Talk:Marie Antoinette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Austria (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
Former featured article candidate Marie Antoinette is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 13, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Too Much Reliance on Fraser?[edit]

Is it just me, or is there entirely too much reference to Fraser in this article? I realize she's a well respected source, but if any student of mine turned in a paper with so much reliance upon a single source, I'd mark it down a good deal.

Please go and read the archived comments as this has been brought up before. It is as if someone reading the book would summarise a chapter before continuing to the next one. I once commented that whoever wrote the article should have contacted Mme Fraser & asked her to write it herself... --Frania W. (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Better yet, supply better sources than a populatization, however romantically written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe you did not get the irony of my comment RE inviting Mme Fraser to write the article since said article is a summary of her book. Anyone with time on their hands (time my busy hands cannot spare) can provide better sources than a romantically-written novel.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I have personally included some references to Lever (English-translated, so not entirely as weighty as the French version, but nonetheless, it holds) and even Hibbert, although the latter is somewhat debatable, and I am investigating personally a few points of contradiction brought up by his text. In any case, with that in mind:

Other sources available to be incorporated and consequently cited include: Louis and Antoinette by Vincent Cronin (who recently passed away, unfortunately), Marie Antoinette: The Last Queen of France by Evelyne Lever, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette before the French Revolution & Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution by Nesta Webster, Memoirs of Marie Antoinette by Madame Campan herself, What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution by Caroline Weber, and even from other books such as Simon Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution and William Doyle's Oxford History of the French Revolution.

These are of course only as a start - but there is really no excuse to be so heavily dependent on Fraser's biography, especially because that is very subjective, sympathetic and at times controversial. The article also doesn't make much of von Fersen, who is on the contrary very important, and I've dropped in him in several edits at several key points.

What also needs to be worked on is the heavy specificity of detail in some areas, and then the absence of any detail at all in others.Kfodderst (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

agree with multi-sourcing in general, but Nesta Webster?? Dsp13 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Webster's two-part biography/biographies ("Before" and "During") are highly respected. Despite her other beliefs on the Revolution, her accounts of Louis and Marie Antoinette tend to be accurate and are rather insightful. Kfodderst (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Family Tree[edit]

The family tree identifies Marie Therese as Queen Consort. I'm not familiar enough with the template syntax to fix that. If somebody knows, please do - otherwise I'll return when I have a chance and do it. Thanks! -- BPMullins | Talk 04:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got it. Please check and fix my work if I fouled it up. -- BPMullins | Talk 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Article move[edit]

Why was the article moved from Marie Antoinette to Marie Antoinette of Austria? The mover said "full name", but royals have many names. I can't imagine a need to disambiguate with other Marie Antoinettes.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I alerted the user who made the change, but he contributes only rarely. I'm going to go ahead and move the article back. If there's a consensus for the "of Austria" then we can move it there instead.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Put me down firmly in the no move column. We title articles by the name a person is best know by in the English-speaking world, and in this case that is most certainly "Marie Antoinette" without "of Austria" appended to it. That would only be necessary if there was some other notable Marie Antoinette that had an article here. click here to see the relevant policy section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Louismunoz, 2 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change the following due to several punctuation errors as well as for words that have been left out and/or phrases that could be improved.

In 1767, a smallpox outbreak hit the family. Maria Antonia was one of the few who were immune to the disease because she already had had it at a young age. Her sister, Maria Josepha, caught after visiting the improperly sealed tomb of her sister-in-law (of the same name), and died quickly afterwards.However, since the rash appeared two days after Maria Josepha had visited the vault even though it takes at least a week for the smallpox rash to appear after a person is infected, the Archduchess must have been infected much before visiting the vault. Her mother, Maria Theresa, caught it and, though she survived, she suffered from the ill effects of the disease for the rest of her life.

The passage should read: In 1767, a smallpox outbreak hit the family. Maria Antonia was one of the few who was immune to the disease because she already had had it at a young age. Her sister, Maria Josepha, came down with the disease after visiting the improperly sealed tomb of her sister-in-law (of the same name), and died quickly afterwards. (However, since the rash appeared two days after Maria Josepha had visited the vault and it takes at least a week for the smallpox rash to appear after a person is infected, the Archduchess must have been infected sometime before visiting the vault.) Her mother, Maria Theresa, caught it and, though she survived, she suffered from the ill effects of the disease for the rest of her life.

Louismunoz (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I didn't change were to was because it is referring to the several people who were immune. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New image[edit]

Louise Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun - Marie-Antoinette de Lorraine-Habsbourg, reine de France et ses enfants - Google Art Project.jpg

A new very high resolution image from the Google Arts Project of Marie Antoinette and her children, right. This version is reduced to fit under 100 MB. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 02:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject must have spent a significant amount of time sitting for portraits.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Marie Antoinette Adult4.jpg

I have a suggestion for a higher resolution lead picture:

It looks better, with colors and better resolution, though I think the editor has cut a bit from the sides (not anything of importance though). I will leave it for the main editors of this page to vote for or against. Mottenen (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Harvnb and citation templates[edit]

Would anyone object to me changing this page to {{harvnb}} and {{citation}} templates? A lot of the citations are in this format already, but they don't have wikilinks which they could have if this article used harvnb. Then there are books like Lever (2006), the subject of recent edits, which would look much nicer in this format (in my humble opinion). For an example using this style that I've worked on, take a look at Second language acquisition. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 09:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and did it anyway. If anyone doesn't like it, feel free to revert it back. I hope you'll agree that it's a great improvement, though. If you want to add this for more books, remember to add |ref=harv in the cite book template! You can also give me a message on my talk page if you want help with it. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 10:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but just make sure you distinguish any different editions/versions - a lot of the time, page references will be different, and especially if it's a different language edition or something of the sort, etc., problems may arise. Your editing of my Lever source is fine, since there are only two of Lever's English publications (2001 and 2006), and this clarifies it... but then there may be confusion should there be another book published by Lever in 2006. There isn't, of course, but that's just an example. So I suppose it's simply wiser to know that such a trouble could turn up.Kfodderst (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If there's a book from the same year, you can call it 2006a and 2006b. As long as the number is the same in the citations and in the reference section, there won't be a problem. This is also true for the previous method, of course - the only difference is that this time, there are wikilinks. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
And by the way. are there different editions of Fraser or Lever used in this article already? Because if so, they have all been lumped together... Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, then. The only problem I can think of if there are two different titles (unlikely as it may seem) that originate from the same author in a single year. Apart from that, though: I think all Lever citations (two of which are mine) are 2006, but Fraser I'm not sure. I'm assuming it was referenced mostly by a single person, but a lot of later editions would have been added by other people. In this case, I think it's best to check the history and change if necessary. Kfodderst (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No, with the 2006a and 2006b thing I was talking about the possibility of having two titles from the same author in the same year. If you add the letters it solves the problem. This commonly happens in academia, especially the sciences, and this is just the standard way of working round it. If you want to see an example, have a look at Notes section number 18 in second language acquisition. There are two articles by Dulay and Burt in 1974, and the links work just fine. As for the Fraser editions, I'll have another check through and change it if necessary. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 04:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see - unfortunately, I do not use the Harvard standard, so apologies for that confusion on my part. I tend to use APA or, more commonly on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's citation style. The most important thing, in any case, is that it is consistent. It might require, then, for the rest of the citations to also follow Harvnb. Kfodderst (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm no expert on citation styles - this is just what I've seen used elsewhere on Wikipedia. It seems Will Beback has changed the rest of the references over to Harvnb, so a big thank you to them for that. I've also had a look through the history, and it seems that the Fraser citations originally added were from the 2001 edition. I identified one citation from the 2002 edition as well, and so I added both editions to the references. Hopefully that should be the end of any confusion. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 08:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed a few. Those templates are terrific when they work right. They are hard to get working, though. I've used {harvnb} on several articles now so I've finally gotten the hang of them. Editors who aren't comfortable with them needn't worry - some gnome will come along and fix them. Even so, let's check for errors.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they do look very clean! I attempted to use it on a different page, but unfortunately, it didn't work out - nonetheless, have we sorted out all discrepancies in terms of editions/versions? Kfodderst (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of citations, the Rousseau footnote at the end seems needlessly detailed.[1] None of the more specialized articles have this info, so maybe it could be moved to one of those instead.   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Transferred to Confessions page. Kfodderst (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we have sorted out all the discrepancies, but I can't say for sure. I went back through the history and found the edition of Fraser that was first added - that was 2001. I then compared that with the version before I changed the citations over, and out of the dozens of Fraser cites there was only one that specifically cited from the 2002 edition. That now points to 2002 in the references. I think anyone who was citing from the 2002 edition would have written the date into the citation, but if by chance they didn't, then their citation now points to 2001. We could possibly find out more from the history if someone cited 2002 and then someone else later removed the date from the citation... However, if someone cited 2002 and simply quoted "Fraser", then there's no way we can know. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Apart from looking all the cites up in the book, of course. If this is going to get featured article status, then that seems like a must-do to me. Does anyone own one of the Fraser editions? Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed this, I didn't realise we still had problems with the citations. Of course, I'll check that as soon as possible. The interesting thing is that some books have different editions by different publishers, yet still retain the same content on the same page, line for line, word for word. I don't think this is the case with Fraser, but it should be noted there are different publishers even in the same year, so it depends. I have Anchor 2002. Kfodderst (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought, but would it be easier to convert the citations from page numbers to chapters? That shold be sufficient for readers to verify the material. Most of this material would be easy to find in a well-written bio with an index. Also, it looks like both editions are scanned by Google, making material even easier to find. Perhaps more important that double checking every Fraser citation would be adding more references from other works.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be easier, Will, but at the same time, we'd need to confirm the actual editions in the first place - thus raising a cyclical problem, which would come back to verifying the 2002 sources. I'm not sure. That said, if we can use Google to track things down, I can then personally confirm with the '02 version. In any case, regarding other sources: it's not so much the inclusion of other citations, because Fraser is well-respected and her sources are all fine; it's more the lack of other views on Marie Antoinette; not so much critical as less sympathetic. For example, there is not much on von Fersen, and that itself would raise a topic of contention which would allow the introduction of other authors. I think we should focus on the following, as I said above:
  • Marie Antoinette: The Last Queen of France by Evelyne Lever
  • Louis and Antoinette by Vincent Cronin
  • Marie Antoinette: The Portrait of an Average Woman by Zweig (though some information, such as phimosis thesis - which I've dealt with on Louis XVI's page - and so forth, doesn't quite hold with the view of most historians nowadays)
  • Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette Before the Revolution and Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette During the Revolution by Nesta Webster
  • Other sources, such as Schama, etc.
This enables a wider scope of ideas and views on her, and to be honest, I found Fraser's biography lacking in detail regarding the Diamond Necklace Affair in comparison to other writers. More relevantly and importantly, however, as I mentioned before, the article focuses too much on (important but too-detailed) specifics without giving much thought to other areas (eg, Fersen), since it follows Fraser's account. Kfodderst (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It occurs to me that another way to check the 2002 cites could be to go back through the history and check which Fraser cites specifically point to 2001. If we compare those with the current version we should be able to pin down problem cites much more accurately. I'll have a go at doing that now. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 12:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me/the page know what you find, and I'll check it on Fraser 2002 (or any other resource you find that needs to be checked, like any Lever 2006) and post it up by tomorrow/Thursday morning. Kfodderst (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've finished my history diving. I could indeed verify that most of the citations specifically cited the 2001 version. Some of them were added after the page shifted to abbreviated citations, though, so we can't tell which version they cite. If we're looking at the version before the new templates, the numbers of the problem cites are: 8, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 68, 89, 94, 104. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to use < ref name="Author Year P.Number"/>, except for harvnb? Kfodderst (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's the same whether you use harvnb or not. For one of the references you have <ref name="AuthorYearPagenumber">{{Harvnb|Author|Year|p=xx}}.</ref> and for the other references you just use <ref name="AuthorYearPagenumber" /> as usual. Then the citations will all point to the same place with a b c links. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured article?[edit]

This article is well on its way to being a wp:feature article. It is well-sourced and stable, and mostly in compliance with WP guidelines. The usual route is to first request a wp:peer review, then apply for wp:good article status before moving up to FA. Are editors here willing to run the gauntlet and bring this article up to the highest WP standards?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I think, and I have posed this on WikiProject France and WikiProject History, editors will, on the whole, need to try to bring the reliance on Fraser down a significant amount. Refer to the top of this very page (under the section regarding dependence on Fraser) for some extra resources on Marie Antoinette. Kfodderst (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I am no historian, but I am willing to help out with sourcing, etc. Just tell me what needs doing. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if we would need copy-editing, too. I do consider Marie Antoinette to be a particular area of expertise (in fact, a very strong one), and will try to re-write/edit/write more using other sources as we progress. I'm on a bit of a break from next week, for about a week and a half, so I'll try to get some level of editing done then. Kfodderst (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The earlier (see top of page) Too Much Reliance on Fraser? written in June 2010 still holds. This article is nothing but a summary of Mme Fraser's book. Out of 104 notes 92 are taken from Fraser! Where are citations & material from (incomplete list of) books given in Further reading [2] section, most by real historians? Proposing for any type of recognition an article on such a controversial historical personage as Marie Antoinette, based at 92/104 per cent on the work of one author, cannot be serious.--Frania W. (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any argument that there needs to be a wider variety of sources - that seems to be the opinion of all the editors here. Proposing this article for Good/Featured status is being suggested for after this has been done. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 17:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Frania, please scroll up and re-read the talk page so far, and you'll see that there have been numerous references to this issue. Furthermore, it's not a problem arising from a non-'real' historian, because Antonia Fraser's work on this is highly regarded, accurate and well-sourced itself. It's more the oversight on several topics that have escaped inclusion in the article (or have been skimmed over only briefly) due to Fraser's writing (for various reasons; eg, she might not think a particular issue as important as another historian might). It's been raised many times, now, and I have proposed solutions and other references if you care to read the rest of the page. Cheers, Kfodderst (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should start gradually. WP:Peer review is a good first step.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's do the peer-review now; it may be able to provide some good hints for future re-writing. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 12:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I am on a break now, so I've just started to go through the article and add [citation needed] wherever needed; I will consult my sources and reference outside of Fraser, but I might not have time to do all in a short period of time. Kfodderst (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No rush. Why don't we hold off on the peer review until you've done what you're planning to do.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I also have good news: the 2002 Fraser is the same as the 2001, in terms of page content. Also, should no other reference be easily found, one can just as simply refer to the Fraser, but then check the bibliographical notes for specific references that she herself uses. On the other hand, how would the peer review work? We would need a volunteer from the list, right? Unfortunately, the only person who seems to specialise in this history is myself; and of course, I can't peer review an article I'm familiar with, yes? Perhaps we'll need to find someone, then. Kfodderst (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Peer review, along with the Good Article and Feature article reviews, tend to focus more on the mechanics of the article like grammar, formatting, and citations than on verifying the content.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Good news about the Fraser. Thanks for checking it! You're right about a lack of specialists available - peer review isn't likely to help much with that aspect of the article. I was thinking that it may give us some pointers that would help us get it past the featured article review. Will Beback is right, of course - there is no deadline. Let's wait until you've made your changes before submitting it to peer review. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't really had time before, but now I'm going right through it, rewriting and re-sourcing. There's a slight problem, though as I questioned above in the last sub-section: how does one cite the same page of the same book so that it comes out a, b, c, etc with harvnb? Kfodderst (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the Cronin 1989 p45 citations for you. I also added the book to the references section. Just to double-check, let me know if Paris on the Eve, 1900-1914 is the wrong book... Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry, I was using his second edition of Louis and Antoinette, ISBN 0002720213 (I think). The book currently cited is about the Great War/WWI. Kfodderst (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Kfodderst (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That makes more sense. Funny that it didn't show up on Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Inspite of Fraser's issue, I am nominating this for featured article. I believe it is worthy to be an FA here. Marie Antoinette/archive2--Wisamzaqoot (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Never transcluded to FAC, removing template, will need concurrence of significant contributors per WP:FA instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the FAC nomination was premature. I'll take the initiative to request a peer review, which should give editors a outside view of which parts of the article still need improvement.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rousseau quote[edit]

About the "citation needed" I put on the end of that sentence: I think we do need to verify that. The article claims that 'apart from Rousseau's ascribing of these words to the "great princess" of whom he speaks, no other source for this exact quote is known.' This claim is far from obvious - I for one have no idea if there is another source or not. I'm not talking about conducting a thorough literature search to prove or disprove it, I'm talking about finding one reliable source that says there is no other known source for the quote. (Of course, having multiple sources would be more reliable.) The sources in this cite note apparently claim that there is no evidence for Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake". Do these sources also say there is no other source for the Rousseau quote? If so we can use them. The let them eat cake article cites Johnson 1988 as saying there are no other sources. This also seems like a good choice to use as a source, but I can't check the page through google books. Does anyone have access to these? If not I can check the next time I'm at the library. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I slipped between historians vs general -- so yes, apologies. Johnson's not really an expert, but I suppose he suffices. I don't have time to look up other sources, but if I come across them, I'll add them in. I've inserted my version in. Kfodderst (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Note, there existed the quote in rumours, forms and such - but none for the exact quote, hence my rephrasing of the sentence. Kfodderst (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I take my first comment back - I was rushing and mischecked my Johnson, which in fact is the 1990 edition (though pages remain the same). Johnson deals primarily with Rousseau's inaccuracies, but doesn't state it is the only source. I'll change it, here, and if I come across another reference, if I have the time, then I might add back in the 'only known source for exact quote' details. There really is no other written source for it (except perhaps in a letter, but that's besides the point), at least of that time, but seeing as this is Wikipedia... done.Kfodderst (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

References/Further Reading[edit]

Please use this formatting for this page:

Author name (last, first) [linked to first, last]; title in italics + full stop/period [outside of italicised title]; translator + full stop/period; (date); publisher + full stop/period; ISBN [ISBN-10, with no spaces or hyphens, as per Amazon listings]

Alternatively, date can go after author name, in which case there should be a full stop/period outside the parentheses; but if you choose to edit it in this way it has to be constant. At the moment, Reference section is using the latter option; the Further Reading section is using the former -- in this way, you can see which would be easier to read. The point, regardless of date position, is about consistency and clarity in formatting. Kfodderst (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are some well-established guidelines about this for Wikipedia already. For example, Wikipedia:ISBN says we should use 13-digit ISBNs where available, and that we should use dashes. For citation styles there's a lot more choice - have a look at all the different styles listed at WP:CITEHOW. Is the style you're proposing one of those? Myself, I've always used citation templates (as in the References section here) as it removes the need to worry about formatting. With citation templates, as long as the information is correct, it doesn't matter how you format it or what order it's in - the template does that part for you. But it's definitely not a hard-and-fast requirement. Let me know what you think. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No, that's fine, it was more an attempt to create a standardised, unified formatting for the page. If we can make the Reference section the same formatting as the Further Reading section, then that's the most important thing to do. I chose ISBN-10 due to lack of 13 for some, but I've changed some publication dates to newer editions so that ISBNs can be more easily found; I suppose with this, then, we can use ISBN-13's. I didn't change the formatting as such, merely made them uniform, following the standard that was already (generally) there. What is a little annoying, though is the fact that there are, under the References and Further Reading sections, books from both: I'm not sure whether that's meant to happen or not, but it would be better to just have references under References, and then other books that haven't so far been listed under Further Reading. Kfodderst (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the Further Reading books to citation templates - I caught a few errors as well. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The hyphens are not consistent; it depends on specifics, I think, which you can check here. I'm not fantastic with formatting, so if you wouldn't mind, could you check that and fix as necessary? Also the References section has ISBN hyphen inconsistencies, whether out of purpose or just as it is. Thanks. Kfodderst (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Automated peer review[edit]

Since it's easy I ran an automated peer review.[3] It only catches certain kinds of errors, but it's a good place to start. I think the summary suggestion may be triggered by the length of the article. The "page size" tool reports a little over 9000 words. 10,000 is an upper limit for a readable encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Article size and my own experience. I don't see any sections which could be spun off into standalone articles. We can reduce length by minimizing coverage of topics that are already well-covered in other articles and by avoiding unnecessary details.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the most work that needs to be done is really just going through and fixing up grammar, spelling, etc. My re-writing of the very first section proved inefficient - it took too much time. Plus, if someone goes through it and fills in the 'citation needed' tags with valid references, we'd be fine. I inserted the notice on subjectivity and such for the last section, which is horrendously opinionated without justification. Kfodderst (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Consummation of marriage[edit]

I don't know much about French royalty, but I notice in the Louis XVI of France article it says ("Family life" section) that "Over time, the couple became closer, and their marriage was reportedly consummated in July 1773." The source given is Fraser, Antonia, Marie Antoinette, p.127

In this article ("1774–1778: Early years" subsection), it says, without a source, "It was due to Joseph's intervention that, on 30 August 1777, the marriage was officially consummated."

Can someone fix this contradiction?

Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Why can I not see a Table of Contents on this talkpage? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Girlwithgreeneyes. Just quickly - unsure why there isn't a TOC in place. Maybe you could add one in; I'm not fantastically sure how. In regards to the consummation issue, that certainly is very ambiguous wording. The answer is that it was thought to be consummated in 1773, but this was only in rumours, and because some 'stains' had been found on the sheets. It's the truth, though, that the marriage was only consummated in 1777. I'll fix that soon; again, thanks for raising that! Kfodderst (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Use Other Resources Than Fraser[edit]

There are plenty of other resources other than the one book. This article looks like it is written by someone who is obsessed with the one book and the film of the same name starring Kirsten Dunst. I hope to do the page justice that the historical facts presented will not read like the back of a paperback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

POV much?[edit]

It seems this article is madly in love with someone who's reign was violently ended by people who apparently didn't appreciate her refined etiquette and gentle character. I think there should be some account of her role in or at least attitude to the injustices that the French eventually rose up against. — Kallikanzaridtalk 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review, transcluded[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marie Antoinette[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is a high quality article which could become an FA. Several editors have collaborated on improvements, and now an outside reviewer is needed to point out what parts still need improvement.

Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Mostly a good read, I have a few comments and issues.

  • I have a sense (without checking) from the writing that some of the article's language is remnant from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 (which it probably started out from). If this is the case (i.e. the article has not been completely rewritten) it should be acknowledged.
  • Why is a website named "" used as a source? (I don't expect you to answer why such a site has a bio of Marie on it...)
  • The reliability of that and other web-based sources may be questioned at GAN/FAC.
  • Article is heavily dependent on a single source. Is there really only one detailed bio of her?
  • Article is incompletely cited.
  • Her godparents should be identified by name.
  • "After all" is unnecessary.
  • "were treated to gardens and menageries" - clarify: does this mean they were given them as gifts, or that they were allowed to play in them, or what?
  • "allowing relaxations in the type of people who could come to court" - rephrase
  • "Court" does not normally need to be capitalized

More to come. Magic♪piano 16:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Echoing Brianboulton's comments, images are biased toward portraits of Marie; portraits of von Fersen and some of her confidants would not be out of place here.
  • In some places images are placed directly opposite each other, bunching the text between. Images should be staggered, roughly alternating sides of the text.
  • "she concentrated mainly on horticulture, redesigning in the English mode the garden" - awkward
  • quote cited "(Weber 132)" needs to be properly integrated
  • "More importantly was" --> "More important was"
  • "Though many believed it was entirely the support of the queen that enabled them to secure their positions, in truth it was mostly that of Finance Minister Jacques Necker." - "in truth" is unnecessary. This sentence also needs clarification -- are the many believers contemporaries or historians? Whichever, some names would help.
  • Per MOS:QUOTE#Italics_and_quotations, quotations should not be italicized unless they are in the source
  • In 1786-1789 (and possibly elsewhere) there are long multi-clause sentences. These should be broken into shorter sentences.
  • "This lack of solutions was unfairly blamed on the queen." This sentence, already tagged for citation, also demands clarification - who blamed the queen?
  • "In reality, the blame should have been placed on a combination of several other factors" and following. -- This is post-hoc historical analysis, and should be openly attributed to the historian doing it.
  • "Around the same time, Jeanne de Lamotte-Valois escaped from prison in France and fled to London, where she published more damaging lies concerning her supposed "affair" with the queen." -- this requires more context (who is this person, when was the supposed affair, how/why imprisoned, etc)
  • "The queen, however, was present with her daughter, Marie-Therese, when Tippu Sahib of Mysore visited Versailles seeking help against the British." -- Tipu Sultan never came to France; this is presumably a reference to an embassy he sent.

-- Magic♪piano 14:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Just a couple of issues - I have not read the article through:-

  • There are around 16 portraits or other images of Marie Antoinette in the article. This seems like way, way too many. You would be better advised to make a selection from these and reduce the number of redundant images.
  • I noticed a couple of problems in the lead:
    • "In April 1770, on the day of her marriage to Louis-Auguste, Dauphin of France, she subsequently became Dauphine of France." Remove the word "subsequently".
    • The last paragraph is very weakly written and reads badly. I have attempted to rephrase it thus:-

"After her death Marie Antoinette became part of popular culture. A major historical figure, she has been the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Some academics and scholars have deemed her essentially frivolous and superficial, and that her attitudes were contributory to the French Revolution. Others have claimed that she has been treated unjustly by history, and have sought to portray her in a more sympathetic light."

Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Will Beback. I never worked on a peer review but I'll give it a try! I would like to recommend you Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. It's a FA I wrote sometime ago about an Italian born Brazilian Empress. It will be useful to you. Trust me. Some points I'd like to raise:

  1. The lead should have at most four paragraphs. Not five as it is now. Each paragraph should be a little larger than it is now. There shouldn't be any reference on the lead, since we presume the information will be later found in the main text.
  2. I really don't like this article's organization. You should drop the years on the section titles. You should also try to create more sections and less subsections, just like in Teresa Cristina's.
  3. Each section should not be larger than the photo that is used to illustrate it. Is it a rule? No. I learned one thing about readers: they get tired if they see one huge section. Try to either make them shorter or divide them in subsections. Again, see Teresa Cristina's.
  4. Pictures must have a meaning and they need to be well-organized. Try to follow a standard of one picture per section and one picture to the left, other to the right, then another one to the left, etc... See Teresa Cristina's and you'll get the idea. Why you should do this? Well, the article will look prettier and readers like pretty things. Also, try to follow a timeline with the pictures, ranging them from her childhood until her last pictures. I really hate when I see an article with the character at age 60 in the beginning and later at age 25 in the middle. It's confusing. Don't commit this mistake.
  5. The legacy section looks odd. It's small and when I read I can't stop thinking that a bunch of different people wrote different things there. I want to read a section and have the impression that it's going from point A to point B.
  6. The titles section should have sources. I don't see a good reason to add "Madame Capet" and "La Veuve ("the widow") Capet". These weren't titles, but just a way people called her.
  7. Try to add a posterity section too. I don't like to have to search across the text to see who were her children. I want something easy (and yes, I'm playing a part here, of the "spoiled and dick reader"). Perhaps a "Genealogy" section and two subsections (ancestry and posterity). See Teresa Cristina's. You'll find there a good model.
  8. You should differentiate notes from footnotes. If you can, don't use internet sources, not even from well known newspapers. Use books. I want to have the feeling that you actually made a research and not merely looked on google. You also need more sources. You need far more sources. The article is entirely build upon Fraser's Marie Antoinette. Try to use at least three different biographies to fill the entire article. Use at least other five books to fill gaps (like legacy section, or minor information that for some reason couldn't be found in the biographies).
  9. Remove the further reading section. Who cares? And still, the reader will wonder why you bothered to suggest other books when you used only one book to write the entire article.
  10. Remove all external links with the sole exception of the commons' link. Keep it. People like photos. Imagine your readers as children. That's what they are.
  11. There is a note on the succession box? Why? Remove it.

That's it. Sorry if I was rude, I was playing the part of some of the reviewers on the FAC. You'll hate them, hate the FAC process and wonder your self why you bother to write articles if have to endure some dick and arrogant editors on the FAC. Here is why: share knowledge. Share it. How many good articles about this queen you can find in the internet? I mean, really good articles? None. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks to each of the reviewers: Magicpiano, Brianboulton, and Lecen. These are all specific, actionable items. This article is a true collaboration (meaning I'm not responsible for any of its good content.) It has some good editors working on it and these suggestions will give everyone a "to-do" list. I'll transclude this page. I think we all agree that Marie Antoinette is an important topic and the article is worth burnishing. Thanks again for your time and attention.   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review, discussion[edit]

Here is the excellent, detailed peer review with input from three experienced editors. They're actionable suggestions, most of which are totally non-controversial and easily done. Others will need significant effort to address, like overcoming the reliance on Fraser. Would it help to make a formal "to-do" list?   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cronin, etc[edit]

I've obtained a copy of Vincent Cronin's Louis and Antoinette. I'm using it to add additional citations for material already in the article. I'd assumed it would be an easy job, but I'm surprised at the apparent difference in focus between Fraser and Cronin. If I hae the time, I'd like to make a second, more thorough review to actually revise the text. One example is the Affair of the Diamond Necklace, which is barely mentioned in passing. While the subject was mostly a passive actor in the affair, it was nonetheless a key event in the subject's life. But that's just one issue which seems to get different weight in other biographies. (I also borrowed a tertiary biography which is a nicely balanced and about as long as this article: Marie Antoinette and the Decline of the French Monarchy.)   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012[edit]

I am doing a project for a class and I need to make changes to this page. I would like to add a section about the impact that Marie Antoinette had on the French Revolution. My two main sources are [1] [2]

HIS30312tylerf (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for making specific requests. To be able to edit this page yourself you need to be autoconfirmed or confirmed--Jac16888 Talk 02:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Andress, David (2005). The Terror The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France. Great Britain: Little Brown. pp. 9–228. ISBN 978-0-374-53073-0. 
  2. ^ Fraser, Antonia (2001). Marie Antoinette The Journey. New York: Anchor Books. pp. 3–458. ISBN 0-385-48949-8. 

Genealogical Anomaly???[edit]

In this article, the writer states "Through her father, Marie Antoinette became the second (after Margaret of Valois, the renowned Queen Margot) French queen ever to descend from Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici.", with no source information cited. I'm a bit skeptical & confused here, because Marie Antoinette's father was Francis I HRE, great-grandson of Louis XIII ... who was NOT a descendant of Henri II.

I modify articles quite regularly for grammar, spelling & punctuation ... but when it comes to factual errors like this ... well I hesitate. Have I missed something, or is this really a mistake?

Cmissy (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, this is correct. The descent is through Henri II's daughter Claude of France, who married Charles III, Duke of Lorraine -> Francis II of Lorraine -> Nicholas Francis of Lorraine -> Charles V of Lorraine -> Leopold of Lorraine -> Francis I HRE Biblioteqa (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Two recent edits[4][5] by Aubmn were almost entirely copied from the very source cited, Antonia Fraser's "Marie Antoinette", as may be seen here. A small amount of the first was not obviously copied: "it was Austrian interest which prevailed, he did care about his sister to a certain extent but not like his brother Joseph" and "Unfortunaly the only person who didn't see reality was the Queen who for her own advantage of freeing herself from her captivity and to reestablish her absolute authority, betrayed her country and launched it in a war that will kill millions of people ,open a new chapter in human history and only end in 1815" seem to be original, though poorly phrased, judgmental and ending in an appalling melodramatic flourish. No part of the second edit was original. Excising just the copied parts would not have left us with anything acceptable, so I've removed both edits entirely. NebY (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note for this talk page section: As seen with this WP:Permalink, I addressed Aubmn's possible WP:Copyright violations before NebY spotted them. With as much content Aubmn has added to the article, I'm concerned that he might have added more copyright violations. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have mentioned I was prompted to investigate by Flyer22's concerns. Given that Aubmn did not own up to copyright violation when asked and edit-warred to retain copyright-violating material, that the article is heavily dependent on Fraser, and that Flyer22 has a good eye for such things, I'm worried there might be further violations too. Online views of the book are restricted so I can't check much. NebY (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Aubmn (talk · contribs), you've been adding a lot of material to the article again. Is it mostly the same content that you added before, except with different wording? I have not yet examined all of the latest material. Whether it is or is not the same content, how can we trust that it is not a WP:Copyright violation or inappropriate WP:Close paraphrasing? Also, you need to be more careful with your grammar and typos, and to not stack text upon text without breaking the text into decent-sized paragraphs; see MOS:Paragraphs. If you reply to this, then reply here in this section, not on my talk page. NebY, are you still watching the Marie Antoinette article/talk page? What do you think of Aubmn's latest additions to the article? Moonriddengirl, expert on copyright matters, will you take a look at this case? Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
AubmnHy, what was added here in the last few days was completely of my own writing ,I learned of my mistakes and I did remove everything who was taken directly from the book and that I knew about. My only concern was to complete this article by adding a lot of missing information specially on the periods of the French Revolution after 1789. Any person who know about this subject and read about it without seeing persons like Mirabeau and Antoine Barnave which I added and who where not even mentioned in this article before, would have been shocked and would not have taken this article seriously.The first part of the article before 1789 was fine in general and I only added little information.If any person want to work on the grammar and paragraphs ,please do I welcome any help. My sole purpose is to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia ,to learn from my mistakes and to collaborate with others.Thank you very much.Aubmn(talk).Aubmn (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Aubmn: From your comments immediately above, it seems you may have finished adding material to this article. I do hope so, because it now needs a major clean-up.

  • It's far too large, too large for readers and editors alike. Wikipedia:Article size - which I recommend reading in full - notes that 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span. This article has reached 122 kB.
  • It's judgmental, continually breaching Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by ascribing blame and exonerating, characterising individuals and their motives, judging events and situations, and more. A historian like Fraser can do this, but it's not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. I can give examples if you wish.
  • The English is frequently ungrammatical, long-winded, repetitive and clumsy. I'm reminded of a pupil trying to impress a teacher and over-reaching. I can give examples if you wish.
  • While I don't think your recent additions have been copied straight from Fraser, I do believe the article has now overstepped the mark. It is far too dependent on just one book and far too much of it is simply a condensed and reworded version of that book. Moonriddengirl can tell us whether that falls within our policy on plagiarism but I don't think it's in accord with the spirit of our policy. Imagine if you yourself were an author who discovered that someone had taken your book, cut it down and reworded it, and released it as their own. I know I would be aggrieved and wondering what to do, even if they cited my book on every page, and this situation is much the same.

I apologise for not raising this sooner. I kept hoping to find a way to avoid being harsh, but then I got pinged and felt I just had to bite the bullet (thanks, Flyer22!). Some of what I'm saying may be easier to understand if you hold off and see what other editors can make of the article. We could, for example, ask the Guild of Copy Editors to help. NebY (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, NebY. Maybe others who are watching this article will weigh in. I've seen articles bigger than this one, such as celebrity, political or religious articles, but I certainly understand your point on its size. And we should definitely weigh its size on readable prose instead of on kilobyte size alone (since references, etc. can add to kilobyte size). A lot of what Aubm added should be cut down and tweaked. As for the Guild of Copy Editors, they are usually backlogged, but specifically asking someone from there can help move things along faster. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm afraid without access to the original source, I can't really assess whether the paraphrase is adequate or not, but I did a thorough spot-check of recently added text to see if I came up with any matches for text strings without hit. That said, there certainly may be close paraphrase, and there is always the concern inherent in basing on article too much on a single source. Sometimes this is unavoidable, when there aren't a range of options, but in a subject such as this one, we should be able to place due weight on sources without much difficulty. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to express my disagreement with the recent changes as well. Although I do not doubt the intentions of Aubmn, the recent changes do make the article very hard to read. I very rarely participate in Talk pages or editing, but this article struck me as extremely badly written, especially started at section July 1789–1792: The French Revolution. It is at this point that I verified the page's recent history, doubtful that such bad grammar had been part of this article for a long time. The article is long winded and definitely does not read like a usual Wikipedia article, but almost like a personal biography, which is probably caused by the over-reliance on a single source. Quantos88 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Completing the information and any help is welcome[edit]

Thank you for all the comments, First I excepted a small word of thanks for completing a major article who was left unchanged since 2012.Second I only completed the article, the reliance on Fraser was before my contribution and I simply didn't want to have two parts in the article, the first who relied on Fraser and another part who relied on other sources. Having said that I have many books on Marie Antoinette in English and French and I 'm ready to work with any editor to make this article better. I was completely neutral and objective, I'm on a personnel level a big sympathizer of Marie Antoinette and I didn t change anything in the period before 1789.But after 1789,the Queen was in conflict with the majority of her people and she used foreign powers, etc. Also this article was largely incomplete, a lot of people complained that they were shocked on the lack of information on the period after 1789.Is it possible to write an article about Marie Antoinette on Wikipedia without mentioning Antoine Barnave or Mirabeau, the leaders of the French Revolution between 1789-1792 and with whom the Queen negotiated important deals? Finally I welcome any help to make this article better from beginning till the end, nobody is perfect, this article is not mine, it belongs to the whole community and let's all work together. Thank you.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn (talk · contribs), regarding this, I made this section a subsection of the #Copyright violation section above because it is a continuation of that section. There was no need for you to create a new section for your "08:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, first I only wanted to be positive about the article, I acknowledged my mistake and I totally rectified myself by removing the material.Second please let us be positive, let's see the big picture, is my work perfect? of course not; could it be better ? of course. Does the article relies too much on Fraser? yes, but I did not create this fact, I only completed a major article with essential informations which were missing since 2012. Please let us work hand in hand to make it better.Thank you very much.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn (talk · contribs), your reply is not on point with my "09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)" comment above. The point of that comment is what I stated there. See WP:Section; I simply stated that I had a valid reason for making this section a subsection of the #Copyright violation section above. That is not me not being positive. There is a language barrier between us. That, and your inexperience with how Wikipedia is supposed to work, makes communication with you challenging. What I think of your work to the article is noted in the section immediately above this one. I reiterate that a lot of the content you added needs to be cut down and tweaked. That will eventually happen. And if I get a WP:Copyeditor on this article to do just that, I hope that you do not start reverting that WP:Copyeditor and/or restoring the content in some other way. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again any comments made here did not refer to any person, I was talking in general, I repeat we should all work together. I finished and completed important information's in an important article, all I received was negative comments from some people but most people were supportive including a lot of readers of Marie Antoinette article on Wikipedia who were grateful for information they saw for the first time in this article. This article is not perfect, cut or additions or any type of contribution are welcome as long as they make the article better. I said any help is welcome, we must all work together, my work is not perfect, we need to work together; "That the Wikipedia spirit not negativity and insult". I send a message to all editors who know about this subject,let's work together to make it better. But let us work on the whole article; I have the book of Fraser, there is a lot of old copyright violations in the first part of the article before my contributions. First discovery, source 78 and the first lines around it is a direct quote from Fraser, everything between brackets when Marie Antoinette talked to her brother in a letter about her political influence. This was present before my contributions and I'm ready to help to even make the first part better and without any copyright violations. Thank you.Aubmn(talk}Aubmn (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Eyeguy 72 for his contributions in making this article better and I hope also for others contributions to be made. Thank you very much.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Feedback[edit]

This article requires significant proofreading and correction, folks. Good luck! (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Any help is welcome to work together on this Article to make it better after completing the information, so please if any editor know anything about this subject, all help is welcome. Thank you.(talk)Aubmn (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on MA; I came here to try to learn a bit more & found reading the article very difficult, particularly on a mobile device due to multiple overlong & complex paragraphs. I admit my first attempt was a bit too drastic, but I've tried to edit the section on the French Revolution with several aims. First, there were numerous typos and grammar errors; I am fixing them as I find them. Second, I've added links to the WP articles on several of personages that were previously missing. Third, I've tried to break up the very long paragraphs into multiple smaller paragraphs that are each focused on a specific topic. There are definitely a bunch of neutrality issues I've skirted, and I think the single source issue should be particularly addressed on the more explosive topics (e.g. whether any of children were fathered by other than the King, whether she actually transmitted key secrets to foreign powers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobison13 (talkcontribs) 02:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions, I have a PHD in History and I have read a lot about the Queen ,I find this article incomplete specially the period of the French Revolution ,I completed the information but I need the help of editors like you, thank you very much for your wonderful work in correcting and relying this article to others.(talk) AubmnAubmn (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The section on the Revolution could use some structural changes as well as significant amount of editing for neutrality. I feel that if the information is organized well, sticking close to the timeline and with minimal repetition, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions, which will generally be in line with the opinions currently in the article. I've tried to start organizing this, but mostly by leaving hidden comments to start establishing a stronger timeline. It might also make sense to break up this section into further sections -- perhaps one with her political dealings and one with the imprisonment (I'm not sure this would work well, but should be considered). I also think the inclusion of very specific details should be rethought; the constant focus on the size of her bosom or the height of her husband is quite distracting; simply saying she was still fat (or plump) is really sufficient. This is, after all, an encyclopedia entry which should provide a strong skeleton for further research, not a detailed biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobison13 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Struggling to make progress[edit]

Krobison13 has recently been doing sterling work cleaning up the article. Among other things, they have been removing many breaches of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK, tightening up the narrative and removing dramatic flourishes which may suit the only source for much of this article, Antonia Fraser's biography, but are not suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. Aubmn has reverted many, claiming that such text is sourced "information" and their removal vandalism and that Aubmn has superior expertise; I have restored some of Krobison13's edits. Aubmn has posted comments on both Krobison's talk page[6] and mine[7]; I have responded on Aubmn's raising concerns about ownership[8]. The two most recent reverts by Aubmn illustrate our differences.
In the first case, Krobison13 removed text originally written by Aubmn, Aubmn reverted Krobison, I restored Krobison's version and Aubmn reverted me to retain "Unfortunately the double dealings of the Queen turned the majority against her with disastrous consequences for her, her country, and even the whole European continent", restored for the second time here.
In the second, Krobison13 had inserted comments into the text that would be visible only when editing the article: "paragraph needs to be made neutral & perhaps the factual parts distributed to other paragraphs" and "this paragraph has many problems; much of it is argumentative & opinionated. The factual pieces should be moved to more appropriate places -- i.e. with better chronological order". These too have been reverted by Aubmn, restored by myself and reverted again by Aubmn.
I argue that the first text is non-factual opinion, couched in overly dramatic language and inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. The comments that Krobison13 inserted describe those paragraphs well and are a reasonable attempt to make progress. Their removal with the comment "Remove vandalism by editor who acknowledge he know so little about subject ,negative attitude no communication after NepY negative involvement ,to be reported to administrator"[9] seems unjustified. NebY (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that Aubmn has been completely unreasonable and seems to think that he has ownership of this article due to being a implicit but nevertheless self-proclaimed expert. The fact that Aubmn is calling edits made by Krobison vandalism is utterly wrong as they have both been made in good faith and are, as you said, "good progress". The use of words such as "Unfortunately" show judgement of a historical event. These are not neutral and are one of the words to avoid when writing an article. If a consensus on this issue cannot be brought to by other editors/watchers of this page then I suggest we request for comments. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Krobison began to make change, some of these changes were concerned with corrections and better organization, all of them were accepted without any discussion because first some of them were good also because this article is not mine but when essential informations were removed without discussion on the talk page, I revert Krobison but latter I changed the article taking most of his ideas into account, Krobison acknowledge on this page the limitations of his informations on the subject, also he twice acknowledge here and on his talk page that he went to far, all of this because everytime I reach an agreement with Krobison NebY INTERFERE, totally reverting me without any Discussion after my deal with Krobison, he did it twice, please see Marie Antoinette talk page and Krobison talk page, I 'm not a final authority on Marie Antoinette,that is sure but I completed an article with essential missing informations on the Revolution Period and I said any help is welcome and I was always nice and positive only to receive negative comments from NebY from the start,I completed in an imperfect way an essential article , why all this negativity, I'm ready to work with all.Let's open a new page.(Aubmn)Aubmn (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn, judgements are being made in your additions to the article that are simply not neutral at all. They need to be neutral before they can be added. Krobison and NebY were simply helping you reach that aim. You also can not say that because Krobison is not an expert he can not edit the article. You are not required to be an expert to make any changes, especially when they are in good faith and are improving the article, which I believe Krobison was doing. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok fine I agreed lets all work together , I trust Krobison and I 'm ready to work with NebY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talkcontribs) 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you be opposed to me reverting your most recent edits back to the last revision by NebY then, that include improvements and comments made by Krobison? SamWilson989 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No do it as a sign of good faith
I have reverted the edits. I acknowledge your edits were in good faith, but before you edit this article again, can I recommend you read WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:PEACOCK? Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok Thanks ,from know on let's work together
Certainly. Message me on my talk page if you ever need a hand with anything. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NebY. And I noted in the #Completing the information and any help is welcome section above that the language barrier between Aubmn and other editors, and the lack of understanding that Aubmn has when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, makes it challenging to work with Aubmn. I'd already pointed Aubmn to the WP:Vandalism policy, and noted an edit that was not vandalism after he called that edit vandalism; so to see him still calling a non-vandalism edit "vandalism" does not speak well of his understanding of the WP:Copyright violation policy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

There appears to be an edit war right now, between User:Krobison and User:Aubmn. Please stop. Krobison is attempting to fix the comment tag, whilst Aubmn, you appear to be reverting his edits for no reason. If this carries on we will have to get an administrator involved. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk ,the other is not responding .we worked together for many hours, I proposed we stop and continue tomorrow ,he is there always changing everything ,every 5 min — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talkcontribs) 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not possible ,everything is removed ,Barnave first ,he was the key man and the other editor while having good intentions is removing without totally knowing the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talkcontribs) 00:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the editor's knowledge of the subject but the fact that you keep reverting his edits without discussion. Stop reverting edits made in good faith without good reason. That will only lead to being reported or something similar. I would take a break for a day or two and return then. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
User:SamWilson989 is right. Aubmn, today you completely reverted[10] Krobison's edit and by doing so restored text which has many problems. The opening of the main paragraph "To be fair to Marie Antoinette" is a clear indication that WP:NPOV is being breached, and it is followed by ascription of blame accompanied by tendentious rhetorical flourishes such as "yet according to the simple facts and description of events", "the facts speak for themselves". The English is at best clumsy, in part because it is too full of peripheral detail, in part due to a lack of understanding of English idiom and phrasing ("the simple facts and description of events") and sometimes simply full of errors: "The Jacobin party himself was slip into two factions". When I undid the restitution of this text, Aubmn undid my edit in turn, complaining bitterly of negativity.
Aubmn complains above that Krobison "is there always changing everything ,every 5 min". In fact, Krobison's work is being made much harder because of Aubmn's constant interventions and repeated reversions - they can barely press save without their work being undone - and it becomes much harder for any other editors to follow and engage with the process. The use of commented-out text within the article to conduct arguments does not help. This talk page is the place for such discussions.
Aubmn, please accept the advice of other editors here, back off, allow Krobison and others to proceed and then, when the outcome is clearer (which will take days, not hours), discuss here what you think has been lost. Even if you think every editor around you is wrong, negative and unappreciative, accept still that consensus is currently against you and that your recent editing pattern is not helping you persuade anyone. Please, read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and think about how easy it would be for other editors to see your editing as fitting that description. NebY (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to concur with User:NebY. Aumbn, take some time off. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments on solutions to ongoing edit war[edit]

After witnessing what I think is easily described as a one-sided edit war, I have felt I cannot resolve this dispute alone and request comments to help move this page forward without further reverts, hidden comments, and odd edit summaries. For those who are not aware, since 1st May 2014, Aubmn has been an editor of this page. However, in December, Aubmn started having his edits (though in good faith) reverted for various reasons. Some reverts were for unsourced material, some for copyright violations. It was that third revert where NebY became involved in this dispute. Aubmn apologised for his violation of the rules and said "didn t know all the rules, my future contributions would respect them fully".

It was then at the end of last month, between 28 December, and 6 January, that Aubmn added over 21,000 bytes of text to the article (This is shown in the revision history). Then, on 17 January, Krobison became involved. He began to edit what Aubmn had created; he called one of the paragraphs a "royal mess". Around 4,000 bytes was deleted from the article at this time. Aubmn then made another few edits after Krobison, reverting one of Krobison's edits and Aubmn said Krobison had "Removed essential informations about the political and constitutional periods of the French Revolution without replacing them" whilst reverting his edit. NebY then became involved again, reverting all of Aubmn's edits that had occurred on 17 January, stating Aubmn had violated WP:NPOV and that Aubmn's additions "did not constitute encyclopedic information". Aubmn then reverted NebY's revert (again, see revision history), and said in his edit summaries that "Some of the informations considered judgmental could be removed or changed after consultations but removing informations about the leaders of the revolutions ,religion, constitutional process and political activity totally destroy the balance of the art" and Aubmn was "Removing a lot of the informations considered judgmental for consensus while keeping the main political, religious, constitutional events which were totally missed from this article before".

It was then on 19 January that I became involved and witnessed the dispute occurring between Aubmn and Krobison. Krobison's edits varied in purpose in this period but can be seen in the revision history, between 01:35 to 16:50 on 19 January, with some edits by Aubmn intermittently. Aubmn, after Krobison stopped editing, reverted one of his edits and commented in his edit summary "Please don 't remove essential informations, a lot of your ideas were taken into consideration, the conflict between Lafayette and Mirabeau and its relation to the queen situation is very important". The next three hours were an indescribable mess of edits and reverts between Aubmn, Krobison, and NebY. If I had to put it into words I think the nearest term on Wikipedia is an edit war, though I am reluctant to use such a term.

After seeing the events unfold, I discussed them with the editors on this talk page, Krobison's talk page, Aubmn's talk page, and NebY's talk page. Because Krobison had admitted to not being an expert on Marie Antoinette, Aubmn appeared to me to disregard many edits made by Krobison because of that, stating in one edit summary "Remove vandalism by editor who acknowledge he know so little about subject ,negative attitude no communication after NepY negative involvement ,to be reported to administrator". NebY at this point had made about 2 or 3 reverts of Aubmn's work so I could understand, though not condone, Aubmn's statements. I commented that I didn't think Aubmn's edits were neutral, and included weasel and peacock vocabulary. I asked if he would be okay with me reverting his edits, which I then did with his agreement on that same day.

However, then for the next few hours, until the early hours of 20 January, both editors began to edit the article in the same areas, and I cannot even comment on how many edit conflicts they must have encountered in this period. I ask that you take a look at the revision history to see this. Then, at 00:17 and 00:18, Aubmn reverted two of Krobison's edits. These were now Aubmn's 4th and 5th reverts of Krobison's work, a clear violation of the 3 revert rule. I then again became involved, asking on this talk page and on Aubmn's talk page, for Aubmn to take a day or two off editing and return with a clear head. NebY later agreed with me that he should take a break. Aubmn was justifying his reverts by stating that Krobison had admitted his lack of knowledge on the article's topic. NebY and I reminded him that the problem was not the content of the article in any way at this point, but that he was reverting edits without discussion or consensus. There was an argument ongoing within hidden text in the article, which can be seen in the revision history. Further discussions between the two editors were had on Krobison's talk page, with Krobison stating "The quality of the article would go up if you would edit my changes, rather than simply reverting them complete with prior errors." I believe this is one of the most sensible comments of the past few days on this issue.

Further edits have been made today, NebY made his third revert of Aubmn's work, for the same reason of violation of WP:NPOV and the use of peacock and weasel words. I won't even comment on the rest of the edits, I ask that any other editors simply look at the revision history for themselves. I have tried here to compile what has happened, and ask for the assistance of other editors in solving this dispute. Thank you, SamWilson989 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have always gave reasons for my edits ,I was the one who accepted many changes every time ,I have not reverted hundred of edits from Krobison who asked my help in the last two days, I collaborated giving him major informations but everytime I find common ground with Krobison NebY interfered reverting me, if this didn 't happen I would be today working with Krobison .I have the book of Fraser,I know a lot of the paraphrases in the article and I accepted today to collaborate with Krobison in order to fix them, I told him I'm giving you the information but again NebY interfered. Anyway lets get away from this negativity and go to the main point, First I added the information about the revolution, I said they were not mine, Krobison who acknowledged that his knoweledge of the subject is limited asked my help I HELPED HIM, I DID NOT REVERT HUNDRED OF HIS EDITS, MORE THAN THAT I HELPED HIM WITH MASSIVE INFORMATIONS, MINE WERE ALWAYS REVERTED BY NebY WITH NO VALID REASONS, TODAY THEY WANTED TO REMOVE THE CELEBRATION OF THE 14 OF JULY THE MOST IMPORTANT DATE AND EVENT OF THE WHOLE ARTICLE,MY GOD ALL I DID WAS TO MASSIVELY COMPLETE A SECTION OF THE ARTICLE CONCERNING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WHO WAS LEFT MAINLY UNTOUNCHED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME,NOT EVEN ONE THANK YOU FROM SOME PEOPLE WHILE I WAS ALWAYS NICE AND POLITE AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, I WAS SHOCKED ON THE DECISION TO DELETE THE 14 JULY DAY OF CELEBRATION, Krobison out of good faith removed the name of Robespierre, Brissot, Necker in an article on Marie Antoinette, he wanted also to remove Barnave but I persuaded him to change his mind, are we serious, can any person who know anything about this subject accept that. I know this is not A BIOGRAPHY and I 'm removing paraphrases and non essential information's from the article. Imagine an article without the Austrian connection of the Queen, her Family. Even her relation with her brother Joseph the emperor of Austria was on the point to be removed. Cooperation should be from all sides not one side. Please can anyone imagine an article about Marie Antoinette without Mirabeau, Necker, Barnave, religion,her brother Joseph , the Constitution, I added all this during the Revolution period and I collaborated only to be asked today to accept the removal of the 14 July, the constituional role of the King and Queen, Robespierre, Austria, My God she was Antoinette of Austria, I don t know what to say or think, anyway I 'm ready to work with experts on this matter or any person of good faith and I believe Krobison is such a person and many times I reached deals with him and I 'll work with him.Thank you.(Talk)Aubmn (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have not said you reverted hundred of his edits, above I have specifically mentioned you reverted his edits five times. That is why I am asking for assistance, I think it has gone too far. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Sam, I think this RfC needs to be either discontinued or completely reframed. I can appreciate that it is not always easy to know what to do when editing gets fractious, but RfCs are not supposed to be about user conduct. There should instead be a concise, neutrally-worded question related to content (which could feasibly be along the lines of "were these reverts appropriate"). Posting at WP:AN or seeking WP:MEDIATION might be the way to go. Formerip (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
YES PLEASE EXPERTS AND MEDIATION,I COMPLETELY AGREE. Thank you, can you please take care of this. (talk)Aubmn (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sure. I'll remove the RfC tag and try some other form of mediation. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sam, thank you for trying to step in here; this is the biggest set of edits I have ever attempted & I have certainly not been a paragon of good WP editing behavior. I did go a bit overboard on an early round (deleting the religious information was a mistake), but some of what Aubmn is referring to is mistaking my moving a large section of the text (on the relationship to the Austrian relatives) for deleting it; I was trying to make a more coherent narrative. This was also the case with some of the personages mentioned by Aubmn; I had replaced a long-winded description of them with in line mentions in the text, and one person dropped out because I couldn't find him in the text again. I suspect there was a better way for me to telegraph moving information, but Aubmn not carefully reviewing my edits has been a recurrent problem. For example, the article in its current form in one case (the Bastille commemoration) both Aubmn's and my versions of the events, which is certainly redundant.
Being a novice editor, I'm unfamiliar with the process now -- I assume I should abstain from further edits until some sort of resolution is declared -- is that correct? I do see more opportunities to (IMHO) improve the article, starting with the lede, which would be very confusing to someone who hasn't already read the article. Krobison13 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Krobison13, please continue. Much does remain to be done. As FormerIP has pointed out, we are not in a formal mediation process. Still, Aubmn has been clearly warned about consensus, edit-warring and disruptive editing and it's reasonable to hope they will now be prepared to let you work.
Aubmn, I appreciate that you worked on adding content concerning the end of Marie Antoinette's life and that you've removed copyright violations. But this is a time for different skills. Please back off and allow Krobison13 to work. There is a very good chance that any remaining copyright violations will disappear in copy-editing. The outcome can be re-examined for copyvios later.
SamWilson989, while this might not be precisely an RFC, you've still given a carefully balanced and fair summary that I hope has helped to clear the air and helped us to make progress. Thank you. NebY (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Trial and death[edit]

We currently make several statements, some of which I removed and Aubmn restored, about MA's trial and death that may go beyond the verifiable facts and be too reliant on Fraser's opinion alone.
1. Is there documentary evidence (e.g. in letters or minutes) that "the outcome of the trial had been decided in advance by the Committee of Public Safety", or is this the opinion of most modern historians based on indirect evidence, or is Fraser comparatively isolated in this opinion?
2. Likewise, what evidence is there that she expected (not "excepted") a life sentence? Is that taken from her letter to Élisabeth, the view of most modern historians, or Fraser's view?
3. Likewise, what evidence is there that she was stunned, as opposed to (as one writer puts it) accepting the sentence with calm resignation? In any case, it does not need repeating.
Two other points:
4. It is banal and superfluous to say that she wished to live. Had she wished to die, that would have been worthy of mention.
5. When her treatment has just been described in the previous sentence, we have no need to point out to the reader that it was humiliating, let alone to over-egg it by calling it "the greatest humiliation of her life". At one point Aubmn fought to keep the phrase "the facts speak from themselves". We need to let them. NebY (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

All major historians insisted on her deep humiliation, you have only to compare to the manner in which the King her husband was put to death(his hands were not bound from his prison, he was not put on leash and he did have a priest from Rome etc..).(Evelyne Lever, Castelot p510, Chalon p 469, Fraser...).Yes she didn 't say anything(dignity, disdain and shock ) when her sentence was read, she was stunned as she excepted to live even as a life prisoner, as she told her lawyer Chaveau Lagarde as we know from his own letters(Fraser p 436,castelot p395,lenotre p348).([[Usertalk:Aubmn|talkAubmn (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)]])

Sorry for the delay in responding due to RL.Aubmn, your references to historians other than Fraser are most welcome. I wish this article used them and more; its extraordinary reliance on Fraser has been disturbing editors for many years.
You've answered my second question and partly addressed my third, but still not said why we should repeatedly describe her as stunned. That emphasis deprives her of the dignity you mention above and removes any sense that she might rise to disdain. Indeed, the repetition reminds us of the treatment of cows in an abattoir. Why harp on "stunned"?
You've pointed out that her treatment was harsher and more humiliating than that of Louis. That's far more interesting. Let's have that insead of the emo "greatest humiliatin of her life".
My first question - about verifiable history - still stands, as does my fourth. NebY (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok,I 'll help with working on new sources, I have all the books. No problem.(talk)Aubmn (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For your first question it is the opinion of most historians due to the nature of Robespierre regime, it is also a fact that Fraser was more symphatic to her subject than many historians.(Aubmn)Aubmn (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification please...[edit]

The early life section currently says: "Her childhood was somewhat complex." This could mean a wide variety of things. Does it mean she had many tutors? This could mean someone suspected her of being an incest victim. If the sentence is not clarified it should be excised. Someone with a copy of the Fraser book is going to have to go to those pages and try to figure out if the cited pages justify this comment. Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Not to mention that in just the previous few sentences, it says "Maria Antonia had a simple childhood" which in itself, I think should also be elaborated upon. The contradiction is a bit humorous, especially since the wording almost parallels one another. Sol Pacificus (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


@Aubmn: please explain why you think it necessary that this article comment so often on the subject's size and are even edit-warring from multiple IPs to reinsert text that includes "very plump", "verge of obesity", "very ample", "double chin", "very large bosom", "very tall", "a head taller", "grossly overweight", "double chin" (again), "very big corpulent","double chinned". Remember, there is more to justifying inclusion than sourcing and that this article is itself very large. NebY (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I 'm not an expert on MA, I only consult Wikipedia from time to time without editing, I have only read two books on MA in my life but from what I know she was a large woman and this was mentionned extensively in the books I consulted; as for her tall and majestic figure she was a queen. I don 't know all your rules and will wait for this issue to be debated here before undoing again. (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, first I agree that this article was very large, it is why I reduced it from 12000\13000 words to around 10,000 words removing paraphrasing and direct quotes from Fraser on the way with Copyrights violations and slowly I'm trying to use other sources because I have all the majors books on Marie Antoinette life. Even today I still try to trim it, although the articles of the two major figures of French History on Wikipedia are 10,000 words for Joan of Arc and 17,000 words for Napoleon. Second about size, first this subject is very important in Marie Antoinette life for many reasons, she was a Queen famous for her looks and charisma, a lot of people from her own time even travelers commented on this subject specially on her majestic presence, tall figure and beauty and that she was the Queen of fashion. Sp An important fact in her history is when she became very large due to her pregnancies, she changed the models of fashions in France and even Europe to conceal her weight as much as possible. I did not invent the names that you mentioned above, her physical characteristics and her weight is mentioned 34 times in Lever book , 41 times in Castelot and more than 20 times in Fraser book. This was simply a very important subject in her life, first in her time as the Queen of glamour in Versailles and Paris, it was a period which Talleyrand characterize :"those who did not live in that period don't know what is the pleasure of living". Second during the Revolution this was connected with her health problems and her charisma which made the most important leaders of the revolution like Mirabeau and Barnave to succumb to her spell. I used a few words among thousands of words, I mentioned it first in her life in Versailles, another time during the Revolution and a last time around her death; a few words in a an article of thousands of work.Lets takes some articles in Wikipedia as examples: first Mary Queen of Scots who is by the way a wonderful article rated A, there is a detailed description of the Queen, in details even the colors of her eyes....Napoleon another good rated article, I talked about the Queen as a tall person, in the article Napoleon his height is mentioned [1,68 cm] at least three times in details as well as all his physical characteristic's, about Marie Antoinette I talked in a general sense. Third no problem I"ll rewrite it without using all of the above characterizations, although most of these characterizations are present in the books of the most eminent historians about Marie Antoinette like Lever(p=54,67 84,96,124,156,184 etc...),Castelot (28,45,54,67,78,97,134 etc...), Fraser(20-24,31,37-8,65,69,100-1,121-22,240,256,279-280,353-353408,409).Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between repetition in a long book and repetition in a single encyclopedia article. Here, it is not merely WP:UNDUE, it serves to denigrate the subject in a manner which would not be acceptable in an article about a living person and is no more acceptable here. Indeed, in a modern encyclopedia, repeatedly attacking a woman over her appearance reflects badly on the encyclopedia and worse on the article's contributors. It's good that you won't reinsert that.
Your removal of copyright violations is commendable and was sorely needed. The article still needs greater clarity and concision; it often moves at a snail's pace and dwells at extraordinary length on many matters. For example, we now have a long paragraph with two illustrations just recounting in a dramatic and emotional manner the fine details of only the last day of her life. NebY (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First I respect Marie Antoinette when I describe her majestic presence and other subjects... although she was dead 200 years ago , she is one of my favorites figures in history ...Second I talked very little about her size, les than 20 words in an article of 10,000 words. Third I'll rewrite it without these characteristics for consensus, one during her life and one during the revolution, I 'll only say she was a large woman with a majestic and tall presence and that her pregnancies affected her health and weight, very simple facts who are much more mentioned in other articles in Wikipedia that I mentioned above.Aubmn (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Aubm just added some more on her size in this edit, but no extra citation was given for the information. I am not familiar with either Fraser or Cronin (which was the two citations present as source for that section), but I am beginning to suspect these additions are not supported by the given citations. Also the "clarifications" regarding the statements about her childhood (alternately "complex" and "relaxed" are not really sufficient for the removal of the clarification templates, as "her relationship with her mother" and "simple natural way which she was raised") doesn't explain anything and is not expanded upon at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)