Category talk:Burial mounds in Sweden

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Royal graves[edit]

All reputable historians are in agreement that most or all of these are graves of ancient royalty though it is not possible to identify the persons buried there. They are located in Sweden. Thus they are indeed Graves of Swedish Royalty - restored the category. Please do not make arbitrary changes based on ideology, in any case without discussing them. EmilEikS (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty is quite arbitrary for these mounds. It would be like labeling Sutton Hoo as Category:Graves of English Royalty, and that is a case where we know the date and the contents of Sutton Hoo. Many of the Swedish mounds have not been excavated, and results have not been unambigious. Some mounds were empty. Dates have ranged from Bronze Age to Iron Age. It is not known what position the deceased held - maybe prehistoric pop stars (skald), maybe religious leaders (shaman). A lot of Swedish archeology used to serve the ideological stance that these mounds showed that Sweden was a Royal Realm from time immemorial, but modern scholars do not know as much as there predecessors used to do. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
All reputable historians are in agreement that most or all of these are graves of ancient royalty, such as "royalty" is commonly defined in the English language. There is nothing artitrary about that. Most Englishmen are proud of even their most ancient past. Your well-known and self-advertized ideology enters into your WP actions and discussions regarding Swedish history, in spite of the contrary and educated opinions of legitimate historians and archaeologists (you are a Dutch physicist, I believe). Many of us would like you to stop that so that neutrality and objectivity can be preserved here as well as we all can, working together, not against each other. Glasnost! Please, sir! EmilEikS (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
To this Mr. Kuiper did not reply - he just reverted the edit again as he pleases. Am I feeding a Troll here? EmilEikS (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove relevant categories (graves of royalty). EmilEikS (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like two other users are cooperating today and reverting some edits a bit too often, without discussion amd just to get their way. The royal grave category will be restored in due course, and without my falling into any edit war traps all by my lonesome. It will then continue to be restored every 24 hours until those mischievous users follow the rules and use this discussion page. EmilEikS (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I copied the discussion below to this page, since you keep saying that there has been no discussion. --Zejo (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Completely inappropriate ("Håkanstenen och kungahögar" below next entry) - hardly at all about this page - and in Swedish which is of no use to a majority of Commons users for consensus, which is why we discuss. English is the established language of Commons so that all users can participate in discussions. That (below) was my attempt to discuss this with you constructively in your own language, all of which you ignored completely. Now you seem to have started a personal vendetta. Very sad! EmilEikS (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think there is a personal vendetta? I haven't said anything about you personally. I just think you are wrong, partly in your views about Swedish pre-history, but above all in the way you are using categories at Wikimedia Commons.--Zejo (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Revenge editing = personal vendetta (personal by you, on a whim, not necessarily toward me). Perfectly clear above. Your usage of this project is not appropriate when you behave like that. Like a grumpy sandbox reaction, not a collaborative effort. It is what benefits the project that counts, toward a public at large, not how you feel about any imagined personal agreement you may have had (actually didn't have this time) with me. Believe it or not, I am trying to help you understand. Som sagt var: very sad! EmilEikS (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, since we are no longer discussing the subject of this page.--Zejo (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Motive in editing is part of it, but in a larger sense and spirit you are right. Very appreciative of your kind reply on the other page. Let's let bygones be that. EmilEikS (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are mounds in the US "Graves of American Royalty"[edit]

Silly question. Just as silly as saying the the Iron Age mound (or Bronze Age - who knows?) a kilometer from here is the grave of "Swedish Royalty". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. EmilEikS (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not an answer. Is any other category in Category:Tumuli by country listed as "Graves of royalty]]? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question is completely irrelevant. How coincidental is it that you and user Zejo both made changes to these pages at exactly 06.43 this morning? Are you using each other's accounts now? You should both stop trolling, as all such unsourced, opinionated mischief as this is called, I believe. Reinstating the factual material. EmilEikS (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many earth mounds in the world, and there is a high concentration in Scandinavia. They cannot be linked to any name or office holder in any way. How high does a mound need to be for EmilEiks to say that a king was buried there? Ten meters? Five meters? Two meters? EmilEiks should stop his edit war. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who is edit warring and repeating irrelevant sarcasm over and over. My opinion is totally irrelevant here, so I wish you would stop ridiculing me personally time and time again. Please join me in going by the merited experts: what they think is what counts here, not my opinion, not yours, not Zelo's. Why do you wish to ignore them and impose your personal views on these matters? EmilEikS (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Håkanstenen och kungahögar (Copied from User talk:Zejo)[edit]

Jag återställer med bästa välmening kategoriseringen av gravhögarna och Håkansstenen som kungliga gravar resp monument och ber dig svara på deras diskussionssidor om du är missnöjd med det. Fast man inte vet med säkerhet vilka personer som ligger i högarna är nog en stor majoritet forskare och historiker överens om att högarna rör sig om kungliga gravar och (exempelvis Lars O. Lagerqvist) att Håkansstenen är vår första inhemska regentkälla. mvh EmilEikS (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Angående Category:Burial mounds in Sweden: Anser du att alla svenska gravhögar per definition är resta över svenska kungligheter? Angående File:Hovgarden runsten 2008a.JPG: Bilden föreställer en runsten och ingenting annat. Det är heller inget cenotafium (minnesgravvård). --Zejo (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hej igen Zejo!
Fråga 1: "alla svenska gravhögar per definition är resta över svenska kungligheter" nej det har jag aldrig påstått - se diskussionssidan där och bidra gärna om du vill! Jag anser absolut ingenting, går i mina uppfattningar bara efter vad experter har publicerat.
Fråga 2: Jag stödjer min uppfattning på ett stort antal experters utlåtanden om texten på stenen. Se bland andra Lagerqvist & Åberg i "Litet Lexikon över Sveriges Regenter" s. 11 samt [detta] på sv WP. Kenotaf på svenska har en snävare betydelse (som skengrav endast) än engelskans cenotaf - se här.
mvh EmilEikS (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
1. I så fall ska inte Category:Burial mounds in Sweden ligga under Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty. Du får placera in bilderna av de gravhögar som säkert innehåller svenska kungligheter i denna kategori separat. Det torde vara få.
2. Om man läser texten på stenen kan den inte heller enligt den vidare engelska definitionen sägas vara en "cenotaph of Swedish royalty". De övriga två kategorierna tycker jag har en väldigt svag koppling till vad bilden faktiskt föreställer. --Zejo (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Vad menar du med "ska" och "får" - vill du tvinga fram din åsikt? Puckla på mig den med klubba liksom? Jag bara frågar, förvånad som jag blir att du tar i så hårt här. Det enda vi vet "säkert" du och jag, i vår ej så utopiskt säkerställningsbara värld, och det av experterna, är att de flesta högarna anses ha rests som gravar och över kungligheter i engelskans mening av "royalty" - det får du - ska du - kan du väl nöja dig med? Om några bilder slinker med (bland den majoriteten) på högar som har tömts/plundrats eller innehåller icke-kungliga stoft (fast vi inget vet), så brukar sådant gå bra på Commons för den större nyttans skull. Vi vet ju inte säkert, som du själv skriver. Behöver jag citera ur den engelska artikeln Cenotaph (som överensstämmer med mina 5 ordböcker och Encyclopaedia Britannica) - "a monument erected in honor of a person or group of persons whose remains are elsewhere" eller kunde du ha varit vänlig och läst texten själv? Jag tog fram den för din skull. Stenens text har tolkats enligt uppgifterna jag sände dig om den. Läste du dem? Det kanske inte är så viktigt, gode Zejo, vad du tycker om det här (om du ursäktar att jag skriver så), utan vad experterna har kommit fram till och publicerat i vederhäftiga källor, bland vilka du fått 2 goda av mig här ovan. Du vet ju inte alls "vad bilden faktiskt föreställer". Inte jag heller. Vi får lita på andras tolkningar, om de är sakliga och väl underbyggda. EmilEikS (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Det kanske kunde vara en bra idé att skapa en ny kategori Category:Burial mounds of Swedish royalty som en underkategori till Category:Burial mounds in Sweden och Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty. Där kan man placera de högar som innehåller kungligheter. Vad gäller texten på stenen kan jag inte se att den innehåller någon hyllning till den förmodade kung Håkon. Beträffande bilden, vet vi att den föreställer en runsten, stående vid Hovgården på Adelsö.--Zejo (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Jag får hänvisa dig för tredje gången, dock vänligen igen, till experternas tolkning av runstenens text. Det finns ingen saklig anledning att ignorera den i detta sammanhang. Och så fär jag upprepa (se även diskussionssidan), vänligen igen, angående din principiellt goda idé, att jag inte tror vi kan genomföra något sådant eftersom vi inte vet med säkerhet vem som ligger i varje hög, eller i någon hög för den delen, helt säkert. Det finns endast sakliga akademiskt underbyggda konstateranden om gravarten och framlidna samhällsrangen av begravda stoft, och dessa pekar i stort sett enhälligt i den riktningen jag försökt gå här, nämligen att det är säkrast att sortera alla dessa stora högar i de kategorier som en svensk IP och jag skapat och utvecklat i veckan. Jag hoppas du sett tillägget i texten på sidan Category:Graves of Swedish Royalty som kom till tack vare dina inlägg. mvh EmilEikS (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Write lock[edit]

Abigor, why did you restore and put write lock on the category? I thought a compromise was reached? --Zejo (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
If you can tell me what is agreed I will restore it in that state.. I can't read the language you are writing in.
I'm sorry for my late responds.
Huib talk 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The compromise is not on this page but here in that I tried an intro text adjustment and "Also see:" link solution there that Zejo found good :-). I feel Abigor's action was appropriate however, since there is nothing wrong in restoring the graves category to this page. It does not disrupt the project in any way. Thx EmilEikS (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: The "Also see:" link from the graves page to this one plus the subcategory leading here may be a bit much, though. EmilEikS (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
PS2: I am going to remove the grave subcat after all. Everyone will be happy (I hope) and there will be no link dupe. EmilEikS (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
PS3: Woops! forgot about the block. Will you do that for us please? If the graves cat page gets screwed up we'll need more help. Maybe that one sb blocked? EmilEikS (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to start with thanking you guys for your patiënce. I looked at the history and I saw a editwar. I looked at the talkpage with google translate and I could really find that your found a answer to stop this editwar so I protected it.

I removed the protection now, and I would like to ask you all to come to my talkpage if it would end up in a editwar again, so we can react on it pretty fast.

thank you all for your good work :) Huib talk 19:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Zejo: you fed the troll here, your mr. kuiper as you call him, and look what happened here. He got vind i seglen and there went our compromise. EmilEikS (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "I fed the troll"? Am I responsible for what he is doing in some way? --Zejo (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Feeding troll" means encouraging troublemakers by acknowledging them. I do, much too often, I'm sorry to say. Here, I think you did, in fact, though I'm sure you didn't mean for this to happen...? EmilEikS (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
PS - I'm going to bow out for a while, maybe a few hours, maybe a few months, maybe permanently. Sick of all this now. EmilEikS (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I get sick at it at times too. But I think I'm beginning to learn how to keep a distance and not get too emotionally involved. --Zejo (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)