Talk:Gustav III

Last comment inserted at the bottom

Why is it confusing to put all dates into the Gregorian calendar after its first adoption in the 16th century? When trying to synchronize events in the Catholic World with those in the Protestant, doesn't it make more sense to just convert everything to the Gregorian calendar? In any event, this strikes me as a "POV" comment. Also, that remark about war and theater is just silly. john 07:58 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

It's confusing to quote a proleptic date without stating it's proleptic. It always makes sense to state the calendar that is being used when there is room for doubt: to silently change a Julian date to a Gregorian date without stating you have done so clearly leads to confusion, as can be seen by searching for Gustav's birthdate on the web. -- Someone else 21:19 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It should be stated which calendar is being used. But there's no need for a rant about it in an article about a King of Sweden, is there? Just change the dates to indicate which calendar is used. john 23:21 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The rant -- an unfair characterization -- is there to prevent people from erroneously "fixing" the date. Again. Do what you like with it. -- Someone else 23:39 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a rant, but perhaps I was unfair. It's more that it seems out of place. Why not just say Born: Such and such (Old style), Such and such (new style). Then nobody can possibly be confused, and you don't need to be snide about people "correcting" dates? And again, should an encyclopedia article about a king of sweden use up a portion of its space talking about, essentially, the incorrect beliefs of other contributors? john 02:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

The correct date is not a belief. And you are also unfair in your assessment of snideness. The dates have been erroneously corrected several times. But with the interpolation of the 1911 material the note on dates is now quite some distance from the dates themselves, and will probably be without effect. Delete it if you like. -- Someone else 02:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, this is getting rather more hostile than I intended. The correct date, of course, is not a "belief". On the other hand, Somebody living in Italy at the time, asking the date of Gustavus III's birth, would be given the new style date. Furthermore, we here in the US celebrate George Washington's birth on February 23. This is the new style date of his birth, despite the fact that he was born before the adoption of the new calendar. Furthermore, in western accounts of Russian history before 1918, it is fairly common (although not universal, of course), to just convert everything to new style dates. So I don't think the issues is as cut and dry as you suggest. But that wasn't really my point. Your note originally mentioned a confusing tendency of "some" to try to "incorrectly correct" dates. But then, above, you indicated that what you meant by some was not "some scholars" or some such, but "some wikipedia contributors", and I don't think that an encyclopedia article should include statements about how other contributors are wrong. I apologize for using the word snide, that was unfair, and I really didn't mean to make this a personal attack. I think that, as is, it should be protected from people "correcting" the date to the Gregorian date. No hard feelings, I hope? john 02:51 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have none. I have changed the markup of the dates to that which has been used in similar circumstances. -- Someone else 02:58 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

I appreciate the work by Mic very much. But here the long quote from Encyclopedia Britanica of 1911 strikes me as allienating and not very neutral in tone. Maybe the 100 years old style is the problem. I'm not used to it, and the oddities hampers my perception?

But it's likely a matter of taste. ...I mean, john above questions the remark, of an earlier version, about "effort in war and theater" which I found almost brilliant: in a few words depicturing an impression which otherwise had demanded dozens of lines to express.

Maybe an editing according to the idea of Most Important Things First would be good?

Ruhrjung 17:45 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The remark about war and theater was clever. But not particularly informative. If the war link had linked to an article about the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790, that would have made sense, but as it was, it was somewhat mystifying. So, it'd be a clever bon mot in an actual work of history, but I don't think it's a good thing for an encyclopedia john 23:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

The following comment was added by anon user 156.34.223.188 who is suspected of vandalism on another page. Please provide an authoritative source for this comment before re-adding it. Rossami 18:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He ordered abolished, in 1772, the Cave of Roses where an array of lizards were kept for the purpuse of torturing criminals.

• It's unlikely he'll find one, for reasons given in my nomination for deletion of that page. (G3 did indeed abolish torture, though this is already mentioned) BTW; I can't see what the current NPOV-tag is for. The person who added it didn't follow the guideline by not giving any reason on this page, much less any specific complaint. I'm removing the tag. --BluePlatypus 19:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He "possessed that charm of manner which was to make him so fascinating and so dangerous in later life". That does not sound like NPOV to me. Kevin Nelson 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing?

A book on Marie Antoinette claims that, oddly, Gustavus III had homosexual tendencies. Why is this taken into little if any note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.218.59 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that is somewhat controversial: He is often claimed to be homosexual or bisexual, both then and now, but this has never been proven. It is more peaseful to leave it at that I suppose. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In his biography of the king "Den stora rollen" in 1986 Prof. Erik Lönnroth wrote that there are no factual grounds of any kind for any suggestion that Gustav III had homosexual desires or tendencies. And nothing that might conflict with that conclusion has been published since. 217.209.96.89 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that the homosexuality-question is a very sensitive issue, similar to the question of wether Marie Antoinette ever had sexual relation to Axel von Fersen or not. As homosexuality was considered to be wrong until now, the wiev has been, that people in favour of Gustav III have regarded this as "disgusting slander", while people who disliked him has taken this as an example that he was immoral. Both of these attitudes comes from a negative wiev on homosexuality. Nowadays, of course, people no longer consider homosexuality to be wrong, so it has become possible to look upon the matter in a more neutral way.

Of course, one book can not be said to proove anything, no matter the author. Every historian have their own oppinion, and everyone tend to be bias. As one can understand, it is more or less impossible to proov that he was, or that he was not, homosexual. The only thing one can do, therefore, is to state, in a neutral way, that there were rumours regarding this, and that it is not known wether they were true or not. And that's what we have to be content with, I'm afraid. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid it's one more time just homophobia. Proofs of his homosexuality exists, everybody knew, even in his family. 86.218.67.130 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous user is POV-ing freely and can give no reliable source for this fantasy claim. No one knew and still no one knows. Facts, please, not fables! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is all truth, nothing I wrote is wrong, homosexuality is not always fable I think, it is sourced, but censure, censure. 86.218.67.130 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And I am sorry, that's right, no one knew, but all the people who lived with and around him and who, for some of them, made clear testimonies. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"All the people"? "Clear testimonies"? Sources please! Sorry, there are no sources to support these claims. How could the sourced historical truth be homophobic? Are we to accuse Erik Lönnroth of that? Attempts to remake dead people into definite gay people can only succeed if new reliable sources are given. Otherwise such attempts do more harm than good to any cause. A basic rule at WP: sources must be given, and they must be reliable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

They are. By the way, the court of Gustav III welcommed the french actor Boutet de Monvel, prosecuted for homosexuality in France. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Looking through the edit, I see the only reference for the the statement in question Many writers, including his own sister-in-law, claimed that, "though his own exalted example", he helped to spread in Sweden this vice of men sleeping with men, wich hitherto had been almost unknown here' is the footnote "as recorded by L. von Engeström, minister of justice in an unpublished memorandum : Who's who in gay and lesbian history : from antiquity to World War II. Robert Aldrich Garry Wotherspoon, p.194". If the only source is Adrich and Wotherspoon, and their only reference is an unpublished memorandum, then it is not wp:rs to back up the statement made. The editor needs to provide more/better sources. You may wish to use Alrich as a footnote/reference to the shortened statement "It was rumored at the time that he was homosexual."—Work permit (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

.

Controversial person

A new edit today contained slanted opinions not supported by any serious historians nor by the king's own letters published in French and Swedish in 1989 and 1992. 217.209.96.183 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

edit by 86.218.67.130

Actually the edit is not that bad to me. [1] That "The writers of contemporary diaries and memoirs noted the king's sexual indifference to women, including his wife, and his sexual preference for men." is not unbased rumours; it is a accurate phrasing than the current "It was rumored at the time that he was homosexual." And the next sentence "Many writers, including his own sister-in-law, claimed that, "though his own exalted example", he helped to spread in Sweden "this vice of men sleeping with men, wich hitherto had been almost unknown here." even has references! How can that be , as was said, "unsourced and non-factual information"?

Fred-J 09:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

His sister-in-law was the only person to allude to this that we know of. The rest is all completely unsourced. There were no "many writers" or other "the writers of...". No such persons existed, as far as we know. Charlottes diaries have been criticized by experts as being equal to tabloids in these regards, entertaining rumors rather than fact. They were private notes to a friend of hers, never intended for publication nor for use as sources to history. Anyone who wants Gustav III to have been gay is facing such factual problems. We just do not know. The text provided by the IP is a gross exaggeration and as such is inappropriate in this bio. Why not go by Professor Lönnroth on this? We can trust him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true and completely dishonest. It is a reliable source by a woman who knew Gustav III. There were private notes to a friend ? That's why it's even more valuable than texts intended for publication : she had no reason to lie. Gustav III dismissed his doctor Dahlberg because he criticized his homosexuality and his mother didn't believe he was the father of his son because she new he was homosexual. Therefore we know he was homosexual like other people in his family. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to be very careful with experts who systematicaly dismiss a kind of sources who are often very interesting with a lot of facts (see Saint-Simon) but who do not say what they want to write in their biographies. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Dishonest" is a personal attack - not allowed. You are also compelled by WP rules to give sources for these claims, and until you do you will stop this edit-warring or it will be requested that you be blocked, no matter what IP you are using at the moment for this kind of unsourced POV-pushing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but all I wrote in the article is sourced, that is the diary of his sister-in-law. I read the fact that Gustav III dismissed his doctor because oh his behaviour, but the books didn't source them. That's why it isn't discussed in the article. Quotes of the diary are perfectly accurate and it will be requested that you be blocked if you continue to censure. After all, the paragraph end with "concluded that there is no factual basis for the assumption that Gustav III." It may be right, but what is a factual basis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.207.114 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to the content dispute, please stop inserting bad spelling. Please read the summary of this recent edit[2], and also note that queen mother/Queen Mother is in any case not spelled queen-mother. Me and other editors don't want to do house keeping after you, 90.35.207.114.

Fred-J 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Looking through the edit, I see the only reference for the the statement in question Many writers, including his own sister-in-law, claimed that, "though his own exalted example", he helped to spread in Sweden this vice of men sleeping with men, wich hitherto had been almost unknown here' is the footnote "as recorded by L. von Engeström, minister of justice in an unpublished memorandum : Who's who in gay and lesbian history : from antiquity to World War II. Robert Aldrich Garry Wotherspoon, p.194". If the only source is Adrich and Wotherspoon, and their only reference is an unpublished memorandum, then it is not wp:rs to back up the statement made. The editor needs to provide more/better sources. You may wish to use Alrich as a footnote/reference to the shortened statement "It was rumored at the time that he was homosexual."—Work permit (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I am sorry but everybody acknowledge that Gustav's sister-in-law stated that he was homosexual. To quote her shortly is perfectly normal, I am sorry. And Erik Lönnroth has the last word inferring she is obviously a liar, so there's no problem. 90.35.207.114 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

.

Once more, I would be very delighted to know what would be a factual basis. A photography ? 90.35.207.114 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)