File talk:Sofia Magdalena, Gustav III och Adolf Fredrik Munck.jpg

Image misused

This image was allegedly done by a contemporary Swedish artist (apparently not too skillful) whose art is otherwise completely unknown.

Mr. Kuiper insists on removing anything that alludes to it being political propaganda (see image history), here and in the Swedish WP articles about King Gustav III and Queen Sophia Magdalene where he has placed it and returned it several times when it has been removed. Today he has uploaded a new version so that all the details are to be much more visible in the articles.

The court functionary present was the only person who would be a reliable source to the event itself, depicted as per Mr. Kuiper's wishes and repeated edits as if it were a real life occurrance, and that functionary wrote a very detailed text about it which was published later, in which he states that nothing at all of this kind took place. He himself took no sexual part in the encounter but only instructed the king and queen how to complete their act, which they had not been able to do because both had prohibitive anatomical problems (also published in detail by several historians).

This image, in my opinion, is being used primarily to sensationally embarass and slander the memories of Gustav and Sophia Magdalene without actually being relevant to their life stories. It belongs in an article about political propaganda, if at all, but not in articles about historical persons where it will be encountered by large numbers of school children and others not expecting to find pornography. The king and queen were not notable for pornography.

As inspired by this usage, contrived and smutty drawings of this kind, by unknown artists, could be uploaded and added to the articles of a vast amount of persons with concocted or actual sexual adventures in their pasts. (Woe be us all then!)

I have tried to discuss this with Mr. Kuiper on the talk pages of the articles, but to no avail at all. We know by now anyway, from his actions, what Pieter Kuiper thinks. I am urgently inviting others to add their balanced opinions and take whatever action may be appropriate. EmilEikS (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to discuss this on the local projects and not here. The image is valid here on Commons. Whether it is valid in the single articles must be decided locally. --Slomox (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we at least have the issue of the removal of categories and description. Pls see history. I also question whether or not the image is valid here, as misused, and respectfully ask for more opinions. I would like to think uploading images to Commons, with this sole intent, is inappropriate. I am by no means a moralist, but there is a time and a place for everything and this is hardly grade school material. EmilEikS (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I see Mr Kuiper is busy uploading a little artwork by the person who allegedly drew this smut (though to a layman it doesn't look the same at all- ?). EmilEikS (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The image seems to be completely within our scope, mainly because it's used on multiple projects and it's free media. Actually, this image is pretty tame compared to some of the other stuff we host. And according to the source this is what it says it is, so I don't see the problem there either. Rocket000 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we host worse (glad we do in context!), but whether or not its only objective should be allowed to be shocking school choldren in articles where it is only slightly relevant if at all to the people portrayed. EmilEikS (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a closer look! Here note the obvious IP socks stacking the argument, about the same as on Swedish WP, EmilEikS (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

When I used this image as an example in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg, I could not imagine that anybody would consider this caricature of Gustavus III as controversial. Anyway, EmilEiks is not getting anywhere on sv:Diskussion:Sofia Magdalena av Danmark, where it had been included in the article since 2004. One never ceases to be amazed of the reverence some people have for royals, even when long dead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't reveal your polical bias because its liable to effect the way people view your otherwise excellent work on several projects! In this case my reverence is toward school children, thank you - and I do not appreciate your loading politics on to me, extremely critical as I am about many lousy royals in history. I am trying very hard to be neutral. Why don't you? And why doen't somebody own up to the problem of school children in this case instead of ignoring it? EmilEikS (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, I too think, that the image is not relevant in that article (and this has nothing to do with reverence, I'm quite anti-aristocratic and didn't even know Sofia Magdalena or Gustav III). But this is not a Commons issue. It has to be settled on the Swedish Wikipedia.

EmilEikS, if you doubt that the caricature was produced by Carl August Ehrensvärd, please provide better evidence than doesn't look the same to a layman.

Here we at least have the issue of the removal of categories and description. Pls see history. Actually not. You inserted it and somebody else reverted you. It's not propaganda. What propagandistic message would Ehrensvärd have? It's just a caricature.

And again @EmilEikS: School children can bear a drawn penis. Cultural standards vary, but Sweden is not known for rigid cultural standards on things like that. This all doesn't mean, that we _should_ show school children this image. But school children is not a good argument. --Slomox (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And to make this very clear: @EmilEikS: You are wasting your time her on Commons. There's absolutely _no chance_ to get the image removed at Commons. That will _not happen_. The _only_ chance to get it removed, is to discuss it on the _local project_. --Slomox (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for constructive input! Pls don't miss my comment to yours above revealing more about the use on English WP. See the link to the discussion there and all those IPs (from the same office) in action! Swedish school children all have access to computers and all use Wikipedia and G III is one of the most interesting kings to look up. We are talking exposure to thousands and thousands of young kids. Pierter Kuiper knows that. Showing school children the image is exactly what he is doing, intentionally! That's the main effect of the upload and associated article usage. EmilEikS (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PS The English WP article on SofMag calls the drawing "famous". It was totally unknown until it was used for a Sw TV series in 1987 widely criticized for bias and slander of the king's memory. One of the producers Olle Häger, in a fit of anger, revealed that the main objective was to try to get a statue of his despised GIII removed from near the Royal palace. EmilEikS (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not use enWP but trust somebody will take another look? EmilEikS (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside comment: It's interesting to know that there were times, when the gossip about the royals was even worse than in today's yellow press... --Slomox (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, sir or madame, read what I just wrote! It is quite likely that this drawing actually is from about 1985, not 1779. That is a common Swedish suspicion (among the few who care) from about 1987. EmilEikS (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, then investigate this. Good starting points are the diaries of Ehrensvärd (at least the one from 1780 is available on Google Books. I guess, the one from 1778 will be available in some Swedish libaries too), the University library of Uppsala (on Google Books I read, that Ehrensvärd caricatures are archived there [although it didn't say, whether they've archived all of them or only some]), and, obviously, the producers of the 1987 TV series. Try asking them, where they got the caricature from. If the producers don't answer, the library says "we don't have this caricature in our archives and we have no idea where it could be found" and if the diaries don't contain the caricature and don't mention the caricature and don't suggest a mindset that makes it likely that Ehrensvärd would have drawn a caricature like that, yes, then it would sound much more likely that the caricature was made up. Without evidence like that, I'm sorry, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory. --Slomox (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting and constructive advice! Hope to be able to get to such research some day. Now will you please address the debate on English WP which is dominated by similar IPs and ends with Mr. Kuiper's gleeful exclamation about the irrelevant image today? EmilEikS (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Now will you please address the debate on English WP? Me? Or is this directed to another participant of the discussion? I won't. I'm not an en.wikipedian. --Slomox (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone! Neither am I. Thx for replying anyway! You are considerate. I had a lot of constructive work to do here today, and now will try to get some of that done anyway. EmilEikS (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is at http://webart.nationalmuseum.se/work/work.aspx?id=49225 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What could Ehrensvärd know?

Did Ehrensvärd just make a caricature of rumours that were circulating, or did he really know something about what had happened in the royal bedroom? He was at the court as a "kammarherre" (chamberlain). And this excerpt indicates that he was in the know:

1775 på Gripsholm skedde reconciliation emellan Kungen och Drottningen. H.M. hade dock mycken betänklighet, at dela Drottningens Säng, i anseende till Medvetenheten af oförmögenhet i anseende til Fruntimmer, til des Drottningen en afton lät lägga sit Portrait i hans säng med en ganska öm billet, hvaruti hon bad, at han icke ville längre neka henne det nöjet, at njuta den älskansvärdaste bland Männer. Baron Munck och nuvarande General Liutn. och Minister i Paris Baron Ehrensvärd voro confidenter af denna sak. Konungen restaurerade sig, at gå til Drottningen. Hvarvid Baron Munck i mörkret måste vara närvarande. Styrkan förtök så snart så snart han nalckades Drottn person, men underhjelptes af Munck. äfven med påstötningen under sjelva Acten. Slutligen gick det bra, efter flera frugtlösa försök. (source, notes by Olle Holmberg ascribed to Fant, probably from Schröderheim)

/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not relevant here on Commons. Entirely not relevant. --Slomox (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)