Talk:Magnus Stenbock

Translation from Swedish Wikipedia

I have now translated the entire Swedish article "Magnus Stenbock", of which I am its main writer. There might be some phrasing and grammar errors here and there. —Alexander Alejandro (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alexander Alejandro: a few comments and things I was unsure about as I go through the article. I'll add more as I go though. From "1680-1688":

• I removed pilgrimage, which I would take to have strong religious conotations in modern English: I don't get the feel that Stenbock's journey was particularly religiously inspired?
• I also removed "perigrination" since, whilst I think it's a lovely word, it's perhaps a bit archaic.
• Just to check the translation: did Stenbock really study wood turning?

Wham2001 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

From "Marriage and family":

• ...Stenbock received the portrait of Eva by her brother Bengt - "by" here would imply that Bengt was the artist. I have changed the word to "from", which implies that he was just the courier, but please change it back if the original meaning was correct!
• particularly for Queen Ulrika Eleonora - not sure what this fragment means.
• became the eldest between the siblings - I don't understand this either.

Wham2001 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wham2001: Let's see:

* I removed pilgrimage, which I would take to have strong religious conotations in modern English: I don't get the feel that Stenbock's journey was particularly religiously inspired? & * I also removed "perigrination" since, whilst I think it's a lovely word, it's perhaps a bit archaic.

As you point out this was strictly a educational journey for Stenbock, not for religious purposes, so pilgrimage was the wrong word. I used "perigrination" because according to the SAOB, "perigrination" means "study trip; stay abroad; study abroad."

* Just to check the translation: did Stenbock really study wood turning?

Not specifically woodturning, just manual turning. He used a lathe to create fine craft (Like this one, made of ivory and ebony) and jewelry. He was not only a painter, but also an artisan.

*...Stenbock received the portrait of Eva by her brother Bengt - "by" here would imply that Bengt was the artist. I have changed the word to "from", which implies that he was just the courier, but please change it back if the original meaning was correct!

You're correct! Stenbock was the artist, Bengt was the courier.

*particularly for Queen Ulrika Eleonora - not sure what this fragment means.

Correction: "Stenbock became a favorite of Charles XI and of Queen Ulrika Eleonora in particular".

*became the eldest between the siblings - I don't understand this either.

This is badly formulated on my part, what I meant was that Eva Charlotta was the longest-living of Magnus Stenbock's children.

Hope this answers your comments and questions.—Alexander Alejandro (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, thank-you; I've made some small updates to the article to reflect what you say above. I had no idea that turning was part of the educated gentleman's education in the 1600s! Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alexander Alejandro: I'm happy to be looking at this again. A few notes:

• I changed "Berlin" to "Frankfurt" in the Regimental commander section: could you check?
• I replaced avant-garde with advance guard since the French term has largely lost its original military meaning in modern English.
• In Campaign in Poland, I changed "broke up" to "broke camp"; the former would imply that they divided into smaller units, but the latter that they moved off as a single unit. I think that's what you meant from context?
• In Director of the General War Commissariat, what are universals? I suspect this is a piece of military terminology that I don't know, and we don't seem to have an article about it.
• I changed usurped his own coffins to filled his own coffers; i.e. that he took the silver for himself.

Hopefully some more later. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

One more question:

• In Governor-General of Scania: debilitating (causing weakness) doesn't seem correct in context.

It's very strange to read about encamped armies, artillery shelling and fierce fighting in places I know only as sleepy sea-side villages today. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reached the end of the article without any further questions: it's an impressive achievement in the level of detail and completeness. Thank-you very much for writing and translating it!

I had one suggestion that you might want to consider. In the text about the burning of Altona, you imply that Stenbock felt that his hand had been forced by Vellingk. I would be interested to know (so I guess that other readers might be too!) whether modern historians had come to a conclusion about how culpable Stenbock was.

Are you planning to take the article to GA? Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the big help @Wham2001:! I'll gladly answer your questions:

In the Regimental commander section, it needs to be changed back to Berlin since that city is cited on my source (Marklund).

Yes, "broke camp" is the correct term.

Regarding universals, its a word I took from one of my Swedish sources which basically means a wide-spread proclamation. I think the correct word here should simply be proclamation.

Yeah I see that debilitating is actually the opposite term in this context, the correct term should be curative or medicinal.

I understand that I use unfamiliar terms and sentences in this article. Not only because English is my second language, but I tend to use the same vocabulary as the authors of my sources do.

Regarding the Burning of Altona, and which I also emphasize in the Legacy section, Stenbock was regarded as a war criminal both in Poland and in Schleswig-Holstein for his actions. But thanks to his defensive statements he wrote before and during his captivity, and he was a quite talanted writer, he managed to mostly defend his actions and put the blame on Vellingk (Stenbock still ordered his men to burn down the city). Interestingly enough, in Cambridge Modern History: The Age of Louis XIV (1908) the author highlights Stenbock's victories at Helsingborg and Gadebusch as his most convincing achivements, but point out that he also acted with "wanton barbarity, destroying the defenceless city of Altona". And still, both Swedish and Danish historians often highlight his achievents on the battlefield, rather than his war crimes. The latest biographies of Stenbock from 2007 and 2008 has a more unbiased view of Stenbock's character and his actions. Stenbock often lost his grip on the events since the long war became increasingly brutalized and he was keen to follow the orders of his King and his commanding officers by using more violence than necessary, although being immediately regretful for some of his actions, such as Altona's destruction, which heavily damaged his reputation.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I will place my article on GA as soon its ready. Wish you all the best!—Alexander Alejandro (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for the notes; I've made the changes that you suggest. I should say that I think that the language you've used is very clear; I've asked about all the terms I didn't know, and I have only a very slight knowledge of military history. Most of the changes I made were minor style points. What you say about Stenbock's reputation makes sense – I guess harsh adversity and the pressure of events can cause even capable leaders to do terrible things.

Best of luck at GAN! Wham2001 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thanks again!—Alexander Alejandro (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnus Stenbock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some spelling errors corrected

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Some changes made to the references to suppress warnings

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Quite a lot of images for an 18th century article

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All looks good.

Passing article. Regret that it has taken so long to get reviewed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)