text:
Talk:Charles XII of Sweden

Pointing Towards Russia
The image caption 'Charles pointing towards Russia' does not need an exclamation point after it. This is Wikipedia not Allers Veckotidning.

Constantinople vs. Istanbul
As far as I know the city was called Constantinople until 1930, it's inapropriate to call it Istanbul in an 18th century context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.84.163 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) After the conquest in 1453, it is appropriate to call it Istanbul because the Ottomans changed the name after the conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.26.2 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they did not. It was informally called Istanbul in Turkish, but Constantinople remained the official name until 1930.  It was certainly universally used in the west until 1930. john k (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ottomans 'changed' the name after the conquest, since the date in question is after 1453, it should be called as "Istanbul". Perhaps it is your "western" view that makes you accept that it is not. So, according to your argument, you are also claiming that Wikipedia is a western project, and you have to name it how it is called in "west". (what do you mean by "universally used in the west"? is it universal or is it western? it made me laugh a lot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.26.2 (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Ataturk changed the name in 1930. Before that it was often informally called "Istanbul," but the official name - used by Ottomans and westerners alike - was Constantinople.  In the west, it was universal to call it "Constantinople."  In the Ottoman Empire itself, it was sometimes called Constantinople and sometimes Istanbul, but the former in formal contexts, the latter informally. Today, a few scholars, primarily scholars of middle eastern history, will call it Istanbul after 1453, but most, so far as I can tell, call it Constantinople down to 1930.  This is particularly true for historians of the west, and Charles XII is a part of European, not middle eastern, history.  And of course, as an encyclopedia written in English, the English Wikipedia is a project which ought to give greater weight to usage in English than to usage in Turkish. john k (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Just as in the Byzantine era it was informally known as Stan Polis - "the City" - which is where "Istanbul" derives from. Michael Sanders 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But in any case, the name used in this article should be the name most commonly used to refer to the city in this period by historians. If most, as John says, call it Constantinople, that is the name that should be used. Michael Sanders 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Usage is mixed, and there's more usage of "Istanbul" than there used to be, but Constantinople still predominates, I think, particularly in works written about European, rather than Middle Eastern, history. If this were an article about Ahmed III, there might be some claim to using Istanbul, but not in one about Charles XII. john k (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis and Charles' assassination
For a reason which has never been entirely clear to me, Scandinavian Neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists celebrate the anniversary of his assassination. Could someone elaborate? Asav 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

They regard him as a great patriot and national hero.

 * If so be it that he was a patriot and a national hero, why celebrate his death?(88.89.69.32 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Funilly enough, Karl XII was for a long time very unpopular with conservatives (who felt he lost the empire) and popular with the left/social democrats. So, the extreme right's affinity for him is of very recent date. It might have originated during WWII, when the Swedish extreme right, who saw Soviet Bolshevism as the greatest threat to Sweden (not Nazi Germany), saw Karl XII as a symbol of the fight against the Russians.

I'll try to find the source where I read this and post a link here (or give you more info if you don't read Swedish). Also, I think it's really only the Swedish extreme right who like him, hardly the Danish or Norwegian extreme right (since he fought against them). Osli73 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of natural affinity. Karl XII has traits that would strongly suggest a less than symphatic character. The inability to keep peace. Ruin for his nation. Wast loss of land. Just take a look at the map. While in Turkey his behaviour prompted The Turkish to give him house arrest. It is hard to avoid concluding that Karl XII was a psychopath. I cannot think of a worse King the Swedes ever had. He shares a lot of the traits of plain Fascists of modern time. Neo-Nazi is just a label for Fascist. Fascists tend to like Fascists. Nothing surprising here.

The murder of Karl XII is seen as a good patriotic deed regardless of the assasin being Swedish or Norwegian. Karl XII is simply a liability for all. Karl XII has lost Finland to the Russians who keep Finland occupied from 1714-1721. He attacks Denmark. Not mentioning Estland and Latvia. Now he is going for Norway. It is cold and dark with Christmas approaching. Who wants to go home? Why not just do it and keep shut about it? Chances are nobody will ever find out if I can keep a secret. Who needs Karl XII? Motive, Means and Opportunity. Karl XII was shot between 8 and 9 on the evening sunday 30 november 1718. The bullett was 18-20 mm wide. He was hit from the left temple to the right temple. Instant death. Clearly the work of a good hunter. A bullet from a Norwegian cannon 625 meters away? You be the judge :-) Read about it at: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_XII Whoever put him out is the real hero. Work well done. Put up a statue for him. Jimoksvold 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Most of this is just plain wrong. Charles XII actually never started a war, so "the inability to keep peace" is simply misleading. Neo-nazis like him because they do not know who he was, only that he fought Russia. That's sufficient in those circles. As for the "assassination" that's just speculation, the alternatives are certainly more numerous than murder or a bullet from 625 meters. I would also suggest that the article needs some work, as a previous user stated Poland certainly wasn't part of the original coalition against Sweden and the reasons for the English and Dutch involvemnet in the operations 1700 was entirely different than what's stated.130.236.83.55 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Poland was NOT part of the coalition attacking Sweden. Augustus started the war as king of Saxony and tried to involve Poland in war, without much succeses. After Narva POlish senate even sent congratulations to Charles! However, he attacked Poland in 1701 therefore ending this neutrality (paradoxically, many Poles still considered themselves neutral even before Kliszow, to the point that Lubomirski only faked fight and then immedietely withdraw from battle) Szopen 10:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes we know. The Swedish invasions of Poland, including earlier ones, seems very mysterious to us Swedes, we simply don't understand what the troups should do there, except possibly spank one or another Wasa competitor for the Swedish throne, but the greatest mystery to most Swedish historians is Charles XII himself, who in the long run ruined Sweden by his many meaningless wars. Not starting a war, is no defense for not negotiating peace, but Charles XII was not that kind of king. He was obsessed with wars, irrespective of the consequences. The neo-nazis are projecting their "inner wars" on this mad king. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an old Swedish saying, "if you have to go to war it is better to tie you horse to the enamies gate than that he should tie his to yours" when looking at King Karl XII one must see him in the light of his time. War was a very normal part of life back then, parallel to the Great Northern War was the Spanish Sucsession which was global in extent. One of the best book´s ever written on Karl XII was Professor Franz Bengtsson, "Karl XII Livnad." (The Life Of Karl XII). Karl XII said to his Prim Minister Carl Piper, "I would have peace with King August if I knew he could be trusted, but I know that as soon as I march to Russia he would take Russian gold and attack me from behind". One must also remember that it was he who was attackt! he did not go looking for it, and in his own word´s "I was forced into war, and I will finish it to my satisfaction". As he saw it peace with such people as King August and Peter of Russia would only last for a day, a week, a year or untill such time as fortune would be in their favor. Karl XII was a very intellagent man and one of the greatest Military Tackticions of all time, in all but his last battle, dispite overwhelming odds he held victory in his hand, not untill Poltava where due to a wounded foot and did not have command, did he meet defeat. We do him wrong, being so majestic, To offer him the show of violence. Ryttar 8 Nov. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Truly, but his diplomacy was inferior compared to competitors, and it seems that he didn't use the war for the purposes normal at that time: power and riches. It seems war itself was the purpose for him. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how you mean "Inferior Diplomacy"? Karl XII was a king of his time, the only differance between him and the other kings of the time was that his war was forced appon him, and he was a man of higher moral than the others. A Franz Bengtsson pointed out in his book The Life Of Karl XII: "he had an innate distrust of diplomates, they spoke a language not of his world; They did not speak the truth: They were incapable of speaking the truth: They knew not what the truth was: As such they became of no interest to him, as he pointed out to General Major Stenbock who was having trouble with the Polish Diplomates in Krakaw: "The Sword Must Do It´s Best, For It Does Not Joke" He found that the knife at the throat held more wait than word´s blown on the wind or ink dried on some partchment. That he had a talent and a mastery for war can not be denied. Had he not been forced into war his life would most likely have been one of science, dog´s, horses and hunting. Ryttar, 11 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Karl vs Charles
I realize Charles is the English version of Karl and that Wikipedia is supposed to use the English names for all things. However, lots of other Karls have gotten to keep their native version of the name. Some examples below:
 * Karl X Gustav
 * Karl Marx
 * Karl of Austria
 * Karl Malone (the basketball star)
 * OMG. It's 'Carl Gustav', not Karl Gustav. Good research there, dude. Ahem. LOL

Is Karl XII really better known as Charles XII? Which version of the name should Wikipedia use? KarlXII 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I, a humble Norwegian would like to suggest that searches of both should point to this article. As for the name I would leave that decision to others. Jimoksvold 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Er...Charles X Gustav of Sweden is not at "Karl". Charles XII, at any rate, is normally known in English as Charles XII. Comparing him to non-monarchs is pointless, because the names of non-monarchs like Karl Marx are rarely, if ever, anglicized. The Malone comparison is even more ridiculous, because he's an American who is named Karl. In terms of Emperor Karl of Austria, that is a tough call, I think, and could easily go either way. It's worth noting that the more recent the monarch, the less likely anglicization is. Charles XII is very rarely referred to in English as anything but "Charles XII." john k 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No he is not 'at Karl'. He's 'a Carl'. Goodness - do you people write Wiki articles too? No wonder there's so much cleanup all the time.

"Demirbaş", "the Habitué"? I read the book written by Voltaire about Charles XII. I think the translation of "Demirbaş" as "the Habitué" is incorrect. Literally, "Demirbaş" means in Turkish "Iron Head", ie stubborn.
 * Sounds right.

Keep the real name as this is the name given to him. The name Charles was known in Sweden, yet he was not given the name Charles but Karl. Charles and Karl are two different names that may or may not have the same origin. In Swedish language Charles is NOT Karl but Charles...we dont call the British prince Charles for prince Karl, do we! I am going to change back to Karl XII -- any objections? --Malin Randstrom (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) King Charles given name was Carl in Sweden, abroad he only used his latin name Carolus (Rex). In Sweden there has been the tradition to change the names of the kings after their reigns, as Carl - Karl, Gustaf - Gustav. Furthermore there has been, until recent times, also by tradition to translate foreign names to the corresponding in the native language. As we in Sweden say Henrik VIII instead of Henry VIII, Johan utan land - John Lackland. Ref) Alf Henrikson, En uppslagsbok: Carl / Maxofsweden (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
And we're positive he wasn't not gay? Arthurian Legend (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * He was what we say in Sweden: "omåttligt puckad" (circa "nuts beyond reason"), no specific signs of gay, but possibly an Asperger case. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statements only reflect bad upon yourself. Karl 12 was probably gay and very capable in commanding troops as proven by findings. He was good at tactics, but was not succeeding in long term strategies - he won battles but not wars. The war machine he and his generals inherited was one of the finest of that time and the victories should by a great deal be attributed to its architects and not only to those generals and their king. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by mo own sandards, he would be an asperger case. You are more straight than all others, but no sexdrive. He would'nt abstain from women, but merely be immune. He would value his sence of cubic mathematics. Though it's not cowardous to keep a safe distance from enemies, he would be to slow to chicken out. More so as his mathematical equations gave no hint on when to duck. Enough about me, there is a speculated to have asperger section on wiki. I also expected to find Aemonn De Valera on this section, King Charles would be the one who I see as more typical.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.45 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that King Karl XII was a homosexual, he had in fact spoken with his minister Karl Piper that he hoped that one day he would marry when war was over. To take a mistress for him was unthinkable being of a strong Lutheran belief. The quastion of his aversion to women comes from the tales of the beautifull Aurora Körningsmarck who had been Kung August mistress and had a son by him who would later be king of Poland. She tried to seduce King Karl XII and was the only one in life to make him flee. A record of Count Karl Piper states his converstaion about the table placement of nobles at the wedding of General Johan August Meijerfelt and one of the Törnflycht dotters of Stockholm, in Altranstät 1706, Piper said his wife would give place to Countess Körningsmarck where by the king said, " she can not take place over another as she is a whore and has no rank" (Franz Bengtsson, Karl XII Life, pg. 329) It was noted at the wedding party he danced with several of the women in a most energedic pace. Rytter, Nov. 27, 2008

Misogyny?
Is it notable enough? If so, where- here or a misogynist-type-list? It's pretty subjective, though can be sourced, both secondarily and primarily (his own unambigious quotes?). See also: casus anti-semite (extinct- slander?), liberals (alive and kickin'- slander in a large segment of the media market)...? I wouldnt simply write it off as "closet" homosexualism" as some biographers, based solely on his aversion to women, whereas an idealism- not too much unlike Kant's empiricism- is the most palpable cause.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.224.52 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Any source on Charles' house arrest in Constantinople?
"The Janissaries did not shoot Charles during the skirmish at Bender, but captured him and put him under house-arrest in Constantinople. During his imprisonment the King played chess and studied the Turkish navy. " Does anyone have a source for this statement. I consulted the book "Karl XII" by Bengt Liljegren, and he says that the closest Charles personally came to Constantinople was near Adrianople (today's Edirne). Also the corresponding Swedish page mentions nothing about Charles staying in Constantinople. It may seem insignificant, but I want to know. Diupwijk (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Liljegren is absolutely correct. Charles never visited Constantinople. 130.236.83.144 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Req. move to Carl XII of Sweden

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move. No policy/guideline grounded rationale has been provided for making an exception to our policy of titling articles by the common name used in English, and evidence was provided that Charles XII is significantly more commonly used in reliable English language sources to refer to this monarch than is Carl XII.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong arguments have been made in the 20th and 21st centuries that the name Carl in our times has become as much an English name as Charles is and that it is an obsolete practice to use Charles when referring to royal men of Sweden, Norway and German states (all of whom are Karl or Carl at home). The arguments have gained momentum and, in my opinion, decisively persuasive motivation since King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden took office in 1973 and his court discontinued such naming for all the Swedish Carls (ref: their list of their monarchs in English) and now only ever use Carl or Karl. In English, I prefer the generally more common English spelling of Carl (not the more Germanic Karl), which also matches the current king's modern spelling.

I strongly feel that the main name of the en.WP articles for the concerned Swedish kings and princes should be given as Carl, and that we should begin moving the Charles's with this one, the most well-known of them all.

An initial discussion of the name question has also taken place earlier here, more informally, under the heading Karl vs Charles above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I strongly oppose this proposal. 224 English language books refer to him as Carl XII, while 1043 English language books refer to him as Charles XII. It should be noted that all these books were published after 1990, so they are not outdated. I suppose the same is true for every other King Charles of Sweden. It is also noteworthy that other historical Swedish monarchs have their names anglicized. As you said on your talkpage, the royalcourt.se is not a good example: they [Swedish monarchs] have been covered in English usually, if at all, by Swedes with (1) little or no knowledge of the legitimate English name forms they could/should have used; and/or (2) with little or no interest in researching such things to do a better job; and/or (3) with some interest in promoting the use of Swedish phonetics in English at the dire expense of the English reader who knows no Swedish. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is (if you would kindly read the proposal and try a bit harder to pick up on its main motive) that Carl is just as English as Charles nowadays. That makes your quote of me irrelevant in this case. It's from my user page, as you correctly noted, but you missed the fact that the Carl/Charles question also is covered there as a motivated exception. I assume you are not being selectively negative when you quote me? That would not be like you, as far as I know. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Carl may be used in English speaking countries as much as Charles is (for ordinary men), but the name Carl clearly isn't used to refer to this man more often than Charles is. In fact, Charles is used significantly more often. The common name rule and factual (in)accuracy are the reasons why I opposed your proposal to have the articles about queens consort titled [Name] of [Husband's Realm] and your unofficial proposal to have the article about Charles, Prince of Wales titled Charles of England (1952). Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose The external links in the article seem to point to his name in English being Charles, not Carl. `~ (actually 23:48, 13 October 2009 User:TJ Spyke)
 * This also seems to me to pale in relation to the main point. To try to be even more succint I might add an empathetic question: how to explain to hundreds of thousands of Carls native today to English-speaking countries - in the real world of 2009 - that some old kings with their name still are given the exonym Charles in a manner now obsolete? If no one called these kings Carl in English I would not have made this proposal. Other than that, the frequency of Charles should play a minor part in this exceptional case, I think. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would explain it the way I explained to you several times that the frequency of a correct name should (and must) always play a major part in deciding which name should be used as the title of an article. It's the principle which all Wikipedia titles should follow, unless using the most common name would hurt the consistency of articles. Correct me if I am wrong, but none of your arguments is based on a Wikipedia guideline; they are all based on your personal preferance. I refer to Naming conventions (common names), while your POV seems to be your main motive. Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose For kings and in particular historical kings (unlike most private citizens dead or living) there is really such a thing as WP:COMMONNAME and applicability of WP:ENGLISH. Charles XII as opposed to Carl XII or Karl XII seems to be well established in English, just as Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is used rather than Gustav II Adolf of Sweden. Tomas e (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gustavus Adolphus (being Latin and also outdated) is another oddity on my change list. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not outdated as modern publications refer to him that way. That it is odd is your POV. That it is outdated is simply incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop calling my ideas "incorrect"! I never do that to you or anyone. State your POV without getting personal and attacking people with general negativity - please! Only attack people, if at all, when they have attacked you or someone else, or if they are being clearly disruptive. If people are less than knowledgeable, you can say that. I am not in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that each sentence you write undermines your cause? For example, "my ideas" confirms that all you say is only your POV. Furthermore, I can (and you can and everyone can) say that your (or my or his or hers) statement is incorrect. If you are stating that the name Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is outdated, then you are incorrect as the name is obviously the most common name used for that king. I sincerely don't believe that any other person in this discussion would have been offended if I told them: "What you are saying is incorrect." That is not a personal attack. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal is based on common sense and sufficient usage. Plus - most importantly - WP guideline #1 which is above all others: There is no rule that cannot be broken if warranted.SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, three users don't see enough common sense in your proposal to ignore academics. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, please don't make big claims about what is English and what is not unless English is your main language! That personal behavior of yours just isn't constructive. We need input from such people here now. Not your overly assertive POV about the language. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are being extremely rude, SergeWoodzing, just like you were here. I ignored that behaviour when I contacted you and tried to establish a positive relationship with you. Now you are saying that I shouldn't make big claims about what is English and what is not unless English is my main language and few days ago you were surprised to hear that English is not my native language; what changed? Unless you can direct me to a guideline or policy that forbids non-native speakers of English to take part in any discussion, you do not have any right to tell me what not to say. I present some kind of evidence and I cite Wikipedia guidelines, while you base all your arguments on your overly assertive POV about the language. I'm just curious: where exactly have you noticed my overly assertive POV about the language? Where have I claimed that Charles XII is English and that Carl XII is not? Why didn't you tell me that I shouldn't make big claims about what is English and what is not when I supported you in other discussions? Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really find me so "extremely rude" that you need to try to drag all kinds of things from other discussions into it, irrelevant to this one (all of which can hardly constitue anything else but a personal attack), to try to prove how rude I am, let me spare you any further such trouble by apologizing sincerely for whatever it was that you found "extremely rude". Your English is very good, as written here on en.WP. I meant that. One can only notice (now that I have seen more of it) in some minor details that you are not native. As such, you are hardly qualified to tell native speakers of English so categorically what is and what is not outdated. If you find that POV of mine, about your behavior in this one detail, "extremely rude" there isn't much I can do about it. I stand by that opinion/advice, and mean well with it. What we need now is more input from natives - your accusation that any POV of mine "forbids non-native speakers of English to take part in any discussion" is extremely unfair to me, and once again you are twisting what I have said so that it looks like something I never even dreamed of. Please! Stop doing that, even if you are in a huff about my wanting both of us to shut up now and give some natives a chance to create qualified consensus here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you say that I am twisting your words when you have twisted my words in the sentence you quoted. I didn't say that your POV forbids non-native speakers of English to take part in any discussion; I aksed to direct me to a policy that forbids non-native speakers of English to take part in any discussion. Perhaps you consider your POV to be a Wikipedia policy, but I don't. If I (a non-native speaker of English) read a lot of English language books about Gustavus Adolphus, then I can tell you (a native speaker of English) that Gustavus Adolphus is not an outdated name for that person. That right of mine has nothing to do with English (not) being my native language. I do not have to and I will not leave this discussion just because I am not a native speaker of English. I am as qualified to discuss as you are. Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that anyone who thinks Gustavus Adolphus dated does speak English fluently. We have already had that discussion; that's why the article is there now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Email me your phone # and I'll be glad to give you an earful! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose I know an anglophone Carl myself; I also know several Charles's, Charlies, and Chucks. I doubt any of them would have a preference for Carl XII (many would not know him from a hole in the wall). More importantly, reliable sources in English do not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose in concurrence with the rationales of Surtsicna and Tomas e as stated in this discussion as of this moment, but with dissent from any interpretation of their comments which concludes names should be translated into English rather than that names should be as used in English, which sometimes calls for translation and sometimes does not. FactStraight (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am completely against translation when the translated form is not the one that is most commonly used in English. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Main article source
This article, as most other articles about Swedish kings and history, was based on the 1911 British Encyclopaedia. There must have been a link at the bottom of the article stating this, but it seems to have been removed at some time. A search for any of the textually advanced sentences in the article should result in links to 1911 British Encyclopaedia.

Not sure if it is useful with inline citation to the 1911 British Encyclopaedia, but if you want inline citations, that's how to get them.

Fred-J 10:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually I take that back. I searched http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles_XII and either this article was copyedited to get a more modern language, or it was rewritten with modern sources. / Fred-J 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the article seems to have been written a long time ago, in 2005 and earlier. There were no sources there, wasn't very important at that time. It might be hard to find inline references for the material at this time. Perhaps better to rewrite the article, using whatever sources are available. As the article currently stands, it is a minefield for possible misinformation which is more serious for an article of this importance.
 * Fred-J 10:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions with Battle of Narva (1700)
According to this article

"The Swedish army of ten thousand men was outnumbered four to one by the Russians"

However, according to the battlebox of Battle of Narva (1700), the swedes numbered 10,537 and the Russians 30000-35000. This means that even if the take the higher figure 35000, the number ratio was 35000/10537 = 3.3, closer to 3 than 4.

Moreover, according to this article

"...the total number of Russian fatalities reached about 17,000..."

whereas the battlebox of Battle of Narva (1700) numbers Russian casualties as 8000-10000.

Top.Squark (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer:

This got its explanation: In the actual attack on the Russian redoubt system the whole Swedish force wasn't present, roughly 2.500 were left behind as garrison within Narva, hence only about 8.000 were actually fighting, the ratio then becomes 4.3 - 1.

Contradict with Battle of Poltava
According to this article

"Charles had 14,000 men while Peter had 45,000"

However, according to the battlebox of Battle of Poltava, the numbers were 30000 vs. 60000. If we count only battle participants, its 8200 infantry + 7800 cavalry + 1000 hussars = 17000 on the Swedish side and 25000 infantry + 9000 dragoons and cossacks = 34000 on the Russian sides. Either way, the numbers don't match.

Top.Squark (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bender skirmish confusions
The skirmish at Bender was at Bender. "Crowds", meaning the mobs of towns people whom the Swedes ended up owing huge sums, were fed up and attacked the Swedes. It was mainly a local police matter in a way. Crowds did not surround Topkapi as the article claims, which was nowhere near Bender. Ottoman troops intervened, and Karl was then taken to Istanbul. Why this is sometimes presented as a military skirmish between Ottomans and the Swedes is a mystery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.153.82 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

pronounciation
How do they pronounce Charles in Swedish? Do they pronounce the first syllable as /ʃ/ (like shoe) or /tʃ/ (like chair) or even /k/? and do they pronounce the last /s/? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.177.58.250 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Carl (or Karl) in Swedish, never Charles. English and French kings et al who are Charles's are pronounced approximately shawlss in Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Swedish politics today part of Carl XII's life story?
Under "Legacy" this has now been added: I question the addition as being relevant to this man's life story and would like to see an avoidance of mixing modern Swedish political views, as related by modern Swedish polically affiliated newspapers, into it. The paragraph about his death date that existed before this addition was sufficient, in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Swedish press has described these marches over time as more and more anti-immigrant, even neo-nazi.

 * Considering that you restored the section (except that it didn't mention nazism), you're hardly one to talk. And it's not "political views". And calling Sydsvenskan "politically affiliated"? It's a morning paper, regional, but respected. The article wasn't even an editorial, but written by a PhD, who's written published journal articles about nationalism.
 * Writing about the marches that has been held on his death day, but not mentioning that they for the last 20 or so years has not been much but nazi demonstrations is misleading.
 * Andejons (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a very unpleasant and unconstructive habit of almost always getting personal when discussing things with other editors. That often gets me started on my very bad habit of always replying to you in personal terms.
 * How about let's both stop it? You stop getting personal, and I stop replying in kind?
 * There are now two sentences about this, making up the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section.
 * This one:
 * Conservative and nationalist forces in Sweden have used the 30th November as a day for demonstrations and marches, commemorating the death of Charles XII, in an attempt to couple his heroism for Sweden with their political beliefs.
 * And this one:
 * These marches over time become more and more anti-immigrant, even neo-nazi.
 * The first sentence, in my opinion, justifies its position in this bio as a sort of trivia item indirectly related to this life story.
 * With the second sentence, we are expounding on modern day political views (and taking sides) which I find inappropriate and especially irrelevant to the life story of King Carl XII. The reference you added there does not look neutral to me. The newspaper is officially "liberal" politically and that writer is not known for politically neutrality ("Den liberale historikern Fredrik Persson har i ett kåseri i Sydsvenskan framfört åsikten att folket inte självt ska få skriva sin historia — det ska experterna ta hand om."), as you know according to WP:NPOV that WP is supposed to be.
 * The second sentence definitely (or even the whole paragraph?) should go. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm calling a spade a spade. Neo-nazis aren't pleasant, but that's no reason not to spell out that that's what they are. The 30th november demonstrations are today known for being nazi showings, and not much else.
 * And almost all newspaper have an editorial page, with a certain political position. That is no reason to dismiss them as sources. Neither is the blog of Staffan Jacobsson, especially not when his critique is that Persson is too right-wing, and describes the demonstration as nazi already in the 30s. (And, just to avoid any confusion here: in Sweden, "Liberal" places someone to the right of the middle, and is only a dirty word in the mouth of some lefties).
 * Andejons (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to the WP:3O request. I think both opinions here are completely reasonable and the discussion has been dealt with properly so far. The main problem is that Andejons thinks his opinions are obvious facts in Swedish society, but has only provided one source of this. The other problem, that describing a neo-Nazi rally is inappropriate in the biography of a king who was not a neo-Nazi, is more difficult and should be dealt with later. First we should examine this with the guidelines set down in WP:UNDUE. According to that page, if this is common knowledge in Swedish society then there should be plenty of references to support that, not just one paper. If it is the view of a left-leaning paper only, then I think putting that minority view in a page about a king gives undeserving weight to the minority. Shii (tock) 00:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping Shii! As it stands now, I'd like to remove the second sentence which I strongly believe crosses the line between biography (18th century) and party politics (of today). SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 * There is no difficulty in finding more material supporting the connection. I simply took one with a more historical perspective, as I did not wish to burden the article with a lot of references to news articles. Here are a couple of other potential sources, easily found by googling: (from what's arguably the most right-leaning of Swedish major newspapers), and.
 * Andejons (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't read Swedish but if these sources say what you claim then there is still the much more difficult question of whether this parade deserves to be part of the king's biography. I am not an expert on Swedish monarchism and its undoubtedly complex history, so I can't participate in that discussion. Shii (tock) 08:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the question actually becomes simpler. Even if we were not to dispute the sources, primarily by revealing that all major Swedish newspapers receive undemocratic government subsidies and that any new political movements, which have no space in media and which theaten the elite, traditionally are bad-mouthed by that political elite (left to right) and the news media it for-all-intents-and-purposes controls, I still believe the second sentence is just plain out of scope for this biography. It's simply irrelevant to a bio.
 * Dear Shii, you don't need to know Swedish or Swedish politics to give us your opinion on that, the neutral opinion I went looking for at 3O. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of points - firstly, Serge's apologetics for "new political movements" seem deeply suspect, and also irrelevant. Secondly, discussion of the commemoration of a historical figure is of course totally within bounds for a historical biography. I also don't see how two sentences in an article of this length constitutes undue weight. john k (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you chose to get personal rather than sticking to the issue at hand, you either might want to strike your rather murky insult ("deeply suspect") or come clean, make a clearer personal attack of it and specify what you mean more precisely. I am very offended by it.
 * Other than that, you are quite right in principle, but as usual it depends on the contents of the two sentences. Sentence two is sufficiently redundant that its inclusion, with POV which is non-neutral, is inappropriate in this biography. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about organisations with names as "Nationalsocialistisk front" here. . To claim that them being labelled neo-nazi is some kind of conspiracy between the government and media is frankly disgusting.
 * Andejons (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in that or as familiar with that organization as you apparently are, nor with what it can be compared to or labelled as. To me, they just look like a negligable little bunch of nuts in some kind of scouting uniforms, and (as far as I know) there is no significant ingredient of Hitller-style nazism anywhere anymore. The extremely fervent trendiness of making a mountain of their molehill is ridiculous to me. Popular poppycock of no importance whatsoever in the real world, and a convenient distraction from inconvenient real problems, like wide-spread racism in all walks of life, that need much more attention. But how is this even important here?
 * To me, this discussion itself proves that sentence #2 does not belong in this biography. After all, we aren't discussing it (the article) at all. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you really objecting to referring to obviously Neo-Nazi groups as Neo-Nazis? Are you pretending not to understand what's going on here, or do you not realize that "National Socialist" is a term that is synonymous with "Nazi"?   If a group calls itself National Socialist, it is pretty much by definition a Nazi or Neo-Nazi movement. john k (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Charles XII is the only older Swedish king whose death date is generally known (probably better remembered than his death year) - because of those commemorations by (ultra-)nationalistic movements and the disturbances surrounding them. It should be mentioned in the article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All of you have valid points: So this is imo really a question of WP:UNDUE. Pro-inclusion arguments are that the "commemoration" was contineously done in several places and covered by the news. Contra-inclusion arguments are that the "commemorators" are very few people from the fringes of society, who during the last ca. two decades failed to establish the date as their symbol and now abandoned it in favor of the death date of a teenager (who is imo likewise unsuitable), and that their activities have largely been ignored outside blogs and local news sources. I think the contra-arguments weigh stronger and the sentences about the death-date marches should not remain in the article. Maybe they fit into an article about nazism/nationalism in Sweden, but Charles XII should not be bothered with them. In the Swedish wikipedia, where the "commemoration" gets a lot more attention, there is not one sentence about it in the Karl-den-tolfte article, instead, a distinct article Karl XII-firande i Lund is linked in the see also section. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While argueably, "commemoration" before the 80's was organized by "conservative and nationalist forces" (wording used in the article), it is beyond doubt that since the late 80's, and especially in the 90's and 00's, these marches and wreath-laying ceremonies were no more than openly confessing neo-nazis seeking a public platform. Which in turn led to antifa counter-manifestations and community festivities (as in Lund) effectively making it hard to impossible for the neo-nazis to further use this date for their purpose.
 * The most important sites of the neo-nazi 30-November-marches were Lund and Stockholm. Even there, the neo-nazis were not able to get more than a hand-ful of people to participate in their manifestations. It's not like these marches attracted hundreds or thousands of people, that is true only for the counter-manifestations. Accounts of these marches in literature are very sparse, most of the coverage is in local news or (predominantly antifa and neo-nazi) web blogs.
 * Recently, the neo-nazis seem to have abandoned 30 November in favor of their Salem marches on 10 December.
 * The historical Charles XII has nothing to do with what the neo-nazis want him or his death to symbolize, historian Peter Englund has a nice essay on that issue
 * The endless Samuel Johnson quote is much more WP:UNDUE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how one sentence about something which has clearly received media attention can possibly constitute undue weight. john k (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably wouldn't if embedded in a paragraph about heroization during romanticism and the controversy started by Strindberg (heroic warrior king of the stormakt era vs tragic lunatic who ruined the rik, to name only the extreme views). Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have included some lines accordingly . Skäpperöd (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's totally reasonable. john k (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The shot entered the left temple
The shot that killed Charles XII entered the left temple, not the right. (This is a fact, after careful examinations of the king's skull.) SuecicaRex (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then add a source to it? Imonoz (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i forgott... The Swedish source has bin added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuecicaRex (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates
There are no real dates after a mention of just 'late 1707' in the first paragraph of the 'Russian resurgence' section, making the rest of that section, the next section, and the first half of the 'Pomerania and Norway' section difficult to grasp a decent timeline of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bearth and Death
The dates given are according to Julian Calender - this Calender was used until 1753 in Sweden. Charles XII tride to implement the Gregorian one day a year but the war came in between and the Calender was reset to Julian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar

Symbios

Russian selling slaves to the Turks?
"Sultan Ahmet III, as gesture to the King, had bought some of the Swedish women and children put up for sale by the Russians and turned them over to the Swedes, thus further strengthening the growing community of Caroleans." Is there any source for this? I've never heard of or read anything which indicated that Russia was into the slave trade, much less with the Turks, whom they were at war with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.64.146 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Wasn't in the reference, case of WP:SYNTH. Removed eight years later but better late than never I suppose. TylerBurden (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Inline citations
Atleast three entire sections lackes all forms of inline refs to sources, infact there are no support at all for sections 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. A good lead can lack sources, but must then be an overview of sourcered material further down. Is that the case here ? If not, also the lead must be sourcered. Also, the number of different sources whitin each major event (like a war) ought to use atleast two authors when possible. And Swedish historical litterature has indeed much to offer about this King. Here is a better (but not optimal example) Louis XIV of France, who lived around the same time as Charles XII. Boeing720 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim Blanning quote
"Prominently displayed here was a bust by Jacques Philippe Bouchardon of Charles XII of Sweden, autocrat, military hero and homosexual, about whom both Voltaire and Frederick himself wrote enthusiastically". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was properly sourced. Not having a page number cited does not mean something is not sufficiently sourced. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Charles XII:s sexuality is an issue, albeit very minor, in the scholarship on him, so there should probably be a place for it in the article. One should, however, not simplify it by saying that he was "likely homosexual", especially not when the only sources one has are biographies on totally different people. AFAIK, there are no sources showing he had any sexual attachment to any person at all.
 * Andejons (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree, sources have been cited to support the material. Unless one can argue reasonably that the sources themselves are flawed, then it seems entirely reasonable to use them - regardless as to whether they deal or not directly with the life of Charles XII. What aspect of guidance have we violated do you think? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I will qoute WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes." This is not the case with Charles.
 * More importantly, there is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." A biography of Frederick the Great can hardly be considered to be a good source on the personal details of the life of Charles XII, since they had no direct interaction. Likewise, Charles is at best a tangential subject for a part of a book on the Romanovs.
 * Finally as counterpoints to the actual statment that he was "likely homosexual", here is an article in Swedish that speculates that Charles could have been autistic, and that this could explain his lack of interest in women. Here is a master thesis on the topic of queer interpretations of history, among which discussions of Charles' sexuality, and notes that other explanations have been offered, such as impotence, asexuality, or even hermaphroditism. It would at least be a good starting point for finding relevant sources on the subject.
 * Andejons (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As for names:  "known lovers of Charles XII, whose name frequently appears on lists of famous homosexuals, were Axel Wachtmeister, Prince Maximilian of Wurttemberg, General Rehnskold and General Stenbock." says  p 420.  Tim Blanning is one of the foremost scholars of European history. He is quote explicit about the point. Unpublished non-RS by unknown people are not useful refutations.  also: 1) ; 2)

John Costello Love, sex, and war (1985) Page 159 https://books.google.com/books?id=qCQbAAAAYAAJ Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Garde is absolutely not reliable - The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality calls his work ["the high-water mark of uncritical use of sources". Blanning might be a reliable source on European early modern history in general, but that does not make him a reliable source on details of Charles XII's life, especially when compared to more focused scholarship. Try [[Bengt Liljegren]], who does seem to be discussing Charles sexuality in his Karl XII: en biografi.
 * Andejons (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Banning is a world-class leading scholar on the era. that's the sort of RS wikipedia requires. Charles gets a full page in Keith Stern Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals (2009) pp 100-101  Rjensen (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, being a general historian of an era does not make him an expert on individuals from that era, especially individuals from countries were he does not speak the language. As for the lists you cite, I will quote The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality again: "Historians of homosexual behaviour has found that the method of accumulating famous names has a number of inadequacies ... Use of evidence is often slipshod, and famous persons are included whose homosexuality is doubtful - even unlikely. ... books containing such lists are now regarded as belonging to the realm of popular culture rather than to that of scholarship." . Again, find a source which is based on scholarship on Charles, not repetition of assumptions and hearsay.
 * Andejons (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanning is the leading biographer of Frederick the Great, who had a special interest in Charles XII (they both were gay) and often wrote about him. That makes Blanning fully an expert in the issue. Blanning has often written about Charles and indeed it's hard to be a leading expert in a historical era in which Charles XII was a major figure.  Blanning also cites Swedish studies. Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 * This is just silly. If Frederick was especially interested in the history of Charles, it was primarily because he was one of the preceding generations' more prominent generals, not because they shared an interest in men (which, still, has not been demonstrated for Charles; it is just a bunch of conjecture based on: 1. That he apparantly never had any sexual relations with a woman 2. A few remarks he made on the relative beauty of men and women 3. That he once slept with his head in the lap of a soldier). The whole concept of "homosexuality" as an identity stems from the nineteenth century. Frederick would not even have understood what you are implying here.
 * And no, expertise is not inherited in that way either. There are tons of aspects of Frederick Blanning could write about that has not the least part to do with Charles, or what he got up to in the bedroom; looking through the Google books hits, he does not seem to discuss Charles in depth at any time. I will suggest that what Blanning writes in note 204 is instructive: "Charles XII main biographer, Ragnhild Hatton, devotes much space to explaining why he never married but does not discuss his sexuality". The only source Blanning has for this assertion is another biography of Frederick by Hahn, which is just as useless. (This is the only work of Blanning that I've been able to find that mentions Charles XII, which seems rather odd for an supposed expert).
 * Andejons (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly I want to pick up on the point made that "The whole concept of "homosexuality" as an identity stems from the nineteenth century." Well, yes and no. Yes, the nineteenth century is the first time that homosexuality and identity first become articulated in academic discourse. This does not mean that homosexuality was invented in the 19th century - homosexuals existed before that ie men predominantly sexually/ romantically attracted to other men. I'm still personally inclined to give Blanning some weight but before we can move on I'd be interested to hear what Bengt Liljegren says about Charles' sexuality. As I can't speak Swedish then perhaps someone wouldn't mind summarizing. Thanks. I'm also happy to potentially include a reference to Charles's possible asexuality - but statistically speaking asexuality is considerably less common than homosexuality or bisexuality and so we would need some clearer evidence to support. If a man isn't sexually attracted to a woman then he's more likely to be attracted to other men first than to have no sexual attraction at all. In age when homosexuality was punishable by death the only option was generally to suppress feelings or cover them up (thus giving the appearance of asexuality) or being "married to the people".Contaldo80 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, with Andejons. "Conjecture" is the key word here as it much more often should be when we try to label people, living or dead, regarding sexual orientation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 * My point was not that homosexuality did not exist, but rather that people did not identify as homosexuals. It was certainly possible that someone only was attracted to his or her own sex, but that fact alone does not mean that he or she would label himself in any particular way, or identify with someone else because of it.
 * I was able to get a couple of extracts from Liljegren's book through Google books: . I think the more relevant of them is the latter. "Karls egna erfarenheter på området var dock obefintliga. Han hade aldrig varit med någon kvinna. Ointresset för det täcka könet höll i sig nu även när han inte längre befann sig i fält. Men att kungen skulle ha varit homosexuell går inte att belägga." : "Charles had no personal experience in this area. He had never been with any woman. The lack of interest in the fair sex continued even now when he no longer was campaigning. But it is not possible to find any proof that the king was homosexual". (Note: Swedish "belägga" means "present evidence". When a historian says that something "inte går att beläggas", it means that it is not supported by primary sources).
 * I fully agree with Serge here. That Charles never married and never took any known mistress is certainly a notable aspect of his life, and there has been speculation on why this was. That he was homosexual is one such theory, probably even a notable one. However, this article currently ignores all the other theories on this to present one possible explanation as the likely truth. This is not neutral.
 * Andejons (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very helpful Andejons - thank you for sharing. Yes, I'm inclined to see if we can find a form of wording that is more balanced. It's clear that there are various propositions - homosexuality and asexuality being among them. It's probably too strong to come down on one particular position because of the lack of evidence. It would be good to get your thoughts - particularly as your Swedish is so much better than mine. As an aside - I'm personally less persuaded by SergeWoodzing I'm afraid, as in my experience this editor lacks maturity in any discussions around sexual orientation. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * It seems clear that there is no consensus among scholars about whether Charles was or was not primarily sexually attracted to men. That means that expressing it as a fact in wikipedias voice is not an option. If the suggestion is notable then it should be included with attribution, and so could any other notable theories for which sources can be presented. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is a lack of consensus amongst historians is there? I think the general view is that Charles never married and so he was either not interested in women or not interested in sex. It's notable in so far as sexual orientation is as notable as religion - and it was obviously considered notably for other military leaders such as Frederick II of Prussia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I'd like to clarify my stance: there is no consensus among scholars about whether Charles was or was not primarily sexually attracted to men, and there is no consensus among scholars about there even having been a substantial amount of published rumors or claims or gossip or assertions that he was sexually attracted to men. I participated in similar debates on both Greta Garbo and Queen Christina of Sweden on two occasions some time ago, about allegations of both being homosexuals. There, if I remember correctly, something was added about modern scholars having decided they were (though, in fact, nobody knows). I found that sad. For Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we remember that. If you think homosexuality is an "allegation" then your gifts may be better suited to another domain rather than the field of human enlightenment. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV rules: do not remove sourced information
The wp:NPOV rules require INCLUSION of major viewpoints.  which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Deliting a major viewpoint is a violation of the rules. The problem regarding homosexuality is that Andejons has been unable to find a significant RS that takes the position Andejons seems to believe in, so he deletes sourced material. That violates the NPOV rule: the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. and '''As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. ''' Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent the rules. There is no prohibition of removing sourced information. Sourcing is a minimum requirement for inclusion, not a guarantee. If there is consensus that a particular viewpoint does not merit inclusion then the material is to be excluded. If you have not been able to generate consensus for inclusion here at the talkpage, then I suggest starting an RfC to get more perspectives. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * incorrect. the NPOV rule states As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.  that is exactly what Andejons keeps doing. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a pillar Rjensen. You do not have consensus for including this material in the least.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * this consensus bit is wrong. The wp:NPOV rule is explicit: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.  Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What you are saying here is a serious misunderstanding. Consensus alone determines what is or isnt neutral and what is or is not to be included. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record I have started a discussion and an RfC about that specific wording in the Lead of WP:NPOV which I think is highly problematic and should be removed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

 * For the record, my position on Charles' sexuality is that it is basically unknowable, and that we have nothing else than more or less well-founded speculation. The relevant portion of WP:NPOV seems to be exactly what Rjensen quotes: "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis mine).
 * Does the article do this? Nope. It presents one view as the likely truth. Is it a significant view? Probably. Are there others? Yes, the view that we cannot tell what his sexuality was is supported by one of his biographers. Is the presentation free from editorial bias? Nope. The fact that Sebag Montefiores statement that Charles possibly was homosexual is used to support the claim that he was "likely homosexual" is of course misrepresentative. Thus, the passage is not neutral.
 * As for "do not remove material", the passage continues "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.". It is certainly possible to write an analysis of Charles' lack of family life. However, to do the subject justice would put focus on one particular aspect of his life in a way that is not suitable for the lede. If this claim is to be included, it should be in a separate section that is structured around the fact that Charles never married, including his own statement on why (that he was "married to his troops"), speculation from contemporaries, and modern speculation. It should not present any of these reasons as likely unless we find that there is consensus among scholars. I'm not in a position to write such a section right now. Until someone can, the article is more neutral without any statememt on the matter.
 * Andejons (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think on balance this is right - we need a short bit of text just covering all the material as we have it. I'm happy to give this a go if others want to feed in thoughts. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd be happy to try to help improve such a section with what I can find. In two weeks time, I'll have better access to sources, so I should be able to start on it as well if no one else has been able to.
 * Andejons (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andejons - I've taken a look at three or four books today and suggested some text in the article. It will be good to see whether you think it strikes the right balance. It would be also good if we can get some sources that are more up to date (there may be more available only in Swedish). regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I've added some material out of Liljegren's book, who quotes Löwen's reports of Charles' conversation directly. On the whole, I think the structure is quite OK. There might be more to be said of other theories, but that should be easy to incorporate when they can be sourced properly. However, I changed "likely" to "possible", as that is what Sebag Montefiore uses. If you want to keep "likely", I don't think Sebag Montefiore should be kept as a source for that sentence.
 * Andejons (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine - I'm happy with that. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Agree fully again. NPOV means Neutral Point of View. It's a very good thing to go by in all these sexuality matters. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutrality also means not being panicked if someone is identified as homosexual, of course. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Trying to grasp how that comment possibly could be relevant here. A personal smear directed at those of us who don't want to label people sexually without any reliable sources? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Or equally have no desire to ever seek them out. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we still discussing this article, or should this now be moved to a new page, maybe Snide comments about sexuality made as smears on other users? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. You want to start on this one knowing your considerable expertise in this area? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I would not like to start anything like that.
 * I would like you to stop misusing this page for your personal views and snide remarks which are totally irrelevant here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Charles XII of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005011236/http://www.peterenglund.com/textarkiv/mordslumpskott.htm to http://www.peterenglund.com/textarkiv/mordslumpskott.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.karlxii.se/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209085239/http://www.islandnet.com:80/~kpolsson/swedhis/swed1700.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/swedhis/swed1700.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles XII of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421235622/http://www.peterenglund.com/textarkiv/karlXII.htm to http://www.peterenglund.com/textarkiv/karlXII.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.karlxii.se/Default.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/swedhis/swed1700.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Alleged murder
I see repeated reversals being done on this without discussion.

My edit here was for language, not for content. Though the murder-by-Frederick scenario has been discussed respectably for almost 300 years now, it's right to delete the new input about it due to insufficient sourcing. We'll see if Ms. Nordenkull's work gets reliable commentary in the media around the actual 300th death anniversary Nov. 30th. So far, not much mention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of "her" to refer to countries
Hello, in this page, there are multiple uses of the word "her" in reference to countries, such as in the sentence "His brilliant campaigning and startling victories brought his country to the pinnacle of her prestige and power, ... " I do not believe that this usage is correct, especially in an encyclopedic context. To my knowlege countries should be referred to by "it" in general. --Thespündragon 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like the whole sentence should be re-written. --Equivamp - talk 23:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient citation
The source cited for the royal titles states the following:

King of Sweden, the Goths, the Wends; Grand Prince of Finland; Duke of Skåne, Estonia, Livonia, Karelia, Bremen, Verden, Stettin, Pomerania, the Kashubes, the Wends; Prince of Rugen; Lord of Ingria, Wismar; Count-Palatine of the Rhine; Duke in Bavaria, of Jülich, Kleve, Berg;

The titles "count of Zweibrücken-Kleeburg", "count of Veldenz", "count of Spanheim", "count of Ravensberg" and "lord of Ravenstein" are not mentioned in this source. Also note that while duke of Pomerania is implied by "king of the Wends", it is not one of his official titles.

Bapo224 (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Last European Monarch to be Killed in Battle?
It would seem to be notable in itself if true, and that's the claim made by a recent infographic I saw on another website, and I can't see a more recent contender. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.78.6.120 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Any source stating this? --TylerBurden (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The prevailing academic view today is that he was assassinated from within. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Assassination
I do not know of a single modern academic historian who still clings to the story of King Charles being hit my enemy fire, which we now know that there was none ongoing when he died. Unless one can be named here I will reinstate the heading Assassination rather than Death. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 * The section itself would have to be changed and those sources included then, because at the moment it mentions the theories that he was assassinated, but not that they are widely believed to be true. On the contrary it mentions that the exhumations confirmed he was hit from the fort. Simply changing the heading without any other alterations doesn't make sense with the way the section is. TylerBurden (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I know of at least two modern academic historians who has other views: Peter Englund is already quoted as not believing in an assassination. sv:Nils Erik Villstrand in Sveriges historia: 1600-1721 leaves the question open, but notes that the assassination theory fits a psychological need where an extraordinary life should have a corresponding end.
 * Andejons (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

charles xii or karl?
as son of karl xi of sweeden,in 1697 charles xi died,so charles became king. 180.194.13.157 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Charles in English, Karl in Swedish. TylerBurden (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Carolus Rex
Is there a reason his latinized name (Carolus) is included in the first line of the article? This really isn't common practice for any other monarchs. I'm aware of the metal album by Sabaton (which I'm sure has many people directed to this article), however for consistency's sake I'm not sure this article should get special treatment? Skerbs (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should probably be removed, other than the Sabaton reference I don't see anything else referring to him as such. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * sv:Marcia Carolus Rex is one example of the frequency where this king often has been called that, way before the band. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eric XIV of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles XI of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Exile
The article states that charles was exiled in the ottoman empire, but ive alwaysed learned that he sought refuge. Should the text be changed? Dencoolast33 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No need. It does not say that he was 'exiled', but that he was 'in exile', in his case mostly a voluntary exile. Lots of sources use the term, thus can Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles XII of Sweden


text:
Jens Pulver

Jens Johnnie Pulver (born December 6, 1974) is an American retired professional mixed martial artist and undefeated boxer and kickboxer. Pulver was the inaugural UFC Lightweight Champion in addition to serving as the head coach on The Ultimate Fighter 5 reality show against long-time rival B.J. Penn. In mixed martial arts, Pulver competed at the Lightweight, Featherweight, Bantamweight and Flyweight divisions in addition to competing at the Middleweight, Light Middleweight, and Welterweight divisions as a professional boxer. While perhaps best known for competing in the UFC, Pulver has also competed in Pride Fighting Championships, for the PRIDE 2005 Lightweight Grand Prix. He is to-date the youngest UFC Lightweight Champion in the UFC history, eventually relinquishing his title, after two defenses, due to a contract dispute. Pulver officially retired from combat sports in 2014.

Nicknamed Lil' Evil, Pulver won the first UFC Lightweight Championship following his victory over Caol Uno at UFC 30: Battle on the Boardwalk. Pulver also held the UFC's all-time lightweight title defenses record for nearly a decade after his successful defenses against Dennis Hallman at UFC 33: Victory in Vegas and B.J. Penn at UFC 35: Throwdown. He remains as one of the most influential figures in the Ultimate Fighting Championship, due to his domination and undefeated reign as UFC Lightweight Champion in the early Zuffa era.

Background
The son of a licensed horse jockey, Jens Pulver was born in Sunnyside, Washington, and grew up in Maple Valley, Washington (approximately an hour's drive from Seattle). He was the oldest of four children, two brothers, Dustin and Abel, and one sister, Jamaica.

Pulver has heterochromia, a harmless medical condition that gives eyes different colors; in Pulver's case his right eye is blue, while his left eye is brown.

Pulver was raised in what he referred to as a "daily hell." His childhood house was one of continual violence and abuse, stemming mostly from his alcoholic father. Many examples of the abuse Pulver faced as a youth are depicted in his autobiography, Little Evil, One Ultimate Fighter's Rise to the Top, the most extreme of which include an incident where his father threatened the then-seven-year-old Jens by placing a shotgun in Jens' mouth and then removing it, stating, "Shit, ain't worth a bullet."

Martial arts background
The summer before he entered sixth grade, Pulver was introduced to a friend of the family, Jack Vantress. Vantress encouraged Pulver to join a youth wrestling program. He went on to wrestle at Tahoma Senior High School in Maple Valley, earning two state championships. He also began boxing when he was a junior. Pulver wrestled for Highline Community College where he became an NJCAA All-American by placing in the top eight at the NJCAA National Championships. He then wrestled for Boise State University (BSU), before he suffered a bilateral fracture of the wrists that eventually ended his collegiate career. Pulver eventually graduated from BSU with a degree in criminal justice.

While in college, Pulver's interests shifted from wrestling to mixed martial arts. He found early success fighting in unsanctioned "underground" events, before befriending Lowell Anderson, the owner of a Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ) academy ninety miles north of Boise, Idaho. Lowell got Pulver involved in sanctioned MMA events, namely the Bas Rutten Invitational in April 1999. Pulver won one match, then lost the second due to his lack of martial arts training. He fought again in the third incarnation of the Bas Rutten Invitational, winning both his fights and impressing then-UFC matchmaker, John Perretti.

Pulver moved to Lockeford, California, in 1999 where he briefly trained at the Lion's Den and then joined Shamrock 2000, a short lived camp formed by Bob Shamrock (the foster father of Ken and Frank Shamrock) Kevin Woo, and Dr. Ron Emmerson. Pulver noted that there was a little kid who would show up at the gym to hit the bags in those days named Nick Diaz with his younger brother Nate, both of whom later became MMA stars. Pulver, who hated his name because it was the same as his father's, even asked Bob at one point if he could take the Shamrock name since Bob was the first real father figure he felt he ever had. Bob told him: "You go out there and make the Pulver name mean something good." Pulver would later go on to become the first 155-pound champion in UFC history. Pulver wanted to fight full-time, but they did not have the right training partners for him. Shamrock put him in contact with Monte Cox and sent him to Iowa, where Pat Miletich was starting a camp where he could train full-time.

Professional career
Pulver began competing in the UFC in September 1999. He fought four times in the UFC before gaining a title shot against top ranked Caol Uno in February 2001. Pulver won the title by unanimous decision, becoming the first UFC Lightweight Champion. He defended his title twice against Dennis Hallman and B.J. Penn before leaving the organization due to contractual problems. Pulver became famous for his combination of defensive wrestling and boxing strategies colloquially called "sprawl and brawl" in MMA circles.

Pulver vs. Hallman
Pulver's first title defense came against Dennis Hallman who is best known for his two wins against former UFC Welterweight Champion Matt Hughes).

Following a second win over Hughes, Hallman dropped down a weight class and fought Pulver for the Lightweight Championship in September 2001. Pulver and Hallman had both wrestled in the same state (Washington) in high school. In pre-fight interviews, Hallman claimed to personally know and dislike Pulver, but Pulver denied any personal relationship, instead asserting that he only knew Hallman as a fellow state high school wrestling champion.

During the fight, Hallman secured an armbar on Pulver, but Pulver countered the technique and later landed a left hook flush on Hallman's chin. Hallman fought passively for the remainder of the fight, seemingly unable to recover completely from that blow, and Pulver eventually won by unanimous decision.

Pulver vs. Penn
Pulver's second title defense came against B.J. Penn. Before his transition to mixed martial arts, Penn was the most highly decorated Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioner in America and the first American-born to win the World IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu Championship.

Upon his impressive debut against wrestler Joey Gilbert, finishing him with a first-round TKO, Penn rose quickly through the rankings. Penn, already known for his grappling, quickly stunned the MMA community by showcasing incredible striking skills; quickly knocking out highly regarded Din Thomas, then knocking out Caol Uno within eleven seconds of the first round. Heading into the fight with Pulver, Penn had never fought longer than the first round. The speed in which Penn was defeating opponents had many MMA journalists suggesting he was unbeatable.

Pulver's performance in the fight is considered the high point of his career. Penn pressed the action early; taking Pulver to the mat numerous times, achieving a full mount on him twice in the second round and securing a straight armbar, completely hyper-extending Pulver's arm as the seconds ticked off the clock ending the second round.

Pulver battled back in the third round, successfully defending Penn's attempts to take him to the ground, and even scoring defensive takedowns on Penn. Pulver frustrated Penn with nothing more than sheer will power, not only winning the later rounds, but out-grappling the world-renowned Penn. In the fifth round, Penn, frustrated and down on points, chose to stand and trade with Pulver. For the entire five minutes of the fifth round the two stood toe to toe exchanging strikes. With 45 seconds left in the round, a left hand from Pulver staggered Penn, who looked in trouble. However, Penn countered with a right kick straight to the groin, resulting in a 50-second time-out. Although the time-out gave Penn time to recover, when the bout was restarted, Pulver staggered him a second time with 20 seconds remaining. However, the round drew to a conclusion and the fight went into the judges' hands.

Pulver won the fight via majority decision. Breaking into tears during the post-fight interview, Pulver shouted, "On the ground again!...I've been beat on my whole life, this is nothing."

Leaving the UFC
Pulver was expected to fight at UFC 38 on July 13, 2002, but after the company declined a pay raise request and missed the prevailing contract's option exercising period, Pulver left the UFC. After leaving, Pulver's career slumped slightly with two consecutive losses. He regained his winning ways by dropping down a weight class (to 145 lb). Along the same time, Pulver also began competing as a professional boxer, winning all four of his fights in 2004, including a fight on the nationally syndicated USA Network. During this time Pulver fought in various other MMA promotions, including Shooto, and the IFL, as well as one match in the Shootboxing kickboxing promotion, where he defeated 2004 Sanda champion Dai Chang Liang. After this match, Pulver moved back up to the lightweight division in December 2004 in Pride.

Pride
His first match in Pride was against then current and last Pride lightweight (160 lb) champion Takanori Gomi. Pulver and Gomi demonstrated excellent boxing skills and were both regarded as putting on the best boxing fight in an MMA bout. This was stopped short when Gomi delivered a vicious uppercut that knocked out Pulver 6:29 into the first round. This led to a match against Tomomi Iwama, in which he defeated his opponent via knock out one minute into the fight with a left hook.

He then faced Japanese star Hayato Sakurai, and would go on to lose in a fast paced see-saw affair that showcased both the toughness and heart of Pulver, and the experience and technicality of Sakurai. During the fight, Pulver was accidentally thumbed in the eye by Sakurai which left a corneal abrasion on his eye. Despite the injury Pulver still managed to knock down Sakurai with a left hook in the latter part of the first round, though Sakurai eventually won via TKO.

His final fight in Pride, against Kenji Arai, was an entertaining battle of strikers which ended when Pulver knocked Arai down with a right-left combination, and finished him with a soccer kick to the head, earning the TKO.

Return to the UFC
At UFC 63, Pulver returned to the Ultimate Fighting Championship in the newly reinstated lightweight division. He was matched up against UFC-newcomer Joe Lauzon. Pulver was a 7:1 favorite to win the match, but Lauzon quickly defeated the former Lightweight Champion via one punch knockout at the 48-second mark of the first round. After the fight, Pulver apologized for his performance and indicated that he still desired to keep fighting in the UFC.

Pulver was a coach on The Ultimate Fighter 5 reality television show, which hosted sixteen lightweight fighters, including the man who knocked him out previously, Joe Lauzon. His counterpart on the show and rival coach, was B.J. Penn whom Pulver defeated previously. The two coaches were scheduled to fight in the season finale, in which Pulver was defeated by a rear naked choke in the second round. After the fight, Pulver announced his intentions to drop down to featherweight and fight in the WEC. He also made overtures toward Penn to set aside their differences and train together but Pulver has also said that he would welcome a third fight with Penn.

In UFC 284, UFC announced Pulver will be inducted into the Pioneer Wing of the UFC Hall of Fame this July during the 11th annual UFC International Fight Week in Las Vegas. Pulver learned about his induction while conducting a watch-along live stream on the UFC's official Twitch.TV channel.

World Extreme Cagefighting
On July 17, 2007, it was announced Pulver would be making his World Extreme Cagefighting debut against Cub Swanson at WEC 30 on September 5, 2007. Pulver had to pull out of the match with Cub Swanson due to a knee injury. The fight was subsequently rescheduled for WEC 31. Pulver won the rescheduled match by guillotine choke at 35 seconds of the first round and announced his intentions to make a run for the 145 lb title which Urijah Faber currently held and had defended successfully against Pulver's teammate and longtime Jiu-Jitsu coach, Jeff Curran on the same card.

Pulver and Faber finally met at WEC 34 on June 1, 2008. Neither man was able to finish the other and the fight went the full five rounds. The judges scored the bout a unanimous decision for Faber, 50–45, 50–44 and 50–44. This fight marked the first time that one of Pulver's fights at featherweight had gone to decision, the first time Pulver had been defeated at that weight class and also the first time one of Faber's fights in the WEC had gone the distance. Pulver stated after the fight that he wanted another shot at the title, but wanted "to earn it".

Pulver next fought infamous brawler Leonard Garcia at WEC 36 on November 5, after the original date of September 10 was postponed due to the threat of Hurricane Ike. In a surprising turn of events, Pulver suffered a TKO loss in the first round as the Greg Jackson-trained Leonard Garcia stunned Pulver with a left-right combination, then swarmed Pulver with more punches against the cage fence.

At WEC 38, Pulver once again lost to Faber in a rematch of their WEC 34 encounter when Pulver succumbed to a guillotine choke early in the first round.

After his second loss to Faber, Pulver temporarily replaced Frank Mir as color commentator at WEC 39.

At WEC 41, Pulver was submitted by Josh Grispi via Guillotine Choke within the first minute of the match. "I think I just ended in the same place I started," Pulver said emotionally to the crowd after losing 8 of his past 12 encounters. "I’m not saying I’m done yet, but it’s been incredible."

Pulver returned at WEC 47 to face Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu black belt Javier Vazquez on March 6, 2010. Pulver lost via submission due to an armbar at 3:41 of the first round. Pulver has lost 9 out his last 13 fights.

In the aftermath of Pulver's loss at WEC 47, UFC President Dana White confirmed that Pulver had been released from the WEC.

Independent Promotions
Pulver met Diego Garijo on August 14, 2010, in Irvine, California, losing the bout by submission via guillotine choke in the first round. This was Pulver's sixth straight loss.

Pulver was next scheduled to face Frank Johnson at CFX/Extreme Challenge 170 on December 11 at the Target Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota. But Pulver pulled out of the fight for unknown reasons and was replaced by Mitch Jackson.

Pulver headlined XFO 38 against Mike Lindquist on January 22, 2011, where he won the fight via rear naked choke submission at 0:49 in the first round. This marked Pulver's first victory in just over 3 years, snapping a 6 fight losing streak.

On March 5, 2011, Pulver defeated Wade Choate by split decision despite breaking his foot in the first round of the fight. The victory marks his second consecutive win.

Pulver fought fellow World Extreme Cagefighting veteran, Coty Wheeler at MMA Fight Pit presents "Genesis" on August 13, 2011, in New Mexico. Pulver won the fight via 2nd-round TKO in a dominant performance.

Pulver fought Tim Elliott at Resurrection Fighting Alliance on December 16, 2011, and lost the fight via second-round knockout by a knee to the temple. In a post fight speech, Elliott thanked Jens for accepting the fight, and referred to him as his number one inspiration for being a mixed martial artist.

On March 26, 2012, it was announced that Pulver had signed with UK promotion Cage Warriors.

On April 14, 2012, Pulver defeated All Army Combatives Flyweight Champion Jesse Thorton by unanimous decision in Fort Hood, Texas.

ONE Fighting Championship
On August 31, 2012, Pulver moved back up to 145 lbs to face undefeated Filipino fighter Eric Kelly in his own country. Pulver hung in tough with Kelly but fell in the second round to a TKO after Kelly landed a solid body kick followed up with some punches.

On October 6, 2012, Pulver returned to ONE Championship in entering their Bantamweight Grand Prix. Jens took on Chinese prospect Zhao Ya Fei. Pulver won a technical decision after taking an illegal groin strike and the fight went to the judges score cards in the third round.

Pulver faced Masakatsu Ueda in the Bantamweight Grand Prix Semifinals on April 5, 2013, at ONE Fighting Championship: Kings and Champions. He lost the fight by D'Arce choke submission.

Personal life
Pulver has a daughter. He married in 2009. He and his wife have a boy who was born December 16, 2008.

Pulver is featured in a documentary about his training camp, personal life and difficult childhood called "Jens Pulver: Driven."

In 2014, Pulver makes a cameo on season four of The Vanilla Ice Project on DIY Network. He is a part of a computer case and video gaming team called Red Harbinger and goes by the gamer name, "Little Evil". He and his team are called in by Rob Van Winkle (aka Vanilla Ice) to supply custom computers for a video game room Winkle designed in a mansion he renovated in Palm Beach, Florida.

Championships and accomplishments

 * Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * UFC Hall of Fame (Pioneer wing, Class of 2023)
 * UFC Lightweight Championship (One time; first)
 * Two successful title defenses
 * First UFC Lightweight Champion to defend the title in UFC History
 * First Lightweight to headline a UFC Event vs. B.J. Penn
 * PRIDE Fighting Championship
 * PRIDE 2005 Lightweight Grand Prix Quarterfinalist
 * One of only two UFC Lightweight Champions to compete in PRIDE FC
 * World Extreme Cagefighting
 * Fight of the Night (One time)
 * ONE Fighting Championship
 * ONE FC Bantamweight Grand Prix Semifinalist
 * Fight Matrix
 * 2002 Most Noteworthy Match of Year vs. B.J. Penn on January 11, 2002

Professional boxing record

 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="8"|4 Wins (3 knockouts, 1 decisions), 0 Losses
 * - style="text-align:center; background:#e3e3e3;"
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Res.
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Record
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Opponent
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Type
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Rd., Time
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Date
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Location
 * style="border-style:none none solid solid; "|Notes
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 4–0
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Jeff Hinds
 * KO || 3, 0:13
 * October 22, 2004 || Rosemont, Illinois, United States ||Welterweight
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 3–0
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Leonard Lewis
 * TKO || 1, 0:41
 * August 27, 2004 || Rosemont, Illinois, United States || Light Middleweight
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 2–0
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Steve Vincent
 * Split decision || 4
 * June 15, 2004 || Elk Grove Village, Illinois, United States || Light Middleweight
 * - align=center
 * Win
 * 1–0
 * align=left|🇺🇸 Matt Bauler
 * TKO || 1, 0:32
 * February 28, 2004 || Marshalltown, Iowa, United States || Middleweight
 * - align=center
 * - align=center

Works

 * Pulver, Jens and Krauss, Erich (2003) Little Evil, One Ultimate Fighter's Rise to the Top, ECW Press

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Jens Pulver