Talk:Gustav III

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Last comment inserted at the bottom

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Missing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial person

message: Re: this edit, I think it's also important to give the name of his actual dynasty the House of Oldenburg, not just Holstein-Gottorp which only was a branch of that family. Have tried to add it to the info box but apparently I don't know how. Same for his father, son and regal brother. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynasty 

message: As there now has been more info added about Gustav's second son, with references, I am reinstating him in the infobox. A constructive development - thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More info added on second son

message: Let's take care not to add too much sensationalistic tabloid-type gossip by writer's like Virginia Rounding. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Gossip watch

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Alexander Roslin - King Gustav III of Sweden and his Brothers - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on . You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-01-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from this article to appear as POTD soon 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I rolled back 5 edits which were not improvements. Places of birth and death, e.g., are recorded by country, not era. A church that has an English name should be so named in English. Etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback