Talk:Émilie du Châtelet

POV / NPOV in lead paragraph

There are two incompatible attributions of the commentary added to du Chatelet's translation of Newton's 'Principia': first in order of time is by Delambre, a well-known and even the principal authority for the history of eighteenth-century astronomy, and closer to the events and with a particular account; he unequivocally attributes the commentary to Clairaut, also saying that Clairaut revised the translation. A biographer from about 100 years later attributes the commentary to du Chatelet, and also runs together Delambre's earlier accounts of Clairaut revising the translation and adding the commentary, which becomes in the later version Clairaut revising the commentary.

The lead text until recently stated neutrally 'a' commentary, with a footnote reference explaining the two attributions; at a later point, the text stated the attribution to du Chatelet, with another link to the explanation of alternative attributions.

A recent amendment changes the lead paragraph to read 'her' commentary. In the absence of any RS to discredit the account by Delambre, that appears to introduce bias (contrary to WP:NPOV), and accordingly it seems that it should not be reintroduced without appropriate discussion. Terry0051 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit introduced Hamel's assessment of Clairault's contribution, to provide a balance to Delambre's version, thus promoting WP:NPOV. I'm quite content with the current version, with allows both Hamel and Delambre equal weight in the footnotes. Why, though (in the spirit of genuine enquiry and not of point-scoring) is the Hamel biography not considered a reliable source?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Answering the last point -- in Wikipedia terms, no criticism was raised against the status of Hamel as a reliable source. Unless I'm mistaken about the guidelines, the current position seems to be there are two WP-reliable sources saying opposite things. (What I posted before, about Delambre and Hamel, aimed to show how Delambre deserves inclusion as 'RS', I did not try to exclude Hamel as WP-RS. Outside WP terms, perhaps one would go farther and say they can't both be right, and maybe go further into the evidence, but I guess that much of that discussion might be WP:OR and outside the WP-editing remit.)

I agree that, as far as the WP-type reliable sources currently stand (and possibly they may stand that way for quite some time), the two references deserve, as you say, equal weight in the footnotes. Subject to the reservation that follows, it seems to me they currently do have that equal weight. The reservation is, that I'd suggest 'equal weight' means they also deserve not-grossly-unequal reflections in the text. In that connection, the text further down currently says 'her own' commentary. That seems over-the-top in view of the state of the two references. Maybe a simple 'her' would be reasonable at that stage in the text, in view of the chances offered to a reader who has reached that point, to take a look at the footnotes and citations.

(BTW, it's curious that Clairaut's spelling, most often given that way in the 18th-century sources, is often given as 'Clairault' in WP. It even goes so far, that his picture in his WP article has been image-chopped to remove the contemporary caption 'Clairaut' (part of the original engraving, visible in linked sources), it's been replaced by a WP-caption 'Clairault'! Maybe 'Clairault', as in Hamel, is some kind of an antiquarian version, maybe matching fashions current at the c.1900 date of that source.) Terry0051 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In non-WP terms, Delambre may indeed be the stronger source; he was commenting from a position closer to events and within his area of knowledge. By all means adjust the wording in "Scientific research and publications" along the lines you suggest. Any residual suspicion on my part of that his account may be tinged by reluctance to accept the work of a self-taught amateur would be unjustified opinion and absolutely without foundation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know whether any other scholarly source besides Delambre supports the notion that Clairaut wrote the Commentary. According to best modern scholarship, Clairaut's contributions to the Commentary were minor. See, for example, the description on p. 274 of La Dame D'Esprit by Prof. Zinsser, who examined the original manuscripts and distinguished Clairaut's handwriting from that of Du Chatelet. I note that Delambre wasn't born when Du Chatelet died, so he presumably did not have privileged information beyond the manuscripts. if there is no objection, I will remove the Delambre assertion as unsubstantiated. Willow (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The result of Zinsser's examination of the manuscript seems to trump both previous writers: no objection from me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

Themap is wrong about where Lunéville is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianchi-Bihan (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried a fix but the markup's a bit advanced for me, so another editor's oversight would be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Error on the map

The map of France in this article on Émilie du Châtelet has an error. Four locations are depicted, one of them is Cirey. Émilie du Châtelet and Voltaire lived in Cirey-sur-Blaise which in Haute-Marne. The map shows another Cirey: Cirey in Haute-Saône in the Jura region. I don't know how to correct the map but as it is it depicts the wrong Cirey.

Jean R R Gauthier (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Jean Gauthier

Done. Mindmatrix 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)