Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Loaded sentence in Declining popularity

***After Fersen's six-week visit was over, the queen reported that she was pregnant in August.*** What is the author of this sentence trying to imply??? During Fersen's six-week visit to Versailles, MA also saw (daily) her husband Louis XVI, and on an almost daily basis, various ministers, Léonard her coiffeur, male family members, male friends, her dog's coiffeur, her confessor, Mique her gardener, maybe even the mailman (why not???) and again, at the risk of repeating myself, and on a daily basis, her husband. Has not that woman been slandered enough in her life time? Disgusted with the turn this supposedly encyclopedic article is taking, un torchon that should be offered for publication to the cheapest of the trash magazines. Frania W. (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to change the sentence into something appropriate. I am not sure, but I suspect the sentence may be from the original core of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article. Either way it is clearly out of line. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Saddhiyama! Do not worry, if no one else does it, I shall. However, I am extremely busy right now & will have to wait some time in the middle of the night when it keeps me awake! I have contributed many changes & comments on MA's article & quite a few times swore that I would never touch it again for the reason stated in above statement, but I always go back to it because I hate to see this woman libelled over & over again in some of the most insidious ways. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

I have sometimes noticed that there have been some strange wording changes and things put down that are mainly viewed as un-true. Also I just noticed on the top of the page someone changed it from "Let them eat cake" too "Let them eat pie"???? I changed it back. I never heard "pie" before lol. I think for the readers own good of getting correct info and for the respect of Queen Marie, could someone try and see if they can put the Marie Antoinette page under protection? I would do it myself but am not sure how and don't think I have done enough on wikipedia too be permitted too do this :) Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskardashian (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy, just go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However I do not think that the vandalism on this article is higher than normal, and I doubt that they will consider it eligible for protection. Anyway it is nice to see that there are more editors patrolling this article. The articles concerning the French Revolution does seem particularly at risk during school hours of various countries.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chriskardashian & Saddhiyama: Glad that others are showing concern. Last week I brought Marie Antoinette's article & those related to French royalty - Louis XIV, Louis XVI - to the attention of a colleague asking how to get these articles semi-protected. (Please check my talk page at section Vandalism RE articles on French royalty.) The answer he got from an administrator was negative. However, I would like to point out that the article on Napoléon I has remained semi-protected for months & that more recently the one on Paris has also been put under semi-protection. Maybe if several of us would request that articles on French royalty be semi-protected, we would get more consideration.

Chriskardashian, pie vs cake is an instance of vandalism. The problem is that when a vandal changes only a few words or a date here & there, a good soul follows & corrects instead of reverting, in the process missing several stupidities, the result being that little by little these untruths are included in the article.

Let's get together & insist for semi-protection.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A perfect example of what I was explaining above RE correcting vs reverting; going backward:

122.104.154.42 removed a piece of vandalism by 123.243.108.138

previously Chriskardashian had removed the word pie, but had skipped said which was replacing uttered and also drums, guitar and piano replacing harpsichord all put in by 123.243.108.138 - AND WHICH ARE STILL THERE.

This is the problem when one corrects a vandal instead of reverting.

In order to get back to proper text, the whole thing has to be reverted to last version by Oceanblueeyes on 15 June, which I am doing right now.

Frania W. (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I watch and vandalism patrol a lot of articles (especially articles in the Age of Enlightenment topics), and in my experience I very much doubt that page protection would go through. The level of vandalism at the moment is still pretty much the usual level of vandalism on high profile articles. If the vandalism level rises I will naturally support protection. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Saddhiyama, this is the answer we got on our request. We'll keep watching, but what a waste of time! Frania W. (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will of course keep patrolling this article, but thanks to you (and others) I rarely get to revert vandalism on this one, as you have often been there before me. So at least there are some positive sides to this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You all for your response too my question. I just requested for semi-protection, doubt it will go threw lol, I hope it will for the sake of respect for Marie. All this feels like been with the police lol :P

Update: Its been turned down :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskardashian (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You folks may want to consider utilizing WP:TWINKLE, it makes reverting vandalism extremely simple. I've watchlisted this page and will help keep an eye on the vandalism. Protection is usually granted in cases where over 50% of all recent edits are vandalism, I'll also be watching for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chriskardashian & Beeblebrox:

BBB, you say 50% ? From 31 May to today 17 June, out of 37 edits:

• 13 positive
• 12 acts of vandalism
• 12 reverts

which means that for 38 contributions, there were 13 productive against 24 non-productive.

in percentage, it is 1/3 positive against 2/3 negative, as the reverts are wasted energy.

Poor Marie Antoinette! Her husband gets the same treatment. Frania W. (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just requested semi-protection again. Not simply because of vandalism, but because this is such a sensitive issue. Marie Antoinette deserves to have her story accurately told; I think this page should be protected from people that have not been educated on this topic. Jordan S. Sunday, September 27, 2009 7:51:12 (UTC)

Seems like an inadequate (and quite frankly somewhat strange) reason to request semi-protection. I doubt that you will succeed in your request. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what I would say to that request. The least edit to this page was three days ago, not enough recent activity. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

True But Odd

I loved this page, because i always love to read about marie antoinette. but the odd reason is about how short she lived. i always read about her, but i never knew she died so young!!! what i'm wondering is: is this misspelled or i it true? because i can't belive anyone can live that shortly, and do so much, like get married and have children and "rule" a city. its just so sad...... well, anyway, i loved the page, its one of my favorites. and my question is: is it true she a short life??!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkballettoes (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinkballettoes, it is true: there is no mistake in the dates, Marie Antoinette died seventeen days before her 38th birthday. She also loved dancing & was a very good musician. Frania W. (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, people didn't live as long back then. Rulers were often very young by today's standards, and she got married at age 14. Fact is, though, she was a fairly uncaring person, whether by nature, or because she knew no better. She was famous for showing no compassion for others, and supposedly, was told that the peasants had no bread and were starving, so she said "let them eat cake." Whether or not she actually said that is unknown, but it's a reflection on her that so many believe she did. The term right wing and left wing were coined during the French Revolution, because the wealthy aristocratic representatives sat on the right wing of the parliament, while the poor, starving peasant representatives sat on the left wing. The people of France were starving and dying in the streets, and the French aristocracy lived in extreme wealth and opulence. Hatred was so extreme that she and her husband were beheaded in public. ReignMan (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictly in terms of hard historical data, there really is no evidence indicating that she was an "uncaring person." There is, however, ample evidence--letters, first-hand witnesses and testimonies, and even official account books and ledgers---that attest to a compassionate person. For example, the large sums of money that she gave to charities over the years, other charties she started and funded herself, several poor orphans whose care and education she paid for out of personal funds... the list goes on, all well documented. On the other hand, all the criticism lodged against her was by people who never met her in person, never spoke with her, and in most cases, never even set eyes upon her during her lifetime. In short, there's almost no evidence supporting her critics except rumor and gossip. This assertion---"the people of France were starving and dying in the streets," is also a gross generalization unsupported by the facts. Not to say that there wasn't hunger and poverty in France, but it was certainly no worse than in the rest of Europe at that time, and certainly did not include a majority of the French people. A more accurate statement would be something like: "a third of the French population routinely suffered from hungar and malnutrition during times of bad harvests and harsh winters." By my count, a third does not constitute all the "French people," as it still leaves two-thirds who were not going hungary. "Hatred was so extreme that she and her husband were beheaded in public." This last statement is in no way a support of the conclusion. There were a good many people executed in public at that time, including priests, nuns, soldiers, and commoners; it does not indicate any degree of guilt, merely the arbitrary nature of Revolutionary proceedings.M de Lorz (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Josephina

The article states that MA's name at birth was Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna, but I have a soruce (Evelyne Lever) contradicting that. Lever uses Josephina instead of Josepha. What should be done about this? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack, is your source the French original or a translation of Évelyne Lever's book? I have the original in French and on p. 10 the names are given as Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna. Frania W. (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! How the translation has dooped me. My mistake, Frania to the rescue once again! -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria

Maria Theresa was billed as Empress of Austria in the introduction. I changed it to Archduchess of Austria because:

• Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, her husband, is mentioned before her, ergo it seems that there were two Empires: Austria & Rome.

• Maria Theresa didn't enjoy imperial dignity suo jure.

• I chose the archducal title, instead of Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, as she is best known by that.

Kind Regards -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We should call her "Empress Maria Theresa". And she is certainly not best known as an archduchess. john k (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We should mention her first and then her husband. Prior to her marriage, Marie Antoinette was significant as the daughter of the Habsburg ruler. Her mother was more significant in her education and marriage; her father is mentioned in this article only as her father and nothing else. Therefore, it should be "Empress Maria Theresa and Emperor Francis I". Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well John, do you think she's best known as Queen of Hungary? Your proposal sounds fine to me, Surtsicna. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Royal title

I suggest (in spite of other fine opinions on this question) "Queen Marie Antoinette, consort of Louis XVI, King of France." If someone rather less significant, e.g. "Queen Fabiola of Belgium" can keep her title, why not Marie Antoinette? Torontonian1 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen Fabiola of Belgium is still alive and this is her official title as queen dowager. Deb (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

queen of franceies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.144.200 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette Lookout

I noticed something that appears to be a contradiction with the history I am aware of "In an elaborate attempt to escape from Paris to the royalist stronghold of Montmédy" - It wasn't to another part of France she was going, but to what is now Pennsylvania, America. In a town still known today as "Azilum" An entire community of nobles relocated there. The location was chosen as a strategic position in the mountains and a Castle Stronghold was being built ahead of her, but with her death it was never finished. The foundation of what was going to be her new Castle exists today as "Marie Antoinette Lookout" and is very well recorded as Historic Fact. I suggest someone else read up on it. I can't make the edit because, since my late grand-mother is of French decent from that very town I would be biased. But you can read up on it here: http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=859 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.66.120 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because there's some connection doesn't mean you're biased. The article on Chicago, for example, is mostly written by people from Chicago. Go ahead and add it to the article if you have a reference. ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You can also read up on some details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Azilum which should probably be merged in with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.66.120 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree

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

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 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)

Lead image

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)

New image

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)

Too Much Reliance on Fraser?

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)

Harvnb and citation templates

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)

Rousseau quote

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

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

Automated peer review output
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?] This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?] Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), harbor (A) (British: harbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), anesthesia (A) (British: anaesthesia). Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Marie Antoinette links to 5 different disambiguation pages (fix links). Dauphin Dauphine Leopold I Marais St Cloud (redirect page) St. Cloud

Since it's easy I ran an automated peer review.[2] 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

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

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 97.120.108.61 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

POV much?

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. — Kallikanzarid^talk 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article?

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 [3] 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 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 WorldCat.org. — 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)

Peer review, transcluded

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

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)

Magicpiano

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 "chevroncars.com" 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)

Lecen

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

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

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

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

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)

References

Genealogical Anomaly???

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

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)