Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

There is much duplicated information in the table to the right here. Leave it, or do something about it? -- Jao 00:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I created the House of Bernadotte template to add to the Swedish royals pages, but realised it would look awkward with the tables that are already underneath the images. I suggest maybe incorporating the present info into the introduction paragraph and adding the House template underneath instead? Craigy 02:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Children

Prince Carl Philip was born heir apparent in 1979, however enacted constitutional reform awaiting promulgation created his older sister, Victoria, heir on January 1, 1980, according to the principles of full cognatic primogeniture.

Wow. Am I the only one who finds this very obfuscated?--Lucky13pjn 02:07, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have no clue what that means. Thanx 68.39.174.150 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- In Sweden, any law changing the Laws of Succession must be passed by two different parliaments, separated by a general election. One parliament had already passed the law, and Carl Philip was born before the second parliament could. SO in truth, he was Crown Prince, but only for a short time. I agree that the wording is not the greatest.Prsgoddess187 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture

Why has the picture been changed from the picture with the king in his uniform? --Dahlis 22:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit description "130.235.184.253 (no use in using a copyrighted image when free images exist)". The new picture looks like a mugshot. --Laisak 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly it looks horrible.--Dahlis 07:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal duties and personal interests

"On July 14, 2005 he squeesed the butt of Helena Paparizou when she performed at his daughter's birthday" : wow, now I know why I favour Wikipedia over all other sources of knowledge. It's just so grand, pointing out to the essentials of the subjects it covers. Of course, only royalists would think otherwise. --FvdP 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That part should be removed since thats not exactly what happened, its just republican bullshit. --Dahlis 19:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal ;-) Actually, the note about his car accident seems to stem from the same anti-Carlist (or trivia-loving ?) mobile... I've removed it since it's also quite minor (quote from the 2nd cited source: Both cars were slightly damaged in the accident, but no one was injured [...] Police said the king was not suspected of committing a traffic offence.) --FvdP 18:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was suspected, but they didn't perform a drug test on him since he has royal immunity so it would be pointless. Considering the section is called "Royal duties and personal interests" is is ofcourse trivia, but it's the apropiate place to put it. The entire section is for trivia. // Liftarn

Your second source (link) about the accident opens no room for such speculation. (Your 1st and 3rd sources I can't read: the articles have probably disappeared from free viewing.) And overall, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for such trivia, even in dedicated sections. They have no importance outside of gossip. --FvdP 18:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weel, that second source is wrong. The police decided not to investigate the matter since it was no point in doing so due to his royal immuinity. I see no difference between mention this and his reactions to the culling of baby seals in Norway. I notice it doesn't say anything about that he is fond of hunting moose. // Liftarn

So you are the one adding this republican propaganda? --Dahlis 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn, (1) can you provide any source to support your claims ? (2) I did not delete or propose to delete the sentence stating that Carl XVI was fond of driving cars. So your comparison is irrelevant. --FvdP 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither republican, nor propaganda. Sources are provided in the links for each item. // Liftarn

You are only quoting tabloids and rumors, and you seem to be the only one who thinks this kind of information is relevant. --Thomas 10:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much effort some people seem to put into repressing this type of informastion it simply must be important. // Liftarn

Its important because by adding it it gives the article a clear political standpoint. But since this is only rumors it should not be in the article. (tro inte på allt som står i tidningen!) --Dahlis 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with politics. You claim it's only rumours, other claims it's true. Since I have given the sources it's up to the reader to judge who to trust. // Liftarn

Claiming something is true without having evidence (as the porn club rumors) is just what a Rumor is. Quoting Wikipedia: "A rumor (Commonwealth English: rumour) is a piece of purportedly true information that circulates without substantiating evidence.". Even your original wording was "rumors", not "information". Show us some evidence. thonil 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the article. "US lawyer named him as one of the celebrities that have visited the porn club Gold Club in Atlanta when he visited Atlanta in 1996 with his family for the Olympics.[1][2] One of the women mentioned as his conquests is the news anchor Anna Lindmarker.[3]" Just follow the links, they are the sources (or rather the sources I could find online, it's a "public secret" thet the good king likes women). See Wikipedia:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." // Liftarn

Of the three sources you have given on the accident, two are not working for me and from the third, the event looks of such a minimal signifiance (could happen to anyone who drives a car, brings not a hint of meaningful insight on what kind of person that king is) that the fact it happened to Carl XVI is a non-event and is not worthwhile of inclusion in Wikipedia. --FvdP 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have expired. That often happens with news items, they aren't kept forever. They worked when they were added. It gives an interesting insight on what kind of person that king is. // Liftarn

Your note on Carl "been caught speeding several times" is better, but only marginally so. Who has never been speeding ? If he was caught two times driving 140 km/h on a highway where only 120 km/h were permitted, then again it's no-news. As your source gives no other information on this than that single sentence (!), we can't conclude any signifiance from it. --FvdP 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been caught speeding. Neither has my SO. The fact is that he likes fast cars and driving them fast. If you find a better way to give a source to that than to note that he for instance drives a BMW M3 and have been caught speeding several times. // Liftarn

I see no problem with mentioning his driving a BMW M3. Bit more reserved about speeding. I might be more acceptable if you gave more context. The fact that he likes driving cars fast (if true, of course) is more significant than his being caught speeding. So go for the more significant first. (A side-effect of not doing that, is that passing-by readers can imagine the worst about your intentions...) --FvdP 19:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image replacement

The current image is licenced under fair use, but there is a free equivalent, if a bit uglier. Why is a fair use image used when there is a free image? I'm replacing the image, but earlier when I have replaced fair use images with free images the fair use image has been put back because "it looks better"... What's more important, that the image is free or that it looks good? If so, we could as well steal any image we could find instead... Fair use loses its purpose when it isn't needed to illustrate an article. /Grillo 06:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed now that I had changed the image in this article earlier (I used to have ip 130.235.184.253 before I moved). As I said, if the beauty of the photo counts, we could as well steal any image from anywhere on the web and claim "fair use" for everyone of them. This image serves the purpose of illustrating the person in question. No, it's not the best picture, but isn't it better to have a free image than a copyrighted one, that will probably be deleted in time anyway? And isn't Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, not the "free with a million of exceptions encyclopedia"? /Grillo 06:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "high-profile" article Tony Blair has got this File:Blairconf04.jpg fair use image. Is it needed to illustrate the article? - no! I would argue that this image File:Kinggus.jpg is needed to illustrate the article because it shows his royal status (admiral uniform, decorations...) and I am therefore inserting it into the article again. That the articles have appropriate images is [way more] important than that all images are "free" (what about logos?). 83.252.72.10 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]