Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move to Hedwig of Holstein[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Accuracy and WP:UE are both at stake here, and the contributors have shown a Hedwig enjoys a clear superiority in usage in reliable sources in the English language. The Philip Line one is very reliable, which incidentally suggests they have reason to believe that the Saxon name Hedwig was her "real name". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Helvig of HolsteinHedwig of Holstein — - This woman is known as Hedwig of Holstein. Hedwig of Schauenburg is not known as Hedwig of Holstein, so the page shouldn't redirect there. When it comes to naming this woman, 12 books call her Hedwig of Holstein, while only one book calls her Helvig of Holstein. The proposed name is twelve times more popular than the current name. Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this, but at least in Sweden, she is always called Helvig or Helwig. That's her name in all books I have read. But that's Swedish books, after all, and I understand that it should be the English name here. It seems her own German name was Helwig. I just thought I should point that out. -- (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
English speaking historians call her Hedwig of Holstein, just like they call her successor Blanche of Namur. Those are the Anglicized versions of their names and those versions are used by English language sources. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, then I do not mind the move. As long as it is pointed out, that she is kalled Helvig in Sweden, as well as her German name version. -- (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the 1995 print Britannica calls her Hedwig.[1] AjaxSmack 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Britannica is only one of many publications that disagree with SergeWoodzing's claim. They call her Hedwig and a majority of other modern sources call her Hedwig → we should call her Hedwig. What's your opinion, AjaxSmack? Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Just like I suspected, that article mentions the mother of Christian I of Denmark, a different person. Read before you quote please! Otherwise you can do serious damage here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose These are two different names. The English version of Swedish Helvig is Haelwig, not Hedwig. I doubt that 1995 Britannica was referring to this woman. If any of the other issues did, they are not to be considered reliable as they made a basic blunder. About like calling an Eleanor Elizabeth just because a few letters are the same in both names. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite some sources. I've cited sources that call her Hedwig. Here are more sources: Queen Hedwig is used to refer to the wife of Magnus as much as Queen Helvig, but Hedwig of Holstein (3 books) is used to refer to the wife of Magnus much more often than Helvig of Holstein (which is actually unused, 0 books). No historian refers to her as Haelwig. Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Take a closer look at the books you are listing and you will find that hardly any of them actually deal with this woman. Quite a few are about a 17th century Queen. Nobody said Haelwig has been used so you didn't have to mention that. The fact is these are two different names. This woman's name in Swedish was Helvig, in German Helwig, in English Haelwig. Facts. You will never be able to prove anything else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The results I gave in my other comment are all related to this woman and they are calling her Hedwig. None of those sources call her Haelwig. Haelwig generally gets very few hits. You still haven't proven that Helvig is not a Swedish form of Hedwig. It's just your word against the word of several historians. A user proposes moving the page to Hedwig of Holstein and historians call her Hedwig of Holstein, while another user says it's incorrect but present no sources whatsoever... you see where this is going, don't you? Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me Surtsicna, but if this : "while another user says it's incorrect but present no sources whatsoever" refers to me, you have misunderstood me. My opinion is simply this: I understand that the English version must be used here. I have no opinion of what the English version of her name is, so I can't argue with that. In Swedish, her name is Helvig. In German, it seems, its Helwig. The German name "Hedvig", which is different from Helvig, is not translated to Helvig in Sweden. I just thought it should be of some interest to know, that Hedvig is not translated to Helvig in Sweden; Helwig was translated to Helvig, that's all. The names Hedvig and Helvig are both German names, but none of them are translated in Sweden, except that you use the letter "V" instead of "W". If English historians use Hedwig about her, than I suppose that is the correct title for this article. Though it all seems to be a bit of a mistunderstanding to me, as I do agree that Hedvig/Hedwig and Helvig/Helwig is, after all, two different names. Anyway. I just don't like to be misconstructed, that's all. Good luck with this. -- (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
No, another user is User:SergeWoodzing. I agree with you; If English historians use Hedwig about her, than I suppose that is the correct title for this article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. That's alright then. English historians seem to have misunderstood her name, but if that his her name in English history, it should be used. Though, of course: her different name versions must be accounted for in the article itself. -- (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Several of the sources given by Surtsicma clearly refer to Hedwig Eleonora of Holstein-Gottorp (1636-1715), yet they are asserted definitely above to be "all related to this woman" who was a 13th century queen. Another is about a 14th century Polish queen. Others stem from one single mistranslation of this name from the Swedish out of the late 19th century work of Adolf Schück. Not one of them gives us a reliable source for changing the name of this queen posthumously from Helvig to Hedwig. Hedwig is another name not an English version of Helwig. Helwig (not Hedwig) was this woman's name in her native tongue. Yet, once again, as if he/she were an English expert, Surtsican wants me to prove that "Helvig is not a Swedish form of Hedwig." All the cited references/sources used for this Article refer to her as Helvig, which is a different name than Hedvig. No one has ever before alleged that the two different names are one and the same. I suggest we take this more seriously and take a good look at the purported sources before taking what the proposer writes here at face value. The proposer apparently is not interested in looking at them a little more in depth, only, it seems, in arguing and making claims that do not pan out at all when looked into. Surtsicng went ahead and changed the queen's name throughout the article from Helvig to Hedwig, even removing Helvig completely, without awaiting consensus (I have restored the correct name). Very headstrong indeed! Thus, the article would have had the wrong name throughout its text while the correct name only was in the article name, if Surtsicna whould have gotten his/her way. Such work borders on disruption in my opinion. I have also seen it called vandalism by other more temperamental users who have found it hard to see good faith in it. This needs to stop. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are offended when somebody says that you are wrong, yet you expect me not to be offended by what you just said? That's unbelievable. As if he/she were an English expert and Surtsicna whould have gotten his/her way (note that this is how an English expert spells the word would), just to cite a few lines (citing the whole comment would be inconvenient). The passive-agressive tone which you use is simply gross and hard to ignore. Anyway, why do you ignore my comments? Do you expect me to answer your comment five times while you repeat your comment over and over again without referring to my answer? Queen Hedwig is used to refer to the wife of Magnus as much as Queen Helvig, but Hedwig of Holstein (3 books) is used to refer to the wife of Magnus much more often than Helvig of Holstein (which is actually unused, 0 books). No historian refers to her as Haelwig. These results all refer to this woman. Some of these books are The History of Sweden, Kingship and state formation in Sweden, 1130-1290 and Politics and reformations: communities, polities, nations, and empires, all of which seem to focus on Swedish history. The first book was written by a Swede, the second refers to this woman as Hedwig of Holstein 11 times, while the third was published by the University of Michigan. Of course all the references in this article call her Helvig; all those references are in Swedish! Why do you pretend that you haven't noticed that or that it is irrelevant? When are you going to present any source whatsoever? Do you seriously expect us to consider you such an expert that we don't need sources to believe you? No sources, no valid argument - this is a Wiki policy. Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna went ahead today and added her name incorrectly as Hedwig in her son's article. Headstrong indeed - again! The issue is that her name was Helwig, not Hedwig, in German, Helvig, not Hedvig, in Swedish, and that she should not be subjected to a name change (to a name she never had) due to very flimsy sources. I will not be commenting/repeating this again, mainly because I don't want my typos ridiculed again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
She wasn't mentioned at all so I named her the way she should be named. I haven't changed it from Helvig to Hedwig. Headstrong, but correct. I must notice that you are quick to respond when somebody ridicules your typos, yet you feel it's perfectly normal for you to ridicule other person's knowledge of English. Anyway, this is the fourth time I ask you for S-O-U-R-C-E-S. Why are you being so headstrong by refusing to cite sources? You call my sources flimsy, even though you refuse to cite any source for days. In my opinion (I don't usually give my opinion, but since Serge does...), that is very rude. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. English sources appear to call her this, as these results show. Even weeding out Charles X's queen, these are still more numerous than the references for the Swedish spelling, which appear to be confined to translations from the Swedish.
    • It would help the article to have English sources; in the process, we might do better than nineteenth-century patriotism and coffee-table books on the Queens of Sweden. This hit, first on the list, seems particularly helpful on the significance of her coronation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This support appears to be only the product of canvassing by Surtsicna, such as he/she has tried to do with me too, even to the point of removing whole sections from my talk page without even asking me about it and emailing me to enlist my support. I'm very sorry to say that good faith is in question here and that the ethics of a user who would do such things probably should be looked at closely as a part of determining this issue.
Any source that would give a queen an incorrect name (such as Hedwig rather than Helvig) can hardly be considered reliable. Surtsicna tried to convince us with a number of sources that actually were about a number other women, as I have disclosed. (Anybody seen an apology anywhere?) Britannica today doesn't even name Magnus's queen ("a German princess"), probably because of uncertainty about what to call her. That's a more professional attitude at work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have increased my support; Surtsicna asked my opinion in a neutral manner, and I did not express one until I had myself considered the matter, and come up with evidence. This unwarranted personal attack is combined with other poor reasons; that the Britannica choses not to load down its article with detail is laudable - after all, they are still interested in covering the world in a finite length.) Surtsicna's asking for a third opinion is the first step of [[WP:Dispute resolution; there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear SergeWoodzing, when I removed that section I wasn't aware that canvassing does not mean asking for opinion in a neutral manner. In fact, I tried so hard to be neutral that I didn't even say hello, fearing that you might see it as fawning. Your shameless efforts to ruin my reputation are in vain. Those efforts only show your character and your ethics; fortunatly, other users are becoming aware of them. Feel free to call my sources unreliable; I will not discuss reliability of my sources until you give some sources. This is the fifth time I ask you to give us sources that support your cause and you are still refusing to do it, as you continue to refer only to your point of view. Finally, I have apologized to you once already and now I have realised that I shouldn't have done that; apologies should be deserved. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe that SergeWoodzing had the nerve to accuse me of canvassing! Please take a look at this comment (particularly at These two users are trying to get the error established here on en.WP; of course, User:Steve Smith is completely innocent and he gave a good advice to SergeWoodzing). The amount of hypocricy here is beyond one's worst nightmare, not to mention that SergeWoodzing expects us to overrule what historians and academics say in favour of what he says. Surtsicna (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The very best advice of all that Steve Smith gave us was to tone down the rhetoric here. Somebody missed that part. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I will ignore the passive-agressive tone used by SergeWoodzing in his previous comment; it is simply impossible for him not to use it even when he proposes to tone down the rhetoric. I just couldn't help noticing SergeWoodzing's request on his talkpage (to which I am no longer welcome to only because I disagree with him; I certainly wasn't rude): Let's even supply/quote reliable sources! So why did I have to ask for such sources five times? Answer: because there aren't any. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Everyone seems to agree that her name is Helvig and that that is not the same name as Hedvig in any language. Seems to be irrational then to change the name of the article to a name that obviously is not hers, even if a small number of English sources have made mistakes about her name, supposing she had a more usual name, Hedvig. Seems no one else has made that mistake. YeahManSwed (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion again. I'm afraid you have misunderstood it. Everyone seems to agree that her name is Helvig and that that is not the same name as Hedvig in any language. Pmanderson and I, along with several historians, agree that the most common name used in English language to refer to this queen is Hedwig, which means that everyone can refer to SergeWoodzing only. Nobody has proved that Helvig is not the same name as Hedwig and nobody has proved that English speaking historians make mistake when they call her Hedwig. It is not a small number of English sources that call her Hedwig; virtually all English language sources that mention her call her Hedwig. Among those sources are the sources which describe her life in a great detail (her marriage, attempt of abduction, coronation and its significance, activity as queen consort, as ruler of her dower land, etc). Seems no one else has made that mistake. Nobody has proved that it is a mistake; if it is a mistake, then a number of English speaking historians have made the mistake and we will need a lot of sources that would prove they are wrong (we can't just say that those historians are wrong). So far, the only thing proven in this dicussion is that Hedwig of Holstein is the most common name used in English language to refer to her. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Support per Surtsicna. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Beginning of first sentence in Swedish wiki:
"Helvig av Holstein, även (felaktigt) känd under namnet Hedvig, ..."
It does not take much of a linguist to figure out that the Swedes do not agree with Hedvig, and their (wiki) opinion could be taken into consideration or, at least, looked into.
Please look up the word felaktigt:
So couldn't there be a mistake in the English translation of Helvig to Hedvig or Hedwig, or a mistake in the identification of the personage at one point, which got transmitted from one historian/writer to another? This type of error is not uncommon. With so much uncertainty, title should be left as is.
Oppose Frania W. (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit uncertain about what to think about this. Her real name was Helvig/Helwig. This is a different name from Hedvig/Hedwig. In Sweden, she is always called Helvig, never Hedvig. Her original, German name, would be Helwig. In Sweden, the letter W is seldom used, and she is therefore called Helvig in Sweden. I do not known what the common name for her in English is. It is unknown to me how the name Helwig is translated in English; perhaps it is to Hedwig. I find it a bit odd that Helvig/Helwig is translated to Hedwig in English, because it is two different names rather than two different versions of the same name. Hedwig, I believe, was not her original German name, nor is she ever refferred to it in Sweden. Neither Helwig/Helvig, or Hedwig/Hedvig, is Swedish names, and neither would have been much altered in Sweden: the only change to them would be the use of "V" instead of a "W". It is unlikely that she would have been called Helvig in Sweden if her German name was in fact Hedwig: if she was named Hedwig, she would have been called Hedvig in Sweden, and if her name was Helwig, she would be called Helvig. There is not much confusion there. To call her Hedwig would, indeed, be to change her name. However; the issue here, as I understand it, it not what her real name is. The issue is, under what name she is known in English. If she is known as Hedwig in English, then perhaps the policy of wikipedia say that is the name the article should have, regardless of the fact that it is the wrong name. I myself can not judge in that matter at all; I do not have the information or the references. My opinion is as follows: if Wikipedia policy say that she should be named after the name she is known as in English, regardless of the fact that this is the wrong name, then I support the change to Hedwig - with the condition, of course, that all her name forms is included in the article itself. --Aciram (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to understand the conclusion reached by Aciram: "regardless of the fact that this is the wrong name", as I do not believe that Wikipedia prones to re-baptise individuals with the wrong name because some English authors may have made a mistake. Should not an encyclopedia avoid mistakes repeated from one generation of authors to another? Someone's name is not to be transformed according to the rules of Scrabble, as we may end up in Helvig/Hedwig's case with D E V I L. Frania W. (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that people should not be renamed. What I ment was this: I myself think the name should be Helvig, if the wikipedia policy is to name her correct name. If wikipedia, however, have the policy to use the names under which people are most known in English history (in English wikipedia), then Hedwig is the correct name for the title, as English readers would look her up under the name they have been taught, wether it was wrong or not. In the article itself, the confusion should be explained, and all the names included. I simply have the policy to correct myself under wikipedia's rules, whatever my personal opinion of it may be. I am, frankly, prepared to accept both outcomes, because I can see the positive in both of them: Helvig is her correct name - on the other hand, if she is known as Hedwig in English, then she may be easier to find for English readers, and this may also be in line with wikipedia policy. Therefore, I preffer to not state any clear opinion. --Aciram (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Frania: Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. If you want to prove something, cite some reliable sources. If you want to prove that it is not correct to refer to her as Hedwig, cite sources that say so. Citing Swedish Wiki is not enough, because Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose. I would kindly ask Frania to stick to the topic. Mentioning Scrabble and D E V I L may be creative, but it is certainly not helpful. If she wants to prove something, she can cite a source. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna: Even if Hedwig is not this lady's real name (or correct translation in English) but is used as such by a majority of English-language authors, then this lady's name shall be inscribed in English Wikipedia stone tablets as Hedwig? Since when is it not the aim of an encyclopedia to aim at the truth? I believe that when Wikipedia's Constitution makers wrote down The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth— they made a huge mistake that will eventually have to be corrected or, should I say, "amended"?
The reason I gave the beginning of the first sentence in Swedish Wikipedia is because THEY, the Swedes, are the first to warn that Hedvig is not correct. I am not suggesting that the Swedish article be used "as a reliable source", but I believe that in a discussion page, it is proper for a participant to point it out in order to warn other participants that, maybe, more verifications have to be done before changing the name of an article to one that is probably wrong.
And permit me to raise my eyebrows when I read the following: Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose because Wikipedia must be talking from both sides of its mouth: What about articles that are a direct translation from same wiki article in another language? You must have never read articles in English translated word for word from their French counterpart. I could name quite a few. So I do not see where I can be wrong by mentioning a sentence from an article in Swedish Wikipedia.
I am not the only one giving a warning as to the mistake being made here; others more knowledgeable than I am on the subject have already done so, and I don't believe that we should be dismissed with constant reminders of Wikipedia guidelines, policies, rules & regulations.
It is hard for me to believe that the person who wrote this jewel: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth— meant to say: Write as many untruths as you like as long as you can back them up with a majority of tales verified through a Google search.
As for my mention of Scrabble & the find D E V I L, I was not going off topic as this juggling of letters do remind me of a game of Scrabble. Too bad if Surtsicna did not see the (intended) pun. Frania W. (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Frania, nobody has proved that this lady's real name was not Hedwig or that she was never called Hedwig or that historians who call her Hedwig and write about her life are wrong. That's the first problem. SergeWoodzing claims that it is incorrect to call her Hedwig, but he has not cited any source that says so. Neither have you. On the other hand, Pmanderson and I have cited sources that call her Hedwig. Among those sources is the source that completely covers this article. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth is perfectly correct; this situation is a perfect example. Two users claim that something is incorrect but present no reliable sources. Other two users claim that something is correct and they present sources that verify their claim. So how can one determine what is true? On the basis of presented sources, of course. Wikipedia is based on those sources, not on our view of what is (in)correct. That's another Wikipedia policy: we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians.
What about articles that are a direct translation from same wiki article in another language? If those articles cite sources from the same Wiki article in another language, there is nothing wring about them. The Swedish article cites no sources when it says that it is incorrect to refer to her as Hedvig, therefore that information is unverifiable.
The policy that you disagree with says: Information that can be verified is the true information. To verify means to prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony. It can be verified (and it has been verified) that historians call her Hedwig, but it has not yet been verified that it is incorrect to call her Hedwig. Again, you call those sources a fairy tale, even those sources that completely cover the information presented in this article. That would mean that everything written here is a fairy tale. These tales are verified through books, not through a Google search. Why don't you give us a book that supports your cause? Is there any such book? Or does your opinion outrank every book? Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I understand this correctly, but the issue here does not seem to be wether Hedwig was her real name or not. If that was the issue, then anyone from Sweden can cite any book were she is mentioned : in all books I have ever read about Swedish history, she is Helvig (or Helwig), never Hedwig. But, if I understand this correctly, this is not the issue here. In this discussion, the issue is not about her real name. This discussion is about which name is used about her in English books. So, perhaps this discussion is a bit misunderstood? The wikipedia policy is to use the name used about her in English litterature, if I understand this correctly. Anyone who has read a Swedish history book know that Hedwig is incorrect. But that is not important here, I think. What is important is not to cite her correct name; what is important, is rather to cite the name correct according to the wikipedia policy. And if the policy is to use the name commonly used in English, even if it is incorrect, then Hedwig is correct in that sense of the matter. I hope I have understand this correctly. If the policy say, that the correct name should be used, then all that is necessary is to ask a Swedish user to go to his/her closest library, and cite all history books in the entire library were she is mentioned, because she is always called Helvig. But here, she is to be mentioned under her English name; and therefore, Hedwig is correct, even if it is wrong. It is true that it's a shame that she is given a new name in English, but if that name has become standard, then noting can be done. All one can do, is to clear that matter in the article itself. In the article, it should be pointed out, that Hedwig is name used by English historians, nothing else. The title must abide to policy, wether wrong or not. --Aciram (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Aciram, I agree with you. However, it has not been proven that Hedwig is not just another form of the name Helvig. For example, Charles XII of Sweden is called Carl XII by Swedish speaking historians and Charles XII by English speaking historians. The meanings of the names Charles and Carl are not exactly the same and their origin may not be the same either, yet Swedish speaking historians refer to Charles I of England as Karl I and English speaking historians refer to Charles XII of Sweden as Charles XII. Although Charles XII of Sweden probably never called himself Charles, it is correct to refer to him as Charles because English language sources refer to him as Charles. Charles the Bald probably never referred to himself as the Bald and it is entirely possible that he was extraordinary hairy rather than bald (see Charles the Bald#Baldness), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call him Charles the Bald. I hope my point is clear enough. Surtsicna (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here is an English language book that calls her Hedvig of Holstein, which is rather interesting because its author is Vilhelm Moberg, a Swedish historian. See page 94 of "A history of the Swedish people, Volume 1". Yet the Swedish Wiki says that it is incorrect to call her Hedvig without presenting any sources that confirm that statement. Also note that Hedvig (probably just like Helvig) is just another form of the name Hedwig. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna, you are referring us to a translation of Vilhelm Moberg's book by Paul Britten Austin, not to his original work.,+Volume+1+By+Vilhelm+Moberg&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
This translation was published in 2005
  1. Paperback: 288 pages
  2. Publisher: Univ Of Minnesota Press; 1 edition (February 7, 2005)
  3. Language: English
Vilhelm Moberg's original in Swedish was published in 1970-1971. You will have to pardon me, but here is a Swedish site (Surtsinca, I can hear you scream!) on Vilhelm Moberg & his book. You can read "Helvig" highlighted, not "Hedvig".
What I am driving at is that it is not Vilhelm Moberg who wrote "Hedvig", but the translator of his book, Paul Britten Austin; consequently, you cannot use "which is rather interesting because its author is Vilhelm Moberg, a Swedish historian" as an argument.
Vilhelm Moberg died in 1973, and since the English version of his book was published twenty-two years after his death, he had nothing to do with the fact that "Helvig" was translated into "Hedvig", and had he had a say in the matter, he may not have approved. Frania W. (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The publication I am referring to was published in 1972, one year before Moberg's death. The point remains: Helvig = Hedvig = Hedwig. Her name is correctly Anglicised as Hedwig. Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe refers to her as Hedwig von Holstein. By the way, why would I scream? Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, since you point out that the Swedish Wiki warns us that it is incorrect to refer to her as Hedvig, I have to point out that the German Wiki (THEY, the Germans, her own people) say that she is also known as Hedwig von Holstein. Helvig von Holstein (auch Hedwig von Holstein... Allow me to rephrase your own statement: It does not take much of a linguist to figure out that the Germans agree with Hedwig, and their (wiki) opinion could be taken into consideration or, at least, looked into. Surtsicna (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, since you point out that the German Wiki agree with Hedwig, and they should know THEY, the Germans, her own people, I would love to see you use that argumentation in the talk page of a certain Élisabeth/Elisabeth/Elizabeth where you insist on doing without the accent on a name kept half in French/half in English. Frania W. (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I am only using that argumentation to counter your argumentation. You were the first one to point out how the Swedes call her and that's why I pointed out what the Germans say. The truth is: the only thing that matters is how reliable English language sources call her. As to the certain Élisabeth/Elisabeth/Elizabeth, I can argue to have the article titled in English only, as it should be considering the amount of modern sources that call her Elizabeth (c. 430 books) and the amount of sources that call her Élisabeth/Elisabeth (c. 70). Therefore, calling her Elisabeth is a compromise that suits you better than me and you are still not satisfied! But this is not a place for this discussion, so I would ask you to stay on topic. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna, the only reason I mentioned Élisabeth/Elisabeth/Elizabeth (discussion we, no doubt, will continue on her page), is because of your THEY, the German, her own people. And, staying "on topic" (Yes, Sir!), please note: the title of the German article is Helvig von Holstein, not Hedwig.
I personally do not agree with a policy to blindly turn to what's most used in English publications, because a mistake can be propagated endlessly. It is with this type of logic that, in the Middle Ages, since the majority of people were convinced the Earth was flat, then the Earth was flat, and the few who dare say that it was a globe were barbecued at the stake. However, in the end, the tiny minority won out for the very reason that it became ridiculous to propagate as the truth something that obviously was not.
I have given my thoughts on the subject, opposed the move, and see no reason to pursue this dialogue for the sake of arguing. Frania W. (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The only reason why I wrote THEY, the German, her own people is because you wrote THEY, the Swedes. I'm sure you knew this very well. The title of the German article is Helvig von Holstein probably because that is the most common name for her in German language, but the first sentence of the article also says that her name is also Hedvig of Holstein. Among English language sources, she is called Hedwig of Holstein and it hasn't yet been proved that this is wrong. Regarding your Earth-argument, I have to say that the tiny minority won out because they succeeded in proving that majority was wrong. You still haven't proved anything. You haven't cited any reliable source. All we've got from you is: That's not correct. Says who? Frania says, so it must be correct. All those historians are wrong because Frania says they are wrong. That makes sense, doesn't it? You have given your thoughts indeed, but nothing more. Not one reliable source. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my dear, the tiny minority won out because they succeeded in proving that the majority was wrong; but their victory came a long time after their death as many of them died branded heretics because of the stubborn stand of the Church & its arm of Justice called the Inquisition. During their lifetime, that tiny minority was muzzled by those who were constantly coming Scriptures in hand as being the only Truth. But, here I go again, ignoring that most sacrosanct of Wikipedia laws: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth... Frania W. (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus, to conclude: I say that something is true. I present reliable English language sources to back up my claim. Some users agree with me. Some users say that it is not true, but they present no reliable sources (perhaps they believe that their opinion outranks whatever historians say). One of the most important Wikipedia policies says that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, thus supporting my cause. The end. Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Two users whom you had contacted on their talk page agree with you.
  • Another one, your former ally, on whose talk page you had deleted certain embarrassing evidence, left in a huff.
  • Several others are opposed to the move & some are not too sure what to do.
  • In every discussion you are involved, you quickly dominate, or should I say "reign" as an absolute monarch, rendering discussion impossible, with anyone who dares oppose you treated as a know-nothing.
  • When I posted a list of links, you immediately dismissed them as unreliable, not taking into consideration what I had written as I was quite aware of the fact that they would be dismissed by the more savants among us.
  • You are on a massive campaign of redirecting articles, most of them without advance notification left on the talk page of the respective articles. Are you doing this because you realise that when you "advocate moving an article" you find resistance to your ukase?
  • Among the many moves you have done recently, here are a couple you did yesterday, with no advance notice:
  • Eleanor of England (1269–1298)(moved Eleanor of England (1269–1298) to Eleanor of England, Countess of Bar: More people will recognize her as Countess of Bar than as someone born in 1269.)
  • Eleanor of England (1162-1214)(moved Eleanor of England (1162-1214) to Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile: More people would recognize her as Queen of Castile than as someone born in 1162.)
How do you know what more people will or would recognise? Have you conducted a survey? Although my opinion is worth peanuts to you, I happen to prefer dates because they situate personages in their historical period. Others might prefer what you are not proposing, but imposing, not giving anyone a say in the matter. I am not going to take the time to refer you to any particular Wikipedia "rule", I am sure you can do it since you are constantly referring us to Wikipedia "rules & regulations", but any move should be advertised in advance so as to let other readers "approve" or "oppose" it.
Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it is not the Soviet Union either. Frania W. (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Frania, I have to wonder what made you write such an essay about me after saying that you see no reason to pursue this dialogue for the sake of arguing? What was the sake of such essay if not arguing? It has nothing to do with the discussion. You are commenting on a user very unfavourably and it borders with Wikipedia:Personal attack (Comment on content, not on the contributor). Perhaps you disagree with this policy too? Nevertheless, I will answer your questions:
  • Before accusing someone of canvassing, you should read what canvassing means; I contacted those users in the most neutral manner (see this) because of their interest in these topics and because they have participated in similar discussions and there is nothing wrong with that.
  • I wrote the same thing ("You may be interested in ____ Surtsicna") on my former ally's talk page (see this edit).
  • It is hard to discuss anything with someone who values her own point of view more than any sources. You say that I don't let anyone discuss anything, but from your last comment a person is able to conclude that you intentionally avoid citing sources and instead prefer to comment on users.
  • If you were aware of unreliability of those websites, why did you cite them? Besides, I offered to give you a list of such websites that call her Hedwig or Hedvig. I would do it gladly if you are unwilling to accept those websites as unreliable (which they are, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability).
  • The articles I moved attract so many editors that the first of them had only about 30 edits in two years, so I had a reason to believe that a discussion would not attract many users. Did you explain this move (the most recent undiscussed move made by you) on the talkpage? No. So what is the point of your digging around contributions and questioning my edits that are unrelated to any discussion we've ever had? The discussion which gave me the right to move those articles occured here. Consensus has been reached and it has been concluded that dates are inferior to the more straight forward title. (Which is a person looking for this woman likely to know? Her precise birth and death dates, or the simple fact that she was queen of Sicily?) When viewing categories and looking for Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile, it helps a lot when the article is titled Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile; when linking to that article, it is much easier to link to Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile than opening that article just to see which years are given in the title and typing Eleanor of England (1160-1214). Therefore, those two examples do not prove that I am on a massive campaign of redirecting articles; that statement of yours just proves how unfounded your accusations are. So much about that.
Finally: yes, I do refer to rules (actually, policies) a lot. That's because policies are important. Referring to policies and abiding by those policies is important. It is especially important to abide by Wikipedia:Verifiability because this project is based on sources. That you wish not to abide by any policy but your point of view is your choice.
PS: I agree with your last statement. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, the number of users that support and the number of users that oppose is irrelevant; the evidence each side presented is important and that evidence can be seen in the sections below. Those who oppose the move cited no reliable sources. Those who support the move did or have at least tried to do so, unlike those who oppose. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason I pursued the discussion is because of the comment you addressed to me on 25OCT09 at 16:58. That's not correct. Says who? Frania says, so it must be correct. All those historians are wrong because Frania says they are wrong., which I never said, and if this does not border on personal attack on your part, tell me what it is.
  • The problem that I see with this move in particular, and I am not the only person mentioning it, is that you want to follow blindly Wikipedia sacrosanct Wikipedia:Verifiability when other readers as learned on the matter as you are, (talk), SergeWoodzing (talk), YeahManSwed (talk), have pointed out to you that the name given in English is a mistake. Consequently, it is very difficult for me to believe that Wikipedia willfully condones the propagation of mistakes out of respect for one of its rules; pardon me: policies... Imagine this type of policy applied in a court room!
  • Anonymous IP (talk) has also tried to tell you that Helvig is not the same or a derivative of Hedwig, but you dismiss his argument because Wikipedia verifiability wins over truth, and that's all that counts. That anonymous IP hit the nail right on its head when he wrote: "As long as this page does not deal with that fact no reasonable solution can be found." This is my argument with you: faced with so much improbability, the move should not be made.
  • Did I explain this move (the most recent undiscussed move made by you) on the talkpage? Out of the 33 articles that I moved during my whole participation in Wikipedia (b. 21 October 2007), most of them were because of mistakes in titles & had nothing to do with a major change in the title. In fact, it is ironic that you should mention this because, one that I changed was Louis-Philippe I, King of the French, from the title Louis-Philippe of France. I had left a note on the talk page which remained unanswered for nine months; then the day I made the change, I got the pros & the cons of my move, which we ended settling quickly & in a very amicable manner. Then, mea culpa, I did not give an advance notice at Hôtel Meurice in Paris & went ahead adding the accent circonflexe on the *o* of Hôtel... But my puny 33 changes within a few months are certainly not on the scale of the massive changes you have done recently with absolutely NO advance notice, when the title is radically changed. As for this move I again corrected spelling mistakes & did not change the title.
m (moved Talk:Marguerite De Launay, Baronne Staal to Talk:Marguerite de Launay, baronne de Staal: name misspelled: one *de* capitalised, that should not be (*de* Launay), and one missing (*de* Staal).)
  • Finally, when quoting me, I prefer that the entire sentence be given, not half of it to be used as you please. I wrote: Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it is not the Soviet Union either. Because when using only the first part & omitting the second, you distort what I was really saying.
Frania W. (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You said that historians make a mistake when they call her Hedwig. You haven't cited any reliable source that supports your statement, which leaves us to trust either you or those historians. Perhaps I misunderstood you; perhaps you don't think that they make a mistake when they call her Hedwig?
  • Other readers as learned on the matter as I am (you, (talk), SergeWoodzing (talk), YeahManSwed (talk)) have said that that the name given in English is a mistake, but they haven't cited any reliable source. If one party supports something and cites sources while the other one doesn't support it but cites no sources, it is only natural for someone to turn to Wikipedia:Verfiability. Something that has been verified is much more likely to be true than something that has not been verified. How do you expect us to judge what is true and what is not? We are supposed to cite sources that support our opinions, otherwise our opinions are no more than our point of view (and as such they are irrelevant).
  • We could argue about that all night; I say yes and present sources, you say no and present no sources. In a nutshell, given that the move is supported by reliable sources and has not been opposed by any reliable source, the move should be made.
  • I would hardly call moving Eleanor of England (1162-1214) to Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile drastic. It has been discussed and the only change is the new disambiguation. A drastic move would be moving that page to Nell of London.
  • Finally, I must have misinterpreted your statement. Could you please explain what you meant by: Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it is not the Soviet Union either? I suppose that the first part refers to the fact that arguments should be taken into consideration rather than the number of users involved, but the second part puzzles me (which is why I left it out). Does my demanding sources somehow resemble the Soviet Union or what??? Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable English language sources in favour of Hedwig[edit]

These are the reliable English language sources that refer to this queen as Hedwig (or Hedvig, which is a variation of the name Hedwig/Helvig). Various unreliable websites are not included.

  1. The History of Sweden
  2. Kingship and state formation in Sweden, 1130-1290
  3. Politics and reformations: communities, polities, nations, and empires
  4. A history of the Swedish people, Volume 1
  5. Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe refers to her as Hedwig von Holstein
I don't know if this is a mistake above here "Hedvig, which is a variation of the name Hedwig/Helvig", but if it is intentional to mean that "Hedwig/Helvig" are the same name, that can not be called anything else than a bold-faced lie. Sorry! As far away from "good faith" as ever any user can be. Manipulative, dishonest, terrible! IF that is meant. If not, forget it. (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not intend to say that Hedvig and Helvig are the same names; they are as different as Charles and Carl are and I'm sure you didn't intend to call anyone a manipulative, dishonest and terrible liar. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Charles and Carl/Karl are variations of the same name, both stemming from Latin's Carolus. Helvig and Hedwig are not variations of the same name but as different as Harold and Arnold and Gerald and Donald; Howard and Seward and Edward; Edwin and Alvin and Irwin; Albert and Robert and Herbert; Ingrid and Sigrid and Astrid; Alma and Emma and Selma; Donna and Dora and Dottie and Dolly. As long as this page does not deal with that fact no reasonable solution can be found. (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable English language sources against Hedwig[edit]


Name Helvig[edit]

I have citet a reliable source in English as to the name of this woman, which was not Hedvig/Hedwig. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cited two reliable sources in English as to the name if this woman, who is called Hedwig by English speaking historians. My sources are clearly more reliable, as both of them are in English (unlike SergeWoodzing's source) and written by English speaking historians (unlike both of SergeWoodzing's sources). Therefore, at least one source presented by SergeWoodzing is irrelevant, as it is in Swedish and doesn't say that it is incorrect to refer to her as Hedwig or Hedvig. SergeWoodzing claims that my sources only briefly mention Hedwig of Holstein. That is incorrect. My source does not only mention Hedwig of Holstein; it informs us about her marriage, her administration of her dower land, her activity as queen consort and explains in great detail the importance of her coronation. Surtsicna (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The more savants among us will probably not agree with the seriousness of the links below, but here they are anyway: Helvig of Holstein within text in English:,_Duke_of_Finland+Helvig+of+Holstein&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
at Generation XXIV:
  • 11463864 Magnus Birgersson 'Ladulås' av Sverige; born about 1240, Kung 1275-1290, died 18 Dec 1290 at Visingsö.
Married 11 Nov 1276 at Kalmar
  • 11463865 Helvig von Holstein; born about 1254, died 1324.
1275-1290: MAGNUS II (Magnus II ladulås)
Born in ?
Father: Birger jarl. Mother: Princess Ingeborg of Sweden.
Married in 1276 in Kalmar Helvig of Holstein (+1324).
He was crowned in 1276 at Gamla Uppsala.
His consort Helvig of Holstein was crowned in 1281 at Söderköping.
His issue who reigned:
-Ingeborg (*c.1277,+1319; Queen of Denmark),
Died in 1290 at Visingsö.
Buried with his Queen Helvig in Stockholm's Riddarholm Church.
  • King Magnus has wife Helvig of Holstein crowned with a coronation, at Söderköping. [303.94]
  • Birger, son of King Magnus, is accepted by the royal council to be the successor to the crown. [48.69]
  • The church is reaffirmed as tax-free. [267.28]
10th paragraph:
"Valdemar now turned to King Eric of Denmark, and won an ally in him because Magnus had neglected to fulfil his promises. Magnus gained a supporter in Duke Gerhard I. of Holstein, whose daughter Helvig he married in November, 1276."
hej då! Frania W. (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that none of the links you present can compete with a scholarly work, as none of those pages is a reliable source. The first one is not in English and the whole point of this discussion is to determine how English language sources call her. The second one is obviously a mirror of Wikipedia article which currently calls her Helvig. Haven't you noticed that? The third is not completely in English either (eg. von Österreich, Herzog, etc). It doesn't take an expert to conclude that none of the websites presented above can be considered a reliable source. What do those websites even tell us? They don't give nearly as much information about her as Kingship and state formation in Sweden does. Who would generally be considered more credible: an author who writes about the 12th-13th century Sweden and who describes her life in detail or some website owner who merely mentions the names of her parents, her husband and children? See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) (I hope you do not disagree with the whole verifiability policy). I can give you the same amount of websites that call her Hedwig of Holstein; are you interested? It would be pointless, as all those sources are useless and unreliable sources, but if they are neccessary to prove a point, I'll give a number of links. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A thought[edit]

I see the move has been done. I just came to think of something ; is Helwig (which is translated to Helvig in Swedish) translated to Hedwig in English? I was just a bit confused : Carl and Charles are the very same name, just in two different languages. But Hedwig is an independent name, and Helwig is another independent name. After all; these are two different German names, and in Germany, they are both used as equals. It's just a question of curiosity really, but perhaps Hedwig and Helwig simply is not recognized as two different names in England? It wouldn't be that strange, as Helwig is not used in England. So perhaps there is no awereness that this is two different names, and this is why Helwig was translated to Hedwig? I'm just curious!--Aciram (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aciram, that is what anonymous IP was explaining when he wrote: Charles and Carl/Karl are variations of the same name, both stemming from Latin's Carolus. Helvig and Hedwig are not variations of the same name but as different as Harold and Arnold... His comment was ignored. Besides, no matter how logical and/or true, nothing can beat Wikipedia's The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth & it does not look as if any English-language author has ever looked into the matter. All that matters here is that one author wrote the name one way (even if not correct) then was followed by a few other authors (not many have written about her in English), and that's it, the subject with mistake included becomes the only accepted one in Wikiland. Imagine that the original of this lady's birth/baptismal certificate would not be taken into consideration here, only some find in a publication in English that "Helvig" & "Hedwig" are two different names might resolve the issue. And I doubt that it would suffice here. Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Depressing isn't it? Even though everyone reasonable finds it likely that the use of Hedwig as an "English version" is a mistake, the change is made anyway - from her legitimate name to the probable mistake (definite, not probable to most of us). Leaving it alone would have done no damage whatsoever. Now? A reliable encyclopedia? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Serge, this is exactly what I was thinking, leaving it alone would have done no damage whatsoever. My long decried The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth is what makes me wonder what type of encyclopedia Wikipedia is going to end up being. But I do not despair that some of its inflexible "rules & regulations" will be changed in the future: was not the original US Constitution with its 27 amendments? Frania W. (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Case of mistaken identity?[edit]

Doing a quick check of the various Royal Houses connected to the subject of this article (because of the "coat of arms" dispute), I just fell upon this *pearl* at the House of Oldenburg:

"Marriages of medieval counts of Oldenburg had paved the way for their heirs to become kings of various Scandinavian kingdoms. In 14th century, through marriage with a descendant of King Valdemar I of Sweden and of King Eric IV of Denmark, a claim to Sweden and Denmark was staked, since 1350.

At that time, its competitors were the successors of Margaret I of Denmark. In the 15th century, the Oldenburg heir of that claim married Hedwig of Holstein, a descendant of Euphemia of Sweden and Norway and also a descendant of Eric V of Denmark."

Natürlich, by clicking on Hedwig of Holstein, one reaches the dear lady of this article (1260-1324): born & married in 13th century, deceased in the 14th, it is an extremely interesting historical fact to go to that lady's wedding in the 15th...

I know that Wikipedia is not that interested in truth, but is not credibility one of its goals ? Frania W. (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources I presented clearly refer to the wife of King Magnus of Sweden, so it is not a case of mistaken identity. The woman you are referring to is Helvig of Schauenburg, daughter of a count of Holstein and Schauenburg. Interestingly enough, that woman is also referred to as Hedwig. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
While on the subject of these, sources presented clearly, could you add page numbers to those citations? Since following the discussion/argument over the naming of Elisabeth de Valois, no one felt the need to even cite one reference for that article! Even after your remark of, Note that 427 books (published after 1990) refer to her as Elizabeth of Valois and only 68 books refer to her as Elisabeth (or Élisabeth) of Valois. Mon Dieu!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna, this was not a criticism of you and/or "the sources you presented clearly". What I was pointing out is that for a reader who just parachuted into the reading of the House of Oldenburg, the credibility of Wikipedia could be in doubt. There seems to be a definite micmac between the various Heilwigis/Helvig/Helwig/Hedvig/Hedwig from various Scandinavian countries & German States of long ago. I believe it is what Serge Woodzing was trying to warn us against. And while Hedwig of Schauenburg is Hedvig av Holstein in Swedish wiki, the lady of our argument here is Helvig av Holstein for the Swedes. That's all. Frania W. (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't take it as criticism. I just pointed out that this is the woman which English language sources call Hedwig of Holstein. The text you cited refers to another woman, Hedwig of Schauenburg. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Surtsicna: For what I was pointing out, please go to House of Oldenburg and click on Hedwig of Holstein there (fourth paragraph): you are not going to fall upon Hedwig of Schauenburg. Frania W. (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Now you are going to fall upon Hedwig of Schauenburg. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Her name was not Hedwig no matter what we did 5 years ago[edit]

Responding to the request for closure at ANRFC; this was not a well-formatted RfC, although it seems that for the most part the participating editors understood the issue to be the article name. There is a consensus that the article should remain at its current name. There wasn't much actual discussion or analysis of sources, although there were plenty of claims that the sources support one position or the other. The list of sources compiled the last time this issue was raised makes the claims for Hedwig stronger, in addition to there being a significant numerical advantage of editors favoring Hedwig. By contrast, the arguments in favor of renaming seem to largely rely on original research, e.g. the claim that "Hedvig" originated as a translation error. That said, of course this can be revisited if supporting sources are presented. While there can be merit in e.g. invoking IAR (via WP:COMMONSENSE in this case), editors must still come to consensus in favor of it. Sunrise (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This woman's name was Helvig, Helwig or Heilwig, not Hedvig/Hedwig. The first three are various established spellings of her name; the last 2 are spellings of another name. They (Helwig and Hedwig) are not the same name but are as different as Edward and Howard, as Lillian and Gillian, as Cindy and Mindy, as Amelia and Adelia, as Marilyn and Madelyn.

As can be seen above, consensus decided in 2009 to name the article incorrectly. This is a very sad and embarrassing example of one of those unfortunate and illogical quirks of Wikipedia, and it makes the encyclopædia less reliable, respectable and worthwhile for readers and contributors. If anyone has any ideas on how we can fix this, I would appreciate anything constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a move discussion, but at a very short glance the 2009 discussion focused on what reliable English-language sources most commonly call her, as it should. You'll need to provide evidence that the 2009 assessment of the prevalence of those spellings was incorrect. Note that one of your references only mentions Heilwig of Lippe, not Heilwig of Holstein. Huon (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You've missed my point, told me what I already know and provided no help. The point is that her name actually was Helwig not Hedwig and the question is what can be done about that in spite of consensus 5 years ago and for the sake of accurate and reliable information. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I miss your point. You know the appropriate process to change the page title (and consensus may change) as well as the requirements; what kind of help are you looking for? "Common sense", however, does not trump reliable English-language sources. Huon (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I concur. FactStraight (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to the fact that her name was Helwig, not Hedwig, or please do not respond (irrelevantly) at all! The rigid and non-constructive discussion about sources and consensus has already been had. Please don't rehash all that again! That's not what I'm looking for. I have the right to ask for help without having that request dissmissed arbitrality. And no, WP:Common sense goes before all other policy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you support Wikipedia intentionally naming biographies with false names because of policy, this discussion is not for you. Please abstain from commenting! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not presented any new evidence that her most common name in English-language sources is indeed Helwig. It doesn't matter what her "true" name was as long as English-language sources largely refer to her as Hedwig. Your request amounts to "I need help renaming this page because I know better than reliable sources what the name should be". That will not happpen. Huon (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Reliable Swedish and German academic historians know better not I, and I trust them more than I do rigid WP policy sticklers which in this case have magnified a translating error and are speading it all over. Very very very bad! Anyone interested in fixing the problem can easily see my point, and a bit of checking will confirm it. Since you obviously are not interested in fixing this very embarrassing mess, which seems to be taboo to even talk sensibly about, why continue to comment and say the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over? That's not going to shut me up, though I get the message that that's what you're after. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this is a translation error spread unknowingly. Rather, Philip Line is well aware that her name in Swedish is "Helvig" and still chooses to call her "Hedwig" in English. If you can present some evidence that the discrepancy is indeed due to a translation error, please go ahead. If you cannot, see WP:No original research. Huon (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no evidence anywhere on Google that Philip Line is academic nor an established authority on the subject, nor anything about his being aware that her name always in Swedish and German is given as Helvig and that he used another similar name in spite. Where did you find that, if you please? And who is Philip Line? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
PS It's worth noting that even in Finland, where she also was Queen, it is correctly noted that King Magnus was married to Holsteinin Helvigin not Holsteinin Hedvigin. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
For his knowledge of how the queen is spelled in Swedish, see page 589 of his book: Hedwig of Holstein (Sw. Helvig). Google Books says about Line: "...completed his Ph.D. on Medieval Swedish Kingship at the University of Leeds in 2003, having previously studied Scandinavian languages in London" Not a particularly reliable source, but it's confirmed by his biography here (p. xii), and Brill Publishers definitely is a reliable publisher. I found multiple English-language works by Scandinavian authors on Google Scholar thanking Line for "checking the language", indicating that his colleagues accept his proficiency at translating Scandinavian languages into English. Huon (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The English language often spells names differently than they are spelled in other languages. For example: in the Italian language, the capital city of Italy is spelled "Roma" ... and (thus) it is appropriate for the article in Italian version of Wikipedia to spell it "Roma". However, in the English language, the name of that city is spelled "Rome"... and thus it is appropriate that the English language version of Wikipedia spells it Rome. While "Roma" is correct in Italian, "Rome" is correct in English.
To apply this concept to the current article, we don't care how the name of the person might be spelled in Swedish or German (or Finish, or even Chinese)... what we care about is how the name is spelled in English. From the 2009 discussion, it seems that her name is spelled "Hedwig" in English. However, if you can find more English Language sources that spell it some other way, please present them and we can reconsider. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've replied to you on the Pump, it's not at all question of translation and/or spelling but of two different names, as different as Edward (Edvard in Swedish and German) versus Howard (Howard in Swedish and German), or as Blueboar versus Bluebear, or as Huon versus Heon. (See all the other relevant examples I also gave please!) I asked that irrelevant arguments like yours not be rehashed. Spelling is irrelevant here. My name is correctly spelled Sergio in Spanish and Sergius in Latin (those are legitimate exonyms), but Serde or Serve or Serke in no language. If a Serke Woodzing exists anywhere, in any country, in any language, that is not me. Get it? Anyone??????? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure what the process is, but a move discussion is probably warranted here. I'd need to do a little more research before making any real choice, but the discussion was more than 5 years ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Helvig (or a German version of the same name) would seem to be the more correct name of this woman. "Helvig" is what the on-line edition of the Swedish dictionary of national biography calls her. I doubt that she is well enough known in English to really motivate a different name. --Hegvald (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: despite a previous run-in with Serge on another issue, I guess I agree with him in this case. This is not the question of a misspelled name, it's another name, though very similar. I could add a couple of Swedish examples which differ on only one letter: Lage and Tage, and Rune and Sune. If someone would write in English about a notable person named "Sune", and call him "Rune" just because he has never heard the name "Sune" before, it wouldn't be a misspelling, it would be the wrong name – and of course unacceptable. If this is the only source in English, I think we should trust other sources. They count too, if I'm not mistaken. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources? Where are the sources for thinking that either one of these names is correct? I suggest that as a first step the first, say, 10–15 reliable sources that call her by each name should be listed here (access to the sources in the article would be handy). If there aren't enough to determine what name is predominant in reliable English sources then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources should probably apply (i.e., "German for German politicians"). I looked, briefly, for sources and found several that refer to a "Hedvig of Holstein" who was wife of Didrick the Happy of Oldenburg in the fifteenth century, clearly not this person. Life magazine (1957), Herman Lindqvist (1994), August Strindberg (1959) and the Scandinavian Review (1933) call her Helwig, while Vilhelm Moberg (1989) gives both names. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Huon! Actually I saw that. Philip Line, Vilhelm Moberg, both mentioned above, and three sources that, from where I am at least, can't be looked at. Moberg, as I have just said, gives both names. Blueboar says quite correctly above that "While Roma is correct in Italian, Rome is correct in English". But what it appears that we are trying to do here is to substitute one consonant for another and call it "Rose" or "Dome", and that is never going to be correct. If (and I don't know if) a mistake was made at some time in the past, we should careful not to perpetuate it here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the consonant comment: during at least the preludes to WWI (after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand), the UK Foreign Office for unknown reasons called Serbia Servia, which illustrates the problem with substituting consonants. They later abandoned that. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
When Line and apparently Moberg too are aware of the difference and don't consider "Hedwig" to be a mistake, I'm not going to second-guess them. If you can find a source explicitly saying that it is a mistake, I'll gladly change my mind. Huon (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the thing... if the majority of English language sources say someone's name is "John of Calais" - but the majority of French language sources say his name is "Louis de Calais"... Wikipedia's policy is to favor the English language sources. We would title the article John of Calais, and use "John" in most of the running text... However, we should not ignore what the French sources say... it is appropriate to make note of the French name as an alternative - listing it prominently in the opening sentence (as a parenthetical)... something like: "John of Calais (French sources call him Louis de Calais) was...." Doing this accurately presents what the sources say... while favoring the name that most English speakers (our audience) would recognize. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. Your comparison is irrelevant. Here's the thing: this woman (about whom this discussion is supposed to be) is virtually unknown in English literature. One single amateur historian in Finland has managed to get some English text published where he has given her the wrong name, a name that cannot be associated with her in any language. That Finnish student has possibly been influenced by Vilhelm Moberg (I haven't seen that source) who was a rambuctious self-educated (non-academic) political writer particularly well known for his strong opposition to monarchy and for not caring what he called whom. Thus, there are no reliable English sources, whereas not one reliable academic Swedish, German or Finnish source calls this queen Hedwig, all of them know her name was Helwig. There is no English reader recognizability involved whatsoever (yet!). Hedvig is a German and Swedish name, also used in English and then spelled Hedwig at times. That is not this woman's name, has never been never will be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read all this stuff and it seems to me that there is a legitimate dispute as to what this individual's name was, in English. Even if the name in the title is incorrect (and I am not saying it is, because I have no idea), we aren't causing very much harm because there is a page named Helwig of Holstein. It is a redirect to this page, so anyone searching on Helwig will get to this article, which mentions the name Helwig in the first sentence. Now please note, this would not be "good enough" if it were clear that Helwig is the correct name... but there isn't. So it's good enough. Neutron (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment It is clear though, so I don't know where your opinion on that came from. Not one reliable academic Swedish, German or Finnish source calls this queen Hedwig, all of them know her name was Helwig, and those are two different names, not spelling variations or translations. English sources are at a severe minimum, and not one of the ones that calls her Hedwig, among the very small amount that exists at all that call her anything, is reliable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be moved to the correct name. Wikipedia should be a medium of knowledge and information, not of mistakes in naming, or that a majority of persons believe something. That she for some time,as an error, was refered to as Hedvig can be explained in the article, but is should not be used as consensus for the title of the article. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Summoned by the bot, from reading the discussion above it looks to me that discussion its warranted on the topic. I would argue that we should be cautious about changing the title if we only use the evidence at present. We need more otherwise I would argue this becomes original research. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support rigidly enforcing Wikipedia policy largely because I rarely do what some random person on the internet told me to do and apparently I am not allowed to comment. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, this is about Queen Helvig of Sweden, not about you. Just a friendly reminder. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, this is about following Wikipedia policy. Just a friendly reminder. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Hedwig per WP:COMMONNAME and reasons stated at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#When consensus screws thing up real bad. Hedwig seems to be the most common name in English and is also used in some sources in other languages including German and Swedish. She married Magnus Ladulås and the Google search Hedwig Ladulås finds many sources about her. This is the English Wikipedia. Lots of people are called different things in different languages. We generally use their English names. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it really too much trouble for those of you who want to state an opinion on this subject to actually dig up some real, good scholarly sources before making up your mind? Indiscriminate Google searches and random amateurish genealogy sites are of no use whatsoever. Only then is it possible to have a serious discussion of the merits of each form of the name. --Hegvald (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Not one such source in Swedish or German calls her Hedvig or Hedwig and I challenge anyone to show that even one such English source does. Citing something as banal as "Hedwig Ladulås" - faked surname and all! - just goes to show how far some of us are willing to grasp to perpetuate and spread a translation error on English Wikipedia, as if it were English Wikipedias's thing to prove such a fake fact as Hedvig being an English version of Helvig. Any educated person, or anyone who cares about educated literature, knows it isn't. Thank Goodness I'm not an old Swedish queen that some of the guys around here would like to name an article Serde Woodzing for. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Learn to use a search engine. Hedwig Ladulås did not have quotation marks. It is meant to find hits on the right Hedwig. Presense of the rare name Ladulås on the same page (obviously when referring to her husband) gives a high probability of that, for example the book Kingship and State Formation in Sweden: 1130 - 1290.[2] The German book Die schwedische Monarchie - Von den Vikingerherrschern zu den modernen Monarchen also calls her Hedwig.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
So you found 2 more errors where she's called "Hedwig" - bravo! As compared to all the knowlegeable academic sources that know that that was not her name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to congratulate me. It's trivial to find examples by clicking in my search. Here is the Royal Genealogy Database at the University of Hull: [4]. Here is an 1876 Dutch book so Hedwig certainly isn't a new English invention: Christina, koningin van Zweden, haar hof en haar tijd.[5] And as mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#When consensus screws thing up real bad, [6] is a Swedish folder with the same text in Swedish and English, where Swedish says Helvig and English (below the child photo) says Hedwig. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
While I appreciate any new sources on this topic, trying to convince SergeWoodzing on that basis is useless because any source that disagrees with his position can hardly be considered reliable. Huon (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am so sorry, dear Huon, that I am not able to live up to your behavioral requirements, but to me it's simply impossible to consider any source "reliable" which calls her Hedwig or Hedvig, simply because that was not her name in German, Swedish, English or any other language, just like your name is not Heon or Huin. Perhaps my kind of common sense is intolerable to you, but I hope you can try somehow to find it in your heart to forgive me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Your argument has no common-sense basis.

You: "No reliable sources say x, so it clearly is incorrect."
Others: "Here are numerous reliable sources that say x."
You: "But x clearly is incorrect, so this only proves that those sources aren't reliable."

Your reasoning is patently circular and amounts to nothing more than an uncorroborated declaration that anything contradicting your position is self-evidently wrong. And you've even gone so far as to demand that editors refrain from responding, except to acknowledge that "fact" and assist you in "fixing this very embarrassing mess". —David Levy 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot consider any source "reliable" which calls Queen Helvig "Hedvig", because "Hedvig" is a translation error and "Hedvig" was not her name. I have a right to be unable to consider such sources reliable, because I know, even if you are not at all interested in that knowledge, that her name was Helvig, not Hedvig, just like your name is David not Dakid, Levy not Lavy. You may not respect my opinion, as I respect yours, but that is your option. I have not prohibited anyone from doing anything. I have asked that we dicuss the fact that Helvig and Hedvig are two different names, and what can be done about that problem. That request of mine has been throroughy crapped upon my most of you in a saddeningly disrespectful manner. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot consider any source "reliable" which calls Queen Helvig "Hedvig", because "Hedvig" is a translation error and "Hedvig" was not her name.
I understand your position. Do you understand that Wikipedia's factual claims mustn't be based on its editors' original thoughts regarding what's true?
As you know, we turn to reliable sources for guidance. Apparently, on this particular subject, you want us to define "reliable sources" as "sources agreeing with SergeWoodzing". By your logic, it's literally impossible to cite a reliable source that contradicts your claim, given that any sources contradicting your claim are to be deemed unreliable. It's circular reasoning that defeats the purpose of consulting outside sources in the first place, effectively replacing our relevant policies with one to simply accept your beliefs as factually accurate.
I have a right to be unable to consider such sources reliable,
Indeed, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you expect deference, you're likely to be disappointed.
because I know, even if you are not at all interested in that knowledge, that her name was Helvig, not Hedvig,
"But I know the truth!"
just like your name is David not Dakid, Levy not Lavy.
Do reliable sources assert that my name is "Dakid Lavy"?
You may not respect my opinion,
To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth again:
"That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability."
I respect your opinion that "Hedwig" is incorrect. Do you respect Wikipedia's policy of not basing the encyclopedia's factual claims on its editors' opinions?
I have not prohibited anyone from doing anything.
I didn't use the word "prohibit". You simply demanded that we "please respond to the fact that her name was Helwig, not Hedwig, or please do not respond (irrelevantly) at all!". You also demanded that editors who "support Wikipedia intentionally naming biographies with false names because of policy" (a straw man) "please abstain from commenting!".
I have asked that we dicuss the fact that Helvig and Hedvig are two different names, and what can be done about that problem.
And anyone who disagrees that such a "problem" exists obviously is wrong and should go away.
That request of mine has been throroughy crapped upon my most of you in a saddeningly disrespectful manner.
You seem to regard disagreement with you as disrespect. If our feedback seems dismissive, I'll remind you that you've asked us to "abstain from commenting!". —David Levy 14:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
PS This article begins with "Hedwig of Holstein (Swedish: Helvig, German: Helwig) ..." meaning that "Hedwig" is English for "Helvig". That is (and will remain) unsourced, is completely inaccurate and as such effects Wikipedia's reputation. One would have imagined that more than 2-3 of you would be interested in correcting that inaccuracy, somehow, someday, somewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"Hedwig of Holstein (Swedish: Helvig, German: Helwig) ..." means the article is about a specific woman commonly called Hedwig in English, Helvig in Swedish and Helwig in German (multiple names have actually been used about her in all three languages). It doesn't imply that everybody called Helvig in Swedish should be called Hedwig in English. And the stated name "Hedwig of Holstein" is sourced. I know you automatically dismiss any source as unreliable if it doesn't agree with your belief about The Truth, but the source satisfies Wikipedia's normal requirements, and so do other sources we could have used but we don't place a bunch of sources on the same statement. of/av/von is also different in the languages. If you want to say "(Swedish: Helvig av Holstein, German: Helwig von Holstein)" to clarify that it is names for this specific Holstein woman then that would be OK by me. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have asked that we dicuss the fact that Helvig and Hedvig are two different names, and what can be done about that problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And if an editor disagrees that the article's current title is problematic, what should he/she do? —David Levy 19:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Tl;dr. One editor thinks he knows more about Hedwig and how to spell her name. He has been refuted by multiple sources, and has no other editors agreeing with him. He continues to beat a dead horse. What should we do about it? Ignore this editor as the consensus is obvious and move on to more productive things. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed not at all alone. It's easy to breeze in and comment ignorantly without having read a discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming. This RFC is poorly composed, because it doesn't ask a question, but whether to rename the article has already been discussed and discussed. The OP has the right to provide a redirect for what he thinks is the correct form, but the primary name is that of English sources, even if the English sources are a great wrong that needs righting. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I came here to read the discussion about the issue and offer an opinion about the renaming question, but the behavior of the original poster has seriously discouraged me. The opponents are trying to discuss; SergeWoodzing is trying to fight. Oppose renaming, without prejudice to reconsideration if someone is willing to discuss sources and not call names. If there is a real discussion, feel free to call me back, but this is, at least from one side, just a brawl. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm so sorry GRuban, sincerely, that you are that disappointed in me and find fault with me alone in this. I have to blame my fatigue and extreme frustration/impatience. Look at the length of the discussion 5 years ago! And look at all this here this time. All I'd like, and 4-5 others here who agree with me, is that this article be given the name that this queen actually definitely had, not a name that she absolutely did not have. And all I wanted discussed was anything constructive that might be able to be done to that end, primarily citing WP:Common sense, foolishly cited my me, I see now, since I've come to realise that though it's one of WP's most importiant rules, it is also virtually ignored by a vast majorty of ya'll. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Look, the English language has been known to do horrible things to names. Confucius, for example. Our article explains that his name was Kong Qiu, and Confucius is a corruption of gluing together his name Kong with his honorary title Fuzi. Despite that, Confucius is the title we use, because it's the common name; even though it's wrong. I was born in a city named Moskva, but the article for it is named Moscow, because the adjective form was Moskov, and because the English got it from the Germans who write "w" when they say "v", even though the English now read it as if it were pronounced "w". The Russian language doesn't even have a "w" sound! But it's the common name in English, and isn't going to change. Hedvig/Hedwig/Helvig, however, still has a chance, specifically because there aren't nearly as many sources writing about it as either of those, so maybe we can change it. I don't know. Maybe not, since after all, it's been a long time, and we don't actually have an audio tape of the lady saying her own name, do we? Cite your sources, the ones in English are important, but the ones in other languages that are commonly recognized as the definitive sources on this lady are also important ... but for the love of Jimbo, be nice. Please. Recognize that the people who don't agree with you are neither evil nor stupid nor anything else except other volunteer editors trying to make this the best encyclopedia they can. Then we can have a fair, polite discussion. Until then, it's not a discussion, it's just noise. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming as the unfortunate truth is that the English version ("Hedwig") dominates sources found in searching websites in English, including book searches. The Swedish "Helvig" and its variants come in far lower on book results. Ought we rewrite all the books to conform with a "correct name"? We can't. Collect (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hedwig and Helwig are two different names[edit]

Most Swedish and German sources knowledgeably call this Swedish queen Helwig. Some English sources also do (she is not widely known in English at all), whereas a few English sources call her Hedwig, which I believe is a translation error or typo which has spread and which WP is helping to spread further. Can anything be done about that in regard to this article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Sooo much bad feeling and personal stuff in all this - impossible to get past those who want to stop/hinder the discussion from doing anything constructive about the real problem, hopeless - I give up! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course something can be done. For example, a reliable source could be presented that the spelling "Hedwig", which is the more prevalent one in English, is in fact due to a translation error. In the absence of anything new compared to the RfC immediately above, which is still open, this one should be speedily closed. Huon (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The few of us who were interested in fixing this will have to wait until some academic English newspaper or book publishes something amounting to "that the spelling "Hedwig" is due to a translation error", to satisfy Huon & friends. (This of course if never going to happen because the subject isn't important enough for English academics to deal with at all, and never will be.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy close RfC. No reason to create a second RfC about one letter. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
At this point, it's become difficult to assume good faith on SergeWoodzing's part. I want to believe that he simply isn't getting the point, but given his level of experience as a Wikipedia editor, the creation of a second RfC on exactly the same topic makes this seem more like outright trolling. —David Levy 13:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Trolling, disruption, incompetence, it is probably one of these 3 and none of them should allow for two RfC's on the same page about the same thing. This should be closed immediately. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Name-calling, bullying, nastiness. Not for me. Bye bye! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If and when you decide to pursue a discussion on this matter in which agreement with you isn't a prerequisite, I'll see you then. In the meantime, bye! —David Levy 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to translate Helvig into Hedvig? Ignorant, rude and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyLordEdit (talkcontribs) 08:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the English Wikipedia, MightyLordEdit! Thanks for using your mobile device to perform your first site edit (the above talk page post). I see that you previously used your mobile device to edit the Swedish Wikipedia's Birgit Ridderstedt article (edited by SergeWoodzing immediately before you) on the very same day that SergeWoodzing edited the Hans Ridderstedt article to add a photograph of him with his sister-in-law, Birgit Ridderstedt. Given your coincidental alignment in interests, perhaps SergeWoodzing can take you under his wing. —David Levy 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
??? Relevance? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm welcoming our new friend. Aren't you eager to show him/her the ropes? —David Levy 11:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess we now have to go through all of Levy's edit's and those of his cohorts in this discussion to see how many alignments of interest there are among them (is that what's called stalking?). Or else we could stick to the subject of this discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess we now have to go through all of Levy's edit's and those of his cohorts in this discussion
Yes, editors who disagree with you are "cohorts".
to see how many alignments of interest there are among them
You're more than welcome to. If you happen to notice a user whose participation is limited to highly specific subject areas in which I'm active simultaneously and whose first English Wikipedia edit was to express agreement with me on an obscure talk page, please let me know. I'd love to offer my mentorship and invite him/her to join my band of cohorts.
(is that what's called stalking?)
The tool is called "global user contributions", but it's still in the beta stage, so there might still be time for you to suggest that it be renamed "stalking". —David Levy 11:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
On November 26th 2014, 35 people, including Graham Tainton, Gunvor Pontén, Mattias Klum's wife and mother (Ridderstedt's surviving sister) and one of Nils Bolander's granddaughters, attended a centenary celebration of the life of Birgit Ridderstedt at Stockholm's Lillienhoff Palace, as documented in an extensive album on Facebook. Apparently, a week later, one of those guests using an alias edited Swedish Wikipedia's article about her to add the names of her sons. The day before that, because there already were articles about 2 of his brothers in the Swedish clergy, a new article had been created by me on Swedish Wikipedia about Ms. Ridderstedt's brother-in-law Rev. Hans G. Ridderstedt to which I added a photo originating in the FamSAC archives, showing him officiating at another brother's funeral in one of Stockholm's major churches. How any of that ended up being mentioned on this page is beyond me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how you know that MightyLordEdit attended the celebration. Well, no matter. He/she somehow ended up here with us, so let's welcome him/her.
Hi, MightyLordEdit! I hope that you enjoy editing the English Wikipedia. If you ever decide to become active outside SergeWoodzing's areas of expertise, feel free to request advice on my talk page. —David Levy 11:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I am currently in Stockholm, several of my friends were there on Nov 26th, I checked today, and I know that at least 3 of the other guests contribute to WP from time to time, usually from IPs. The Swedish Birgit Ridderstedt article was discusssed at the event, and comments were made about her sons' names not being mentioned, though those of two brothers-in-law were.
Now, how is any of this going to benefit this article? You sarcasm, familiarity and ridicule are very effective in derailing the actual talk here, and I can only suppose that that's exactly what you want, and that you have friends who just love it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I am currently in Stockholm, several of my friends were there on Nov 26th, I checked today, and I know that at least 3 of the other guests contribute to WP from time to time, usually from IPs. The Swedish Birgit Ridderstedt article was discusssed at the event, and comments were made about her sons' names not being mentioned, though those of two brothers-in-law were.
And then MightyLordEdit just happened to bump into you here. It's a small world!
Now, how is any of this going to benefit this article?
I'm sure that MightyLordEdit has a great deal to contribute on the subject.
You sarcasm, familiarity and ridicule are very effective in derailing the actual talk here,
I don't know what you mean, Serge. I've gone out of my way to welcome the kindred spirit whose account had never been used to edit the English Wikipedia until he/she stumbled upon this obscure talk page and expressed agreement with you. Welcome, MightyLordEdit!
and I can only suppose that that's exactly what you want,
Not at all. Though I was under the impression that you'd withdrawn from the discussion. Last I saw, you were seeking advice on where to complain about the "bullying" (i.e. blatant disregard for your instruction that only editors who agree with you participate in the RfC).
and that you have friends who just love it.
I have some friends who edit Wikipedia, but they probably haven't visited this page (and they certainly haven't edited it). —David Levy 17:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Lots of people check on what I'm doing on WP and are often amazed at the way some of us behave. My bumping into MLE is your own little destructive invention, par for the course in your extremely voluminous and successful, sarcastic and bullying stivings to poison this debate beyond repair with decimeters of irrelevant garbage. I hope someone else you've insulted and crapped on like this uses all that against you. I'm so sick of you that I'll do my damndest to steer clear. One more opponent you've crushed like a cockroach under your nasty little shoe - grattis! (Watch, folks: lots more greenies and meanies to come, I'm sure!). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from interweaving your replies with mine, thereby orphaning portions of my messages from my signature and timestamps. (I just repaired such damage for the second time.) Thanks! —David Levy 11:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear MightyLordEdit: please don't. You don't need to learn to behave like Levy (see my comments just above) to contribute here. I've learned that, and 70% of the time I do quite well anyway, sticking to the sibject, trying to be nice (though it's hard at times) and making valuable contributions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's just a shame that those stubborn obstructionists have the audacity to disagree with you, even after you've explicitly told them not to. —David Levy 17:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
David, it seems like it might be time to just ignore SergeWoodzing/MightyLordEdit they are not here to improve the encyclopedia and are simply wasting our time. If they try to make a change that is not supported by consensus the standard policies of the encyclopedia will take effect. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is quite clear that in Swedish, Hedwig and Helwig are two different names. However, in English, they are regarded as interchangeable, and Helwig is frequently transliterated as Hedwig. Bluap (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This attempted discussion has now been poisoned with irrelevant chatter and is beyond repair. In parting: "in Swedish, Hedwig and Helwig are two different names. However, in English, they are regarded as interchangeable,[according to whom?] and Helwig is frequently transliterated as Hedwig." is complete hogwash, just another POV invention to support nonsense. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bye again, Serge! —David Levy 11:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Remember that english wikipedia is only a language variety in english, which is not the same as a being a wikipedia for english, northamerican australian people etc, nations that use english as mother language. If theres is a tradition in UK and USA to translate Helvig to Hedvig, this doent mean that this tradition is shared by all chinese, or alla Asians, Africans, and Southamerican people that use the english language and the

Instead of fighting and insulting other users and persons, I cant see why the article was not moved to the proper name, so the incorrect name, could have a redirect to Helvig, and there readers could read about this misunderstanding that her name was Hedvig, which it wasnt, and probably never will be. Then we enlighten people, and they learn something new, rather than when the ignorant, who want to repeat errors, teach new generation an error. From that point of view, I suggest that 1. changing the name to Helvig of Holstein, 2. redirect Hedwig of Holstein and 3. tell about the reason and background for this, on the proper name article. To end those discussions is easy, if prestige is not setting the conditions, but willing to cooperation. A mistake, or an error, doesnt become true, jsut becasue a people have repeated it for hundreds of years.And wikipedia, as a trustworthy encycklopedia, doesnt win anuthing when it continue to spread old errors, but it for sure gain in quality if past errors are explained and corrected. ? So, a little bit of mutual understanding and compromizing would make the article better. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand why editors who disagree that Hedwig of Holstein is "the incorrect name" oppose moving the article and inserting such a claim?
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs. —David Levy 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Finnish ethnologist/linguist/historian Kustaa Vilkuna would apparently disagree with the statement heading this section. Then again, that itself would make him unreliable, wouldn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)