Talk:Anna Vasa of Sweden

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The title is wrong. There was no such thing a Princess of Finland- Finland was a part of Sweden, and she was a Swedish Princess.--85.226.235.206 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The title is changed.--Aciram (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an image added to the top of questionable ID: a women with an eagle having down from her neck (no heraldic relevance). The top image has long been associated with this Anna in Poland & her staue was modeled on it. It also closely resembles her grave effigy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added again (with Facebook as reference!) and reverted again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear explanation therein, hence no reason to claim that it is not reliable, just because it's Facebook! What's more there is a another reference to generally accepted source (Nationalmuseum in Stockholm), where the image that you claim to be associated with Anna Vasa, depicts unknown woman. Don't hamper development and obscure reliable sources! Artinpl1 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image which the National Museum does not choose to identify specifically (that's not unusual) is used in several respected books by academics, e.g by Lars W Ericson (p. 318), Dr. Ulf Sundberg (p. 63) and Dr. David Norrman (p. 128h). All the museum has done is decline to identify. That does not mean they have said it is not Anna. A reliable source has still not beem provided for the claim that the b&w with that eagle is her. Where is it from? A genealogy blog? In any case, we are supposed to discuss before we make considerable changes to any article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "Possibly the most accurate effigy bearing a strong resemblance in features to those of her mother." is quite confusing (see images). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Image in books mentioned
• Image in question here
  Image in question here
• 
  Anna's mother
• 
  Anna's stepmother
• 
  Princess Anna is clearly identified on the museum's frame sign at Gripsholm

Clearly you have no reliable knowledge of this at all, hence this aggressive warring, and referring to not up-to-date sources. Most of art historians now agree that is very doubtful that the image that you are trying to force out, is Anna Vasa and depicts an unknown woman, which is also reflected on museum’s website. Young woman dressed according to French/Swedish fashion from 1630s and painted in style of a painter active from 1622 in Sweden (J.H. Elbfas) could not at any point be reliable effigy of this historical figure (residing from 1598 in PLC and died in 1625). Artinpl1 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Facebook is not an acceptable source. As long as Facebook is the only source, that image must be removed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

It is correct that Facebook cannot be a reliable source. An actual editorially controlled or peer-reviewed source would be required once something is challenged for no or poor referencing. If no better source than Facebook can be provided, the challenge succeeds. The

Thank you! I will now remove the black & white image due to the lack of a reliable source and hope that this is settled once and for all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the source to Nationalmuseum was removed? it's not reliable as well? For me this is only the proof how harmful you are with your lack of knowledge on this matter and conservative approach. Artinpl1 (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr source used now is not reliable either. Please do not add the image again unless you can cite a

personal attacks! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published. All sources cited by you are unreliable, unverifiable and not up to date and below is the best summary of your activity here:

• 
  Portrait of unknown woman, called Anna Princess of Sweden (Okänd kvinna kallad Anna prinsessa av Sverige) according to museum website [1]
• 
  Princess Anna according to Lars W Ericson :-) FB is at least verifiable and up to date source in this case (including newest and signed research). artinpl

Artinpl1 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed info in the lead of this article giving Anna as a princess of Poland, not only of Sweden. I have found no source to confirm that she was ever created a princess of Poland. If one can be found, the item can be reinstated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]