Jump to content

Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 13 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOWCLOSE. Don't see any reason for this to waste any more time than it already has. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– No Carl XVIs and Gustaf VIs outside of Sweden per Talk:Charles XI of Sweden#Requested move 13 January 2024. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disability has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Lutheranism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Scouting has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Sweden has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification for amateurs, apparently

[edit]

So, the long (and partly fictional, as I learned) list of the kings of Sweden uses a peculiar naming system with double given names (but only numbering the first given name)... however, the name of Carl XVI Gustaf has one further peculiar feature: he is the first listed here, in English text as Carl -- instead of Charles. I wonder why? Also, I understand that the names Karl/Carl/Charles are cognates -- but the missing explanation why he is addressed like this (opposed to the approx 15 previous gentlemen named Charles) is striking. Please note, of course, that I might very well be a moron not knowing this but the Internet (google-wise) seems to be not really bothered by the conundrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.37.74 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally accepted that we do not translate royal names (using English exonyms) after the year 1900, because people then began to gave legally registered names with legal spellings which it no longer would be appropriate to translate. What you may have misunderstood is that none of these men were named Charles but their names were translated in English and French usage. Re: Swedish kings, what also can be confusing is that, in Swedish, they have often been spelled Carl while living, but traditionally Karl after death. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the extra info! I knew that none of them was named Charles "at home", and the 20th century boundary for non-translation also makes sense, it was just hard to put together the pieces since he seems to be the first in this line to whom all the aforementioned criteria applies. Also, fun fact: in my native language, both the wiki-guideline and the common understanding is that kings and queens are "entitled" to have traditional (and thus, translated) names for continuity sake. 62.65.37.74 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation in Swedish

[edit]

Re: recent reverts - Wikipedia is not a foreign language school. There is no need to clutter up the opening of any article text with pronunciation that is not relevant to an article in English. How to say Kawhl denn sextohndeh Guhstahf is certainly not relevant. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pronunciation of his name is useful and other articles include it (See Xi Jinping which has both English and Chinese pronunciation). To not clutter the article, I've put it in a footnote (similar to Barack Obama). Paditor (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciations are not exempt from WP:VERIFY, not only does inserting an unsourced IPA not allow readers to check the pronunciation comes from a reliable source, but it invites bickering between editors and their own WP:OR interpretations on how the pronunciation should be written. TylerBurden (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little confused because references for IPA aren't really consistent across Wikipedia. For example, Xi Jinping doesn't have any sources, Barack Obama has a link to a YouTube video of Obama saying his own name, and Nelson Mandela has a link to a dictionary (with IPA) for the English pronunciation but no source for the Xhosa pronunciation.
Would it be enough to reference a recording from when he got married, and the priest said his name? Paditor (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not. And until someone explains how it could be useful to include Swedish pronunciation of these names for non-Swedish readers of English Wikipedia, the pronunciation should be removed as irrelevant clutter. Useful for what exactly? Wikipedia is not a language school with a duty to teach foreign words and pronunciation just for the sake of teaching them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why Carl XVI Gustaf should be treated differently from every other Biography article. Most of Biography Featured Articles include IPA, and if they're not English then they often have an IPA in a foreign language.
The arguments you've given are:
  1. It clutters the lead. Fixed by using a footnote, like many other Biography articles do.
  2. It needs sources. I've provided a source.
  3. It's not useful. It's useful in the same manner as all other information on Wikipedia: to provide knowledge to those who seek it, regardless of their intended purpose. Of course not all knowledge about a person is relevant to be included on Wikipedia, but I personally think it's relevant to include how a persons name is pronounced in their native language. That most high quality biography articles include IPA seems to me to show that there's a consensus for including IPA for names in Biography articles.
Am I missing something? Paditor (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, relevance. Pronunciation should be provided when it is relevant, that is the reader may need it to be able to talk about the item. That is not the case when it comes to the names of world-famous persons whose names are already established in English, using English phonetics. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paditor No, you are right. It is information, Wikipedia is a source of information. Marbe166 (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant encyclopedic information. Not random language lessons of no use to anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing, your attitude in this matter is despicable. @Paditor has already provided more than enough arguments for inclusion. Your argument "of no use to anyone" is completely wrong, it is of use to everyone who wants to know how it should be pronounced. You do not have sole authority to judge the relevance of sourced information. This is a collaborative platform. Marbe166 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "despicable" is a little harsh, but I also don't find @SergeWoodzing's argument very convincing. Calling foreign IPA for a persons name "not relevant" just because there are English pronunciations doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to bring up other content too much, but this argument could be used to remove pretty much every foreign IPA in biographies. Paditor (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have the task of informing readers of English how something should be pronounced unless the words cannot reasonably be pronounced using English phonetics. I am not against pronunciation being given in such cases. This is not one of them. That's what "not relevant" means. And what is not relevant in an article is of no use to anyone there.

Each of us has the right to h honest opinion about article content, including I.

When we start getting into attacks about despicable attitudes and accusations of "sole authority" we are not using this page for its intended purpose. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it definitely needs citing, since the insertion said his name was pronounced Gestaf rather than Gustaf. If his name is pronounced Gustaf and not Gestaf, then I agree that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. We don't need a pronunciation guide when it is pronounced the same in Swedish and English. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The insertion was [ˈɡɵstɑːf]. So not like Gestaf, more like Gustaf, which is still wrong as it's pronounced more like Gustav. So it should be [ˈɡɵstɑːv]. (See source at 0:10)
I agree that it probably isn't worth it to include a Swedish pronunciation when it's the same as the English pronunciation but I think it should be included in this case because:
  1. We don't have any English IPA, and I'm not sure how "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" is pronounced in English.
  2. I'm pretty sure they are pronounced differently
Paditor (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including a footnote with his name in IPA is consistent with common WP practice, but the main problem here is that the IPA here seems to have been done by someone with limited knowledge of Swedish. For example, the letter F is almost always [f] in Swedish, but in the name Gustaf it is [v]. There are other errors as well. This underlines why a reference is needed. Jeppiz (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider it sufficient to reference an audio recording from when the King was married (audio file, at 0:10)? Assuming someone who knew Swedish and IPA transcribed from the recording. Paditor (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's unnecessary, intrusive and original research. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really original research, it's transcription. Paditor (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion remains unchanged from 2018 (Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf/Archive 2#Swedish p Pronunciation of whole official name and the more you say here ("it's pronounced more like Gustav") the more I am convinced that the pronunciation is identical and therefore pointless. English speakers do not need to be told how to pronounce something they already say. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Celia Homeford, your opinion is flat out wrong. The Swedish pronunciation is very different from the English and even contains several phonemes that don't exist in English. Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listened to the recording and seen the IPA, so I know that I am right. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to believe that, but it doesn't change a thing. Insisting one is right is not an argument. This is not a forum and WP:COMPETENCE is needed on WP; anyone with competence in IPA and phonetics can confirm that several of the phonemes in his name don't even exist in English. That's just a fact, bot an opinion. Whether you understand that fact or not doesn't change a thing. As your POV is just based on your misunderstanding, it should be disregarded. Jeppiz (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Insisting one is right is not an argument." That statement applies equally to everything you've said here. Furthermore, adding incivility to your argument is unpersuasive and damages your case instead of strengthening it. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is an expert on everything and there's nothing insulting in that. Obviously I stand by my comment that competence in phonology and IPA is beneficial to commenting on those topics. Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only topic area I'm unfamiliar with is Swedish, since I do not speak that language. I am conversant with IPA; I simply mistook ɵ for e since it is not easy to note the difference when aged over 50 and not wearing your reading glasses. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the discussion above, I'd recommend re-inserting the IPA. The only real objection comes from a user who, it must be said, argues out of ignorance (misunderstanding WP:OR and not knowing IPA). If there are no actual arguments including the footnote, I suggest it be reinserted. Jeppiz (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing even slightly insulting. Nobody is qn expert on everything. If I were to comment on advanced physics, I'd also lack compentence in that area and someone saying so would not be insulting. Your own statement already made it clear you don't know IPA, I merely pointed out that your comment is based on that lack of knowledge and hence not valid. Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the proposal is to add something that cannot be adequately sourced and that English speakers already know well enough to be understood by anyone, Swede or not. I would rather not see IPA creep into where it is not needed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation is probably best left to the Gustav (name) article, IMO. Interestingly, an editor on the talk page found a source (a pronounciation guide) where both -v and -f appear as English pronounciations. Unfortunately, the entries in the guide do not seem to include any Swedish people with the name. EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't just about including IPA for "Gustaf", it's about including the Swedish IPA for the full name "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" (transcribed from audio file, 0:10). I don't think the Swedish IPA for "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" should be at Gustav (name). Just as there should be Swedish IPA for "Gustav" in Gustav (name), I think there should be Swedish IPA for "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" in the article about "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" (this article). Paditor (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gustaf is the only part of the name that's even remotely uncertain. I thought it was obvious that's what's being discussed.
Oh well, carry on as you were. EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite incorrect. English speakers would not use or expect the retroflex lateral in Carl nor the retroflex plosive in Hubertus, nor any of the three vowel sounds in Hubertus. Jeppiz (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to question the pertinence of noting the retroflex lateral in a general Wikipedia biography written for a general, non-linguist audience. Surtsicna (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* Nobody suggested "noting tje retroflex lateral". The question is whether to include a footnote (not even visible unless readers click on it) to show the correct pronunciation. Looking at the discussion, it seems as if pretty much everyone with a knowledge of Swedish is in favour. Jeppiz (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not writing this article for people with a knowledge of Swedish. On the contrary, you are writing it for English speakers who are unlikely to have any knowledge of Swedish or any wish to be instructed in the retroflex lateral. It remains doubtful that the IPA can be adequately sourced or even understood by the general audience. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you possibly have any knowledge about the wishes of the readers of Wikipedia articles (except yourself)? Marbe166 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very simply, actually: this is a biography and people do not go to biographies for non-biographical minutiae that cannot even be properly sourced. Surtsicna (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two questions:
    1. Would you consider it "properly sourced" if we referenced a recording of Carl XVI Gustaf's wedding, where the priest said "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus"? If not, why not?
    2. The wikipedia biographies of Nelson Mandela, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel and Vincent van Gogh all have non-English IPA (first two without reference). Is the inclusion of non-English IPA in biographies always "non-biographical minutiae"?
  • Thank you, Paditor. You are the only one on your side of the debate trying to be constructive.
    1) I am not certain on that. It would be a reliable source for the claim that the priest pronounced it that way but not necessarily for the claim that it is the correct pronunciation. I am reminded of the mistake Diana Spencer made at her wedding when she said Charles's name wrong.
    2) No, I would not say that the inclusion of IPA is always wrong. In fact, this matter is covered by the Manual of Style (oddly enough, not cited here yet), MOS:LEADPRON: If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling... Wikipedia has a problem with creep and I imagine that is how some of the articles you cited ended up having IPA against the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MOS could also be interpreted as saying that Swedish IPA should be included.
    It states: Normally, pronunciation is given only for the subject of the article in its lead section. For non-English words and names, use the pronunciation key for the appropriate language. "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" is a Swedish name, so it should have Swedish IPA.
    But what about if the pronunciation is "apparent from its spelling"? Well I interpret that as meaning "apparent [to English speakers] from its spelling", which the Swedish pronunciation isn't. It states: If the name of the article is more than one word, include pronunciation only for the words that need it unless all are in other languages (all of Jean van Heijenoort but only Cholmondeley in Thomas P. G. Cholmondeley).
    In this case, "all are in other languages", just like "Jean van Heijenoort", so it should be included. Paditor (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not cry. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna, you have already twice deliberately misrepresented my comments to try to make some cheap point. I suggest you stop, as your behaviour is disruptive. Nobody has suggested adding information about retroflex laterals here, but to harmonise the article with other articles on Scandinavian royalty which present their names in IPA. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are now insulting a second editor here, and most brazenly too given that your statement of intention is evidently false. Not a single editor here mentioned other articles on Scandinavian royals. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not against including the IPA as a footnote as long as it's properly sourced. After all Margrethe II, Frederik X and Harald V's names are also presented in IPA. But overall this is not a matter worthy of a lengthy/heated debate. If there is no consensus for its inclusion stick to WP:STATUSQUO and move on. Keivan.fTalk 05:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They only include pronunciation of the regnal name not middle names that are never used. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware of that. In this case it would be "Carl XVI Gustaf". I agree that we don't need his full name presented in IPA. Keivan.fTalk 13:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thread is a great example of the mess that IPA's bring, people arguing about their own WP:OR as self proclaimed linguists. It's quite simple, if a reliable source can be found that supports the added IPA text, then go for it. If no such thing exists, then it's probably not a must include on the article no matter how passionate some editors may be about this sort of thing. TylerBurden (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top image

[edit]

There hase been some back.and-forth action recently on the to image here. Seems to me rather obviously that a photo from 2023 should be preferred to one from 2018. What am I missing? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new photo looks worse because it...
  • has worse lighting (sunlight, casts shadow on his face, old photo was evenly lit)
  • is blurry
  • has something yellow out of focus covering part of the photo
He hasn't changed that much over the years, so I think the only advantage of the new photo is that it's newer. Paditor (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Paditor's points. Also the facial expression in the older photo is more neutral. In the 2023 photo he has furrowed brows and looks somewhat grumpy. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a strong opinion on what photo is used but if choosing between these two I think the current one in use is superior to the one that has been repeatedly added by IP editors in every aspect other than date, since his appearance has not really changed noticeably I don't see the point of using a poorer quality image just for the sake of when it was taken. TylerBurden (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just unfair, that's all

[edit]

People should stop vandalizing this article by replacing Carl Gustaf's name with the names of various regular Swedes like Magnus Johansson etc etc. Several such infractions recently, and it's just not fair. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_XVI_Gustaf&oldid=1254324027"