate. Even though I have many times encountered similar situations on enwp, since I began in 2005, whenever editing articles where the reasonable presumption is that native speakers of either; French, German or Swedish; have primarily edited those articles, I would never imagine berating and belittling other users however “truthful” it may be. It is simply not done. The perennial complaints of 2521:(the 1973 government bill of the current Instrument of Government), which states that there should be no daylight between the monarch and the ministry in matters of policy. However, no formal sanctions can be imposed on the monarch, short of constitutional changes, the Riksdag declaring the monarch to have been derelict in his/her duties for the latest six month and thus having effectively abdicated the throne, or a Riksdag majority slashing the annual State contribution to the royal finances. What I have posted above is not my own original research, but has been written by Swedish jurists such as Fredrik Sterzel and the late Gustaf Petrén. 2476:(i.e. the main Swedish constitutional document for purposes of this discussion) where the delineation is quite clear. This is overall consistent with how the term State is used in official documents and in academic sources from outside of Sweden. While I recognize that there are differences and some inconsistency as to how the two terms are used in the common tongue within certain polities, such as within the United States of America, the international use in the general sense is not unclear at all. The interrelationship between the terms state and government in the general international sense is found in Article 1 of the 2173:, so the request for assistance appears to have been focused on an attempt to resolve the disagreement about the usage of state vs government, and Kungl. vs Kungliga. So I would like to keep the initial discussion focused on the disagreement(s) in that section, now that we are all on the same page. Given that, would you mind refocusing your answer on those two points? It may help to separate them into two items, since my personal knowledge of this subject is limited. That's not to say I can't help with other disputed items, but let's start here for now. 3051:), is what is appropriate here. To my knowledge, having studied the English and Swedish sides of such things for over 50 years, when Swedes say "staten äger det" they mean exactly and unmistakably the same thing as Brits, Americans/Canadians, Australians, Nigerians and 100s of millions of others mean when they say "the government owns that", whereas an albeit correct literal tranlation like "the State owns that" is not likely to be perceived by most readers of English as exactly and unmistakably what was meant. 2465:) terms such as "Kungliga Huset", "Kungl. Huset", "Konungahuset" and "Kungahuset" are apparently used interchangeably in laws and ordinances without any degree of precision. Even before the constitutional reform of the 1970’s, which removed the monarch as the nominal head of the executive, there was no consistent usage even before then, and there needs to be none at all, given that linguistically there is no substantive difference between them at all. In short, this is a matter of style rather than substance. 643:, when he has little knowledge about English capitalizations rules more than his gut feeling. The Use of Caps for State and Government when referring to official institutions or organs is consistent with the usage of those terms in the English translation of the Instrument of Government published by the Riksdag, which is a reference on the article page. Again Woodzing should pay attention to the official translations of official Swedish terminology by consulting "Utrikes namnbok", published by the 74: 53: 1599:. The history sections of the latter articles cannot of course be used as a fair comparison when writing a history section for this article, naturally given that their temporal scope is much shorter. One possible method of benchmarking other “Monarchy of N.N.” articles (and other monarchical heads of state articles) is by measuring the article sizes. This is a list of the approximate sizes from last week (assuming they have not changed too much): 4175: 4139: 4066: 4024: 3935: 3871: 3836: 3757: 3697: 3667: 84: 22: 2652:

win out. However, I would offer as another option for discussion that if which arm of the government actually has ownership can be identified precisely (and based on RicJac's comments, it appears this is possible), then I would submit that might be a more preferable alternative. And, there is precedent for that result as well (see the treatment of ownership in

3259:

should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead. ... Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example: Mark deleted text with

182: 158: 1350:. To write an historical overview from the institutional perspective of the Crown does not lessen the individual articles on the various monarchs, on the contrary, it adds something that wasn’t there before. As to the other ancillary and miscellaneous symbols that relate to the monarchy, my source of inspiration at Knowledge (XXG) is several of the 1769:

engage in these largely pointless meta-debates, and it is telling that my opponent has contributed very little himself to this article. And yet he seems to care a great deal about it. I highly suspect that the real intent of this new third opinion is spitefulness and vindictiveness at its heart, in light of the last third opinion

727:

or simply did not care responding to my constructive criticism above, I will have no choice but reverting your factually incorrect edits. It doesn’t matter whether English is the first or thirteenth language or of any editor, or where one went to school, or which academic credentials on has: what truly matters on EnWiki is

1507:

but belongs in the articles about those monarchs (where most or all of it is already covered). It is hard for me to understand how anyone could read this article and find that all that biographic material about monarchs, which does not touch in any way upon the monarchy itself, and has nothing to do with the subject

2449:. However, there is no public document with an authoritative definition of what the name of the royal house is. The closest correspondent to a public document would be the usage found in the royal family section within Sveriges Statskalender (English "Swedish State Yearbook", with about the same scope as the 2686:

with either being used. But since you two have reached an impasse about it, and I was asked to choose between the two, that was what I did. I also, you might note, offered an alternative suggestion which I'd encourage you to consider. I did look at your dictionary links, but I was fairly clear that I

1768:

The scope of these articles varies considerably and it is quite difficult to adjudicate on the spot what is the proper content in such articles and what is not. The size of this article in question cannot be characterized as excessive by any standard. I would rather contribute to the articles than to

812:

What is unwarranted is your sense of entitlement and superiority. You are the one who, while claiming to possess expert knowledge above reproach, never provides any verifiable sources for your edits, other than what fits your own personal preferences. And when the going gets tough you start attacking

3226:, but in all these years I've never seen any editor so blatantly profess a POV that flies directly in the face of an explicit and indubitable WP guideline (as linked to twice and still completely ignored by you). It certainly isn't what one would expect from a 3O editor. I'm flabbergasted by that. -- 3149:

I have now read my entries very carefully 5-6 times and find nothing whatsoever to warrant your remark to me about "contributors' motives or understanding" - ??? I'm so confused now that none of this makes sense to me anymore, with new entries added above comments already made, no continuity and the

2969:

Technically the State is a single legal and fiscal entity, the Government and subordinate authorities/agencies does not "own" anything themselves but merely holds it in trust on behalf of the State. Ultimately, the Riksdag (the national legislature) determines how State property is handled/disposed.

2651:

Given that the two words' meaning in English is interchangeable, the history of the article has the use of "state" occurring first, and there is precedent for using "state" in at least one other similar article, my initial opinion is that if it's necessary to pick one or the other word, state should

2540:

have become the operative catchall criticism and vehicle of harassment of other users within his limited areas of interest (mainly articles relating to Swedish royals) whenever and wherever he runs out of arguments otherwise. I consider this to be mean-spirited, uncollaborative and a primary example

2035:

do not see problems. If you have not read the article, the same uselessness in going on with this would apply. Eventually, I may just go in and remove things that I think are obviously off topic, and then we can discuss them. For now, I'm really sick of this whole thing, mainly because of the dogged

1913:

The article now contains a fairly extensive amount of material about certain selected monarchs and their reigns. Other monarchs have been ignored. Of that fairly extensive material, substantial portions about accomplishments of those selected monarchs relate facts which are not about the monarchy of

1824:

I've gone through both the above sections and honestly, it's really hard for me to provide a single 3O post to answer this like how I usually do. I do get that this dispute about content but everything is still all very vague to me, being a uninvolved editor who is also not familiar to this subject.

1578:

I see very little merit to this second round of a third opinion, but here we go again… It is difficult to argue with an opponent who deals with sweeping general notions and never in specifics. It would be prudent for an opponent to make his share of due diligence before levying broad criticism. As I

1415:

What makes dealing with h so trying is the fact that h/s is not able to refrain from doing that, and to a such an almost overwhelming extent. Totally trashing h opponent, without any substantiation of the multitude of personal jibes and jabs, seems to be the main thing, and I am sincerely sorry that

1208:

I missed the Republican Association. Both are inappropriate since nothing in this article is about the pros and cons or about supporters or opponents of the monarchy. I am thus for removing both. If you or anyone else would like to add such aspects, well sourced, to the article's text, I'm sure that

726:

of this or any other articles concerning Swedish royals on EnWiki. None of the so-called ’’sources’’; an unsourced Knowledge (XXG) page linked in the ’’page history’’, and an inconclusive Swedish language page from the Royal Court; proves me wrong. Since you either so miserably failed to understand,

567:

where the authors quite egregiously strive to make a hen out of a feather (not to mention the blatant monarchist-POV). I suppose that best road forward-looking course of action is to translate and incorporate elements from the Swedish WP article, which I think is fairly balanced in the sense that it

4226:

The article on the Monarchy of Sweden has several issues with neutrality. In particular, the section on cultural importance and general popularity among the Swedish populace is generally worded rather strongly against the general institution (note this is specifically the wording, not primarily the

2597:

7 Addition: I am not trying to impose any technical language to this article. I merely strive to clarify where clarification needs to be made. Knowledge (XXG) should use clear language and not use befuddled or otherwise unclear definitions where such are redundant. Ignorance is no excuse for facts.

2516:

and Government. Conversely, the separation of the Swedish monarch from the responsibilities of state has meant that the monarch has a much freer role and cannot simply be censured and silenced by the Government of the day; unlike in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the UK, where

2176:

Regarding concerns about tone of communications or personal attacks, without passing individual judgment, there does appear to have been some heated and frustrated communication which I hope can be set aside. However, I think I probably can be most helpful here with disputes over the content of the

1843:

the reasoning why. Please keep it as short as possible. Then the other can discuss their reasoning for inclusion. If possible, a compromise can be reached and if it gets stuck, I may have to provide a 3O for it. Then we can move on the next object of discussion. If we all keep good faith, keep away

1522:

in this article, which one often needs to know Swedish to be able to fully understand and correct well, my attitude toward that is that I always will be glad to help out when relevant info is added to any article, but it feels very tedious to be burdened with making extensive corrections when added

3415:

The footnotes do not support the content they are being used to reference. For instance the Knowledge (XXG) article states that the King holds honorary ranks in the armed forces. Yet this is not what the link says. It says "He is the foremost representative of the Swedish defence establishment and

3138:

OK thank you both, this is helpful. I'm going away for the weekend beginning in about an hour, so I probably won't be back in a position to contribute again until Sunday evening, but am hoping to have my thoughts sorted out by then. (In terms of my use of "sovereign nation," I was just striving to

2958:

What I'm getting at is - does a certain part of the government own these things? The Cabinet? The royal house? Or is it simply owned by the sovereign nation of Sweden? I am trying to figure out whether its ownership is such that it deserves any kind of distinction in how it's referenced. I suspect

2929:

Originally the text was "The Regalia is State property" and "The Royal Palaces are the property of the Swedish State" before Woodzing unilaterally changed it. The State is the legal and fiscal entity of the body politic, except for the local authorities (municipalities) and county councils, all of

2009:

I think RicJac has it right here. I have known that you had a problem with content expansion in certain areas since your post at 3O. But what I had asked of you is to simply state examples (correct me if I'm wrong, the History section right?) where you think are areas of concern. Yes, the topic at

1506:

but detailed information about the reign accomplishments of certain monarchs, but not of those of many others. My opponent clearly disagrees, alleging that all the info h/s has added is relevant, and intends to keep adding more such (what I consider) irrelevant material which does not belong here,

3211:

It is, in fact. It's preferable to use strikethrough instead of simply removing comments, but you're not going to find much support for an interpretation that removing something that was considered a personal attack by the person it was directed to is improper. In fact, removing comments that are

1859:

I’m willing go ahead with this method under the conditions you may impose. But SergeWoodzing would have to take the first step as it is he who made the objection in the first place. And perhaps a new section should be moved to the end of the talk page as the current order is inherently confusing.

2627:

I think there's been too much attention devoted to the Swedish meaning of these words, when what matters at the English Knowledge (XXG) is the English meaning of these words. It appears accepted that the country of Sweden, writ large, owns these items, and in English, the definition of state and

2544:

b) Knowledge (XXG) is about verified facts, not homemade definitions or personal preferences. I am always willing to discuss my edits and equally willing to disclose my sources. I will never accept the edits of any other user who refuses to do the same, unless there is a clear consensus from the

2187:

OK. I've chosen not to read through all this again and live again through some very exasperating moments. That said, I may have missed things and/or may have included a few things that you do not see or do not wish to help with. Sorry, if so. Help with whatever you please as numbered! I won't be

1319:

The "work in progress" in this case is adding too much material which is not really relevant to the article, material which belongs in the articles about those kings, where I believe we already have most or all of it. It's as if I picked out a few favorite presidents and added material at length

3258:

ignored: "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording

2511:

means simply the cabinet and nothing more. The reason why I insist on this separation of State and Government is because of the Swedish constitutional reforms in the 1970’s which removed the monarch from the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the State while remaining the symbolic

1170:

I'm questioning the fact that "Rojalistiska föreningen (Swedish) - Swedish royalist association" is an external link under this article. As far as I know, there is nothing official about that club, it has no governmental, academic, literary or other legitimacy and would tend to get an undue

1548:

I don't know enough about Sweden's monarchy to say anything about the history section here. I'd say, though, the history should confine itself to moments of importance in the institution's past/development, rather than including more tangentially related histories of individual monarchs.

2827:

I admit this is not a wholly satisfying standard to base a decision on in this instance, because the dispute is over how to reference a singular institution. However, it may be a useful yardstick. So I suppose, under duress, I would support the use of "Kunglinga Huset (Kung. Huset)."

1223:

While it is true that the issue in not yet raised in the article, but before it eventually gets included, at some point, I happen to think that is quite appropriate to add such links. I think you are clearly the wrong person to take issue about “amateurs” riding on the coattails of

3097:

In general use, "staten" in Swedish represents exactly the same simple and vague concept as "the government" does in English speaking countries. The same cannot be said of the general perception of a more formal, yet less distinctive/designative, term like "the State" in English.

1127:

a. The body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government. Hence: the supreme civil power or government of a country or nation; the group of people collectively engaged in exercising or administering

630:

First, state and government are not interchangeable terms as the ignorant Woodzing apparently believes. The English language divide makes this issue particularly tricky in this case as ”government” in US English refers to what in Britain and Europe is known as the state

3521: 1936:

redundant, since it's already covered in the biographies of those monarchs and in other articles which are not about the monarchy of Sweden. I do not know how to explain the problem any more briefly or clearer than that. The problem concerns important matters such as

2687:

thought you both have focused too much on Swedish meanings, when they are irrelevant -- what matters is the English meaning. I was fairly straightforward in my opinions and explained my reasoning thoroughly, and have now said what I plan to say about the matter. —

2959:

that it does not, and that there's no reason to think it's owned by anything but the nation/government in general terms, but ask for the sake of due diligence since there is some discussion about just what certain terminology refers to in the Swedish context. —

2536:: I have no objections whatsoever to corrections of grammar, syntax, misspellings and the like. If I would not accept corrections along these lines, Knowledge (XXG) would simply not be the appropriate venue. However, for SergeWoodzing persistent accusations of 1272:

Recent expansions have added a lot of info which, albeit valuable and factually accurate, seems to branch off into subjects irrelevant to the topic of this article, such as too much detail on reign accomplishments of certain kings, particularly

4247:

I stongly disagree. The Swedish monarchy has never been criticised as severely as it has duing the last few years. Like it or not. Opinionated words like "crucial" in suport of the monarchy should not be added unless they are in cited sources.

562:

Thank you! However I do think it is rather sad that the article in question is so short and lacking sources - for it really is topic in which there's clearly a lot to write about - while, for instance, there are corresponding articles such as

678:

Has Woodzing at any time ever contributed to Knowledge (XXG) by adding reliable or verifiable sources to any of his edits? Otherwise I suspect that he arbitrarily makes his edits simply based on personal preferences and substance be damned.

2870:

The dispute over Kunglinga Huset vs. Kung. Huset, would probably benefit from some opinions by editors who are familiar with or at least interested in Sweden. I would suggest that this particular dispute be put to people participating at

2759:

I thank you for the time you have taken in bringing about a fair third opinion. Unfortunately, and despite your valiant efforts, I do not think SergeWoodzing (given his reactions so far) will yield until a certain place will freeze over…

1797:: often a self-fulfilling prophecy, indeed. I shall not induce myself to his lowbrow manners and uncivil behavior, however tempting it may be. Nevertheless, I would like to finish my remarks by mentioning a trope from my laughing place, 2825:"when an abbreviation is to be used in an article, give the expression in full at first, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). In the rest of the article the abbreviation can then be used by itself." 3522:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120219105931/http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1973%3A702%24

2889:

I have already made a post over there. Thank you for the time you've taken with this rather overdone debate on such (relatively speaking) simple matters. I for one would rather spend my time on the Wiki contributing to the articles…

1552:

Other than that, I don't see much here that could be considered excess. Maybe only the section on royal residences goes into too much detail about the residences, detail that's (presumably) covered at the articles on those palaces.

2643:

uses the phrase "the British state" to describe ownership. It also appears that the earliest version of this article that referenced ownership used state. (However, I would oppose capitalizing "state" here. It doesn't comport with

1434:

What truly is difficult when dealing with Woodzing is the double standard: he is incapable of doing anything wrong; it is always someone else’s fault. Some humility and a degree of introspection are qualities that would serve him

739:

Issuing empty threats on a talk page says a lot about your lack of character, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s on SvWiki or EnWiki. My criticism stands firm: you rarely provide sources, and the few times you do it’s invariably

4231:

of the monarchy, it is best to remain describing that institution, rather than the figurehead (the king). Criticisms against the king personally belong in the article describing him, rather than the article describing his role.

3515: 3525: 2517:

requirement of ministerial countersignatures exist, offering binding constitutional advice etc., and other neat devices exist for curtailing monarchical freedom of action. None of this exists in Sweden, apart from a clause in

3022:

Another term, which also appears in the Instrument of Government, is "the Realm" (Swedish: riket). It is much looser than "the State" and generally means "the country" or "the State and the other parts of the public sector".

893:. While there are broad general meanings in the English language for words like state and government: there are unique definitions of those words in certain given contexts, in this particular case Swedish constitutional law ( 3430:

The wikipedia article states that the king is immune from criminal prosecution but not civil liability, yet the website of the Swedish Monarchy states that "The Head of State cannot be proceeded against in civil causes."

1245:

If you want to continue to try to discuss/attack/out/insult me personally, please do so on my talk page and be clear, not insinuative, and be civil. I have no idea what you mean by including that link to that book here.

1171:

distinction by it's inclusion here on the coattails of this WP article. It's sort of like a fan club of amateurs and I've never seen it taken seriously in all my years of dealing with matters royal in Sweden. --

1587:. As to the other aspects of symbols, residences etc., my main source of inspiration in the possible scope of expanding the all too brief “Monarchy of Sweden” has been the articles written about the various 1304:

It’s is a work in progress as Knowledge (XXG) is at large. Mr. Woodzing, could you at least once add some original material of your own to this article, rather than acting as the self-appointed magistrate.

1991:. I propose that the history section should be addressed separately from the other sections of the article, which I assume he also objects to, based on the vague objections that unfortunately do lack a 2484:

and is the key definition that is used when dealing with the recognition of an entity as a sovereign state by another sovereign state. The traditional key metaphor between the terms is the description

1384:

discussion between both sides and the above discussion isn't adequate for me to understand the dispute clearly. Could both of you please continue your discussion so that I can provide a 3O? Sincerely,

3180:

That comment was directed to RicJac, but I guess he deleted his original comment (which is fine especially since it was potentially inflammatory) - so mine now hanging out there makes little sense. —

4314: 2413:

6. Irrelevant expansion: too much detail has now been added to this article about the reign accomplishments of certain kings without those details actually being relevant to the article's subject. --

827:

The Swedish Royal Court's official website is a source often used under WP articles. It clearly gives the Swedish term for the Royal House as "Kungl. Huset", and in doing so intentionally uses the

1828:

Before we start, I'm going to assume what was discussed below with e ripley is over because if that user cannot help you on it, I doubt I will. I recommend higher forms of dispute resolution like

2404:: Users whose English is noticeably effected by their own first languages (not English) should appreciate help and constructive, friendly advice from users with English as their first language. 4324: 4274: 3516:

http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1982%3A270%24x

258: 3526:

http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1973%3A702%24

3197:

according to WP guideline, and the more inflammatory the comment the less appropriate it is to just remove it. Don't you even look at links we provide? What's the use of providing them? --

2115:. Is assistance no longer needed? I have read through the talk page, but find that a separate section, with a request for opposing positions in brief, is helpful for me in this process. — 3240:

And I have never encountered a user who makes such strange interpretations of wikiguidelines as SergeWoodzing! Don’t take everything as a personal affront: be collaborative and cool down!

2918:. Are these two sets of items owned by any certain part of the government that would make it worthy of a description that makes a distinction between a portion of the sovereign nation? — 2526:

2. Pro- and anti-monarchy clubs: At present there is no section concerning this in the article. It is likely that some additions will be made in this respect at some point in the future.

1825:

However, I can try to make you both move forward in improving this article. For that we need to go back to the drawing board and discuss each specific change here in an orderly manner.

479:

When Crown Princess Victoria has children, will they be of the "House of Westling" so named after her husband, or will they adopt the surname of her maternal father and be of the Royal

923:

Re: WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources" does not apply in this case. Nothing has been combined. An often used source has been used again, this time to verify

4319: 3392:, where the crux of his conclusion is that it is quite unsatisfactory to equate the term State with Government (for partially the same reasons I have outlined above). There is also a 244: 3363:

Bab.la is a highly respected and widely trusted consensus project with content principles similar to those of Knowledge (XXG). The many examples given there cannot be disregarded. --

220: 2930:

whom while part of the public sector are legal and fiscal entities in their own right. The Government is merely the top executive authority of the State, i.e. the collegial cabinet.

2563:

4. Personal attacks: Users should acquaint themselves with the meaning of "personal attack" on Knowledge (XXG) and avoid writing things that could reasonably be interpreted as such.

2407:

4. Personal attacks: Users should acquaint themselves with the meaning of "personal attack" on English Knowledge (XXG) and avoid writing things that reasonably can be taken as such.

2441:

a) The official Swedish name of the Royal House, is "Kungliga Huset" with the written stylistic short-form "Kungl. Huset". This can be confirmed by the authoritative source on the

2468:

b) The State (staten) is always used in official translations by accredited translators simply because it is the only term which is an accurate description of what it is, i.e. a

735:. You may laugh in solitude at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I very much doubt that you’re an ”auktoriserad translator” under the supervision of Kammarkollegiet. 957:

Other than thanking you for your concern, I won't comment on "hard feelings" yet. You've been pretty hard on me, on the personal level, and I'm still trying to get over it. --

3885: 3084:, it's just owned by the government there. Wouldn't additional and perhaps extensive research to get more details on that be a bit overzealous of us, perhaps even unsoluble? 2031:, I feel there is not much I can add. Because of the relentless personal slurs in this discussion, I do not intend to engage in further debate where you and other helpers 268: 216: 190: 163: 3124:

I am just very frustrated by the implied belittling of my efforts made by the other contributor, as if I was making all this up or making literal translations of my own.

1545:

I was asked to give an opinion here about the expanded content. I'm not sure if I'm too late to be of any use (assuming, that is, my comments would be useful, anyway!).

3573: 3569: 3555: 2374:

in English usage the king of Sweden, as Head of State, as well as Parliament, the Supreme Court and other institutions must be considered part of the Swedish government

694:

You have succeeded in making insulting slurs and a grand personal attack against me here. I might want to take action on that if you keep it up. Note: this is not svWP.

4204:

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.

1066:. If you cannot engage in a civil debate about the original topic without making counter-accusations and uncivil remarks, then I humbly suggest you stay out of it. 1449:

On the contrary, the truth it that I am well known for admitting my mistakes, appreciating help in correcting them and apologizing if I've ever offended anyone. --

1023:

My arguments are not based on Swedish language sources at all. As soon as you run out of factual arguments you immediately resort to your pet-peeve, whining about

2637:"When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." 2774:

Perhaps not, but with sloppy 3rd opinions like this one and your unrelenting and insulting personal slurs, I might quit WP completely instead. Then you and your

2628:

government at the national level are commonly understood as interchangeable. In that regard, I don't think it matters much whether we use state or government.

2246:

So are you getting desperate enough, now that you have marked your text below in bold? This is by the way considered as rude netiquette. Where are you manners?

954:

or that states of a union, as most readers here know them, are not involved in the Swedish monarchy. Careful translators from Swedish to English do not do this.

1133:

There are in total 34 different meanings of that singe noun, but I am almost certain that you will pompously dismiss it, as their editors are surely prone to "

3635: 2668:? ~ You've completely disregarded what all those dictionaires recommend (3 links above) in example after example after example after example listed there. -- 2229:, please note: I am sticking to my point 5 below and would prefer not to make exceptions by responding to any user who continues to refuse to do the same. -- 4080: 4195: 4159: 4123: 4085: 4050: 4008: 3983: 3954: 3919: 3894: 3855: 3820: 3780: 3741: 3716: 3681: 2819:

Since I haven't seen any sources in English that use either variation, I am somewhat at a loss for how to choose which is more appropriate. Turning to the

639:). Furthermore, the use of Caps in English and Swedish are not symmetric. It is ironic that Woodzing frequently complains about other editors’ poor use of 604: 3676: 3531: 2346:

It seems to me, when a readily available and generally understandable term can be used, it would be inappropriate to use what our Manual of Style calls

1975:

Before I address specific issues, I feel compelled to reiterate my statement from above, namely, that SergeWoodzing need to define specifically what is

798:

Your attitudes toward precise Swedish terminology and toward correct English are unfortunate and your accusations against me cannot be substantiated. --

140: 2631:

Knowledge (XXG) articles can't be sources for themselves, but there are instances in Knowledge (XXG) policy where precedent does matter (for instance,

2496:), where the State is the physical ship, while the Government are the officers commanding the ship. Another example of this is that the members of the 3212:

personal attacks are one of the only times when it's not only acceptable to remove (or strike through) your own comments, but also those of others. —

3497: 1194:

in their board of directors. It is unfortunate though, that they don’t have a short description of their aim and cause in English, as the others do.

4038: 3639: 369: 2133:

I'd be glad to give my viewpoint on "terminology", would not be be glad to give my viewpoint on "various accusations" (surely you're not condoning

1511:, could be relevant, and that more such irrelevant info should be added to make the article swell out even more drastically beyond subject range. 4304: 3771: 1844:

any personal comments and discuss content only this can all go smoothly and quickly--everyone else can follow it more easier. So shall we begin? -

488: 130: 1926:

is much longer than warranted by its subject and will be of even more excessive length if more such subject irrelevant information is added and

1502:

My position is that the article now recently has had rather extensive irrelevant material added to it, which is not about the article's subject

942:

is unneccessarily confusing (compare to states such as Missouri or Schleswig-Holstein) because most readers here do not know about that common

3711: 4309: 3850: 2682:

In fact I believe I mentioned prominently (and repeatedly) that my opinion was that both terms are interchangeable, and that I would be fine

600: 644: 1950: 1413:

Please note the extensive and excessive amount of irrelevant personal criticism and mud-slinging which my opponent constantly hurls at me!

882:, it makes no factual difference, as I explained above. However, if you can show why the short form is more correct, without resorting to 106: 2697:

This is how the one collaborative consensus dictionary I linked to primarily translates Swedish "staten" as relevant to this discussion:

4132: 1782: 3113:

Please - don't comment on contributors' motives or understanding. It's really not helpful. Stick to discussing the content dispute. —

373: 4278: 2733:~ Plus a few more instances wherein the word "state" only appears one time and then in a plural context not relevant to this article. 909:

about the several broad general meanings of this term, which differs in the US from much else of the world. No hard feelings I hope.

4186: 4150: 3949: 3551:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3432: 3417: 301:. Though that is intented to provide a more extensive article on the Swedish monarchy and provide part of the historical structure. 3166:

No need for confusion, friend! I made an inappropriate remark and later apologized by deleting it (you can check the page history).

1946: 1942: 1790: 608: 4299: 2996:

It should be noted that the concept of "the State" in Sweden, the other Nordic countries and in the general European continental

1794: 2083: 2473: 2397:

2. Pro- and anti-monarchy clubs: private clubs of no official standing are inappropriate as external links under this article.

1579:

mentioned in the thread above, my intention has been to write a history section much in the vein of what can be found over at

97: 58: 33: 3660: 1653: 1580: 1343: 1339: 842:

as a source, but it clearly shows anyone, who objectively understands the English in it, that your interpretation of Swedish

2094:

Which dispute are you referring to? Confusing when you didn't add this to a certain section. I've never seen an independent

3541: 1836:. Also, even if any one of you two disagree with my method anytime can consider those dispute resolution methods instead. 1186:

It’s meant to balance the inclusion of the external link to the Republican Association. Much like that other association,

105:-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 2137:?!?!) and would like to know what other issues you'd like my viewpoint on, now that you've read through the talk page. -- 3616: 2944:

Even knowing Swedish, I don't understand what is meant by "a distinction between a portion of the sovereign nation". --

2820: 458: 4168: 2481: 2294:

specialized Swedish consitutional terminology should not be translated literally and imposed on enWP readers at large)

1643: 972: 3532:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140810142752/http://www.sfv.se/Documents/Kulturvarden/2013_03/Svenska_folkets_slott.pdf

2910:

A question on one point. As it regards the usage of state vs. government, the disputed text as far as I can tell is

2792:

Now there’s that pet-peeve of yours once again, brought about when other arguments have been less than successful...

3793: 1225: 3650:

article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

3498:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140225235411/http://www.government.se/sb/d/2853/nocache/true/a/21785/dictionary/true

3349:

The second link is to a privately owned website financed by advertisements. Hardly an authoritative source at all…

2658:"The property is a National Heritage Site owned by the National Park Service and is part of the President's Park." 2264:. A good rule of thumb is to keep your comments focused on article content, not on the contributors themselves. — 1081: 704:

errors (such as referring to me as a plural), here or elsewhere. I learned English at English schools, not from a

4059: 2599: 1757: 1117: 501: 3572:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

697:

The official Swedish name of thre Royal House, according to the Royal Court, is "Kungl. Huset" and nothing else.

3646:'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for 2997: 2454: 1747: 298: 199: 195: 39: 3535: 3150:

whole discussion turned into a big incoherent mess. (Going away for the weekend sounds like a great idea.) --

3039:

We do not know that and I cannot find any reference which would help, which is precisely why the unspecified

2329: 4253: 3607: 3489: 3463: 3389: 3368: 3338: 3280: 3231: 3202: 3155: 3103: 3077: 2949: 2841: 2783: 2746: 2673: 2418: 2384: 2357: 2337: 2234: 2193: 2156: 2142: 2103: 2045: 1958: 1887: 1880:

E Ripley did not address or comment on this issue at all, so it is totally separate from what hes addressed.

1786: 1663: 1596: 1536: 1454: 1425: 1403: 1359: 1329: 1294: 1251: 1214: 1176: 1089: 1046: 1014: 962: 865: 803: 772: 713: 552: 314: 3501: 3485: 2450: 2019: 1849: 1555: 1389: 813:

other editors and claim that, they have harassed you (or something similar to that effect). Shame on you!

323: 2310:

cannot always effectively be translated as "the State" without leading to unnecessary confusion, whereas

883: 741: 423: 393: 4237: 3968: 3591:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3579: 3436: 3421: 2477: 2090:. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. 2029:

If you have read the article, and you truly feel there is not extensive material in it that is off topic

1673: 1009:

is one of the most common of all. It is almost always inappropriate in English Knowledge (XXG) texts. --

976: 3488:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2410:

5. Getting personal: Users should try to stick to the subject of a discussion without getting personal.

1342:

is misguided. The history section that I aim to create is more along the lines of what can be found at

1289:

now, along with some exact redundancies, etc. Wouldn't it be better to stick more strictly to topic? --

938:

so I won't go further into that. In this article and in the context where it is used here, your use of

446:

If the issue is a gender specific title, simply neutralize it as suggested. That's all that's needed.

4233: 3316:

Two relevant links re the (now very confusing, for anyone else) format and issues in this discussion:

2664:"which arm of the government actually has ownership" ??? according to you (not me), shouldn't that be 669:, nothing more and nothing less. In case of doubt, why not have a look at the Swedish Academy’s SAOB ( 4017: 2508: 2493: 2325: 2210:

Great that someone finally responded! I will offer my summarized viewpoint within the next 24 hours.

1282: 466: 343: 338: 2112:

I'm requesting that your positions be summarized so I can render a third opinion, as requested here

2011: 21: 4211: 3750: 3267:, which render in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). Mark inserted text with 2077: 1770: 1737: 1727: 1717: 670: 596: 480: 3810: 2872: 2632: 781: 4270: 4249: 4107: 4094: 3881: 3767: 3707: 3643: 3628: 3509: 3481: 3459: 3364: 3334: 3276: 3227: 3198: 3151: 3099: 3068:

in this context I would have to find irrelevant. If a building is owned by the government of the

2945: 2837: 2779: 2742: 2669: 2414: 2380: 2353: 2333: 2281: 2230: 2189: 2152: 2138: 2099: 2041: 1954: 1883: 1697: 1683: 1613: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1532: 1450: 1421: 1399: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1325: 1290: 1274: 1247: 1242:

If you are a member of that Royalist club, I apologize for offending you by calling you amateurs.

1210: 1172: 1113: 1085: 1063: 1042: 1010: 958: 861: 799: 768: 709: 625: 592: 588: 564: 548: 525: 4264:

The Swedish monarchy has never been criticised as severely as it has duing the last few years.

3973: 3576:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2730:

In most countries, the national emancipation support networks are also formed by the government.

2261: 2087: 1802: 1464: 1080:"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Read before you link. And don't start 1055: 628:

has reverted a few of my edits. But none of his assertions are factually correct in either case.

381: 3592: 2727:

It has been suggested that auctions are simply a device to provide extra money for governments.

215:

If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

4034: 2640: 2518: 2015: 1875: 1845: 1633: 1562: 1385: 1278: 431: 415: 1839:

I need the person who objects with the specific content to mention that over here along with

1805:

which at its core might be the most germane description of the debating style of my opponent.

250: 4002: 3789: 3401: 3354: 3245: 3171: 3129: 3028: 3013: 2987: 2935: 2895: 2855: 2800: 2765: 2645: 2607: 2598:

None of my propositions is in any way, shape or form inconsistent with what is found in the

2585: 2577: 2458: 2442: 2251: 2215: 2000: 1865: 1810: 1707: 1528: 1471: 1440: 1367: 1310: 1233: 1199: 1142: 1071: 1032: 984: 914: 894: 890: 860:

in Swedish (which is the Prime Minister and his cabinet and staff). That is not accurate. --

818: 789: 749: 684: 632: 573: 543:

though, the top got screwed up: a big blank space to the right of the infobox and under the

377: 365: 202: 4273:

fails to address this situation. I will start a discussion on this topic there. Thank you!

3599: 2721:

Here in Europe, the government tends to bear the responsibility and we rely on legislation.

2555: 1878:! Before I reply, which I will be glad to do, I feel it is necessary to clarify again that 1833: 1829: 1059: 732: 728: 723: 3381: 2446: 1321: 463: 308: 294: 2166: 1377: 2715:

Mergers that provide no right of veto for trade unions and government lead to accidents.

1324:

article. That's the issue here, not your personalized and sarcastic slurs against me. --

901:). What is unfortunate is your cavalier attitude towards this. Since you directed me to 651:

also has similar materials about their manuals of style in all their official languages.

73: 52: 4208: 4179: