Talk:Marie Antoinette

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [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 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)

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.[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

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)

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)

Completing the information and any help is welcome

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

This article requires significant proofreading and correction, folks. Good luck! 50.121.194.192 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Struggling to make progress

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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...

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)

Size

@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.178.135.229.55 (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)

Her suffering inspired Napoleon and the Restoration

I removed the unsourced claims that "her plots and suffering inspired a lot of royalists and conservative religious groups who were able slowly but surely able to regain the confidence of the majority of the French People and to impose most of their ideas in France and Europe after 1799 when the Revolution was ended" (this is not mentioned in Fraser, so it is yet another example of Aubmn trying to sneak in personal POV via existing citations. As Wikipedia is not reliable source so do not use another article article page as source for the claim as you did in your edit. The fact that she suffered and plotted has very little to do with either Napoleon or the Restoration and I doubt very much you will find any reliable source claiming any connection between the two. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aubmns IP has now reinserted the statements twice, claiming consensus is needed to remove them, but that is a false claim, since the statements are not supported by citations. As such it is perfectly fine to remove them as WP:Verifiability and WP:RS states. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not Napoleon and the Restoration but some Events and Conservative Ideas

First Saddiyama said that WIKEPEDIA IS NOT RELIABLE, strange statement from a person who spent so much time on Wikipedia,second the people who fighted for religious and conservative ideas in Vendee considered Louis 17 the son of Marie Antoinette as their King, this conflict will cause hundred of thousands of persons to lose their life with the result that Napoleon did return France to religion by signing the concordat to restore social and religious stability. Second Royalist fervor returned in France and they won many elections, republicans were obliged to use force to impose their rule. Finally about inspiration, have you heard about EDMUND BURKE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL THINKER IN MODERN HISTORY, please see his book "Reflections on the French Revolution" or the article about him in Wikipedia and what he say about Marie Antoinette and the Revolution.Aubmn (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have put as references two Wikipedia articles and a major reference the book of EDMUND BURKE himself, thank you.Aubmn (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn has been temporarily blocked for sockpuppetry but I feel it is my duty to respond to these claims, as they seem to stem from an insufficient knowledge of the principles of Wikipedia and especially concerning reliable sources that really needs to be seen to.

I recommend Aubmn reads the short essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the links provided at the bottom of it. Secondly Edmund Burke is indeed a fine source for a lot of claims, but his work Reflections on the Revolution in France most certainly cannot be used as a source regarding the claim that MAs plots and sufferings caused a majority of French to support Napoleon and the Restoration. Primarily because it was published in 1790, more than a decade before any of those events, furthermore the work is not usable as a source regarding the thoughts of the French (in 1790 or later), although it is an excellent source regarding Burkes views on the revolution. You will need a secondary source, preferably of recent publication, that covers the events and sentiments in France in the first half of the 19th century.

It seems to me that besides the sockpuppetry, editwarring and article ownership, Aubmns issues are much more fundamental, since they show ignorance of even the most basic Wikipedia policies regarding sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Tone and appropriate content

When Aubmn was blocked, they were also admonished by Euryalus "Mildly, when you return please also heed advice from other editors about using a less dramatic tone in content editing." Sadly, on returning they have made a rapid series of edits, undoing much of my copy-editing and inserting or reinserting, among other things:[11]

• was treated badly by her jailors who smoked in her face and insulted her.
• with no privacy, she was allowed to see her family on a very limited basis.
• and forced restrain
• because of her very big size failed due to the massive presence of guards, to the great desperation and sadness of the Queen as we know from her letters
• taken restrained with her hands behind her back out of the tower under a lot of insults, she was pushed and her head was injured.
• This period of time was the most difficult period of her captivity, Marie Antoinette was always attended by guards who did not allow her any privacy and treated her very badly
• very big [of her size]
• to her great sadness and surprise because she excepted life imprisonment
• Marie Antoinette was forced to undress before her guards and clothed in a plain white dress,
• Her hands bound painfully behind her back causing her a lot of pains and tears and leashed on a rope
• calling her "chienne"(meaning dog in that language) ... Despite this humiliation, the people of Paris saw on that day a very large bounded woman who was leashed,who looked very sad and under great pains but also a person who was able to maintain partially her composure. While many described her as arrogant, others granted her their respects
  

For months, editor after editor has tried to reason with Aubmn (Flyer22, Quantos88, Krobison13, SamWilson989, Saddhiyama) but Aubmn has persisted in forcing such material back into the article and reverting our edits, all the while insisting that this is essential information and that s/he is co-operating and compromising. The result is that the article remains turgid, laboured, excessively detailed, obsessive about the subject's size, and repetitive to the point of unreadability, while editors are driven away.
@Aubmn: please end your WP:OWN behaviour, respect WP:CONSENSUS, stop reverting our edits, and stop inserting and re-inserting material. We need you to take a rest from editing this article while the slow work - and it will have to be slow, there is much to do - of trimming, compacting and copy-editing proceeds, which it cannot do while subject to this interference. NebY (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First, it is strange to talk about revert, I did not revert any of your edits or removed any of your materials, I completed missing informations. Second, she was treated badly by her jailers, that's an historical fact. Third, most of what you considered dramatic I accepted that it should be removed for consensus. Fourth, on size we made a compromise which I respected but you did only for a period of time, same thing about manner of death; yet you wanted me out of the article from the first, is that not ownership. Five, I have good relations with Sam, also with Krobison I was working with him, completing each other work but NebY always interfered on the spot, a fact deplored by Samwilson,it was harassment. Six, Wikipedia allow all editors to participate and Wikipedia is for consensus; on both size and the manner of death, I was positive with NebY and reached compromises and he even demanded my help with sources which I did, today I'm no longer adding but removing copyrights violations, adding missing information's but specially adding new sources which you insisted that I do (see Talk Page: Trial And Death) and know you want me out, I speak about cooperation and you want me out, is that not the worst kind of ownership and badfaith . Seven, what did I do with this article: it was left unchanged for three years, depending on one source and full of thousands of copyrights violations. I completed the article, I removed most of the copyrights violations, trimmed it and finally I'm know putting many new sources other than Fraser, can you do it to make this article better...as for your last contributions you showed the revolution as a picnic, sorry it was a tragic revolution, I agree not everything should be mentioned, it was why I trimmed this article from 13000 words to around 9000 words, I did not revert any of your works, I only filled some void. As for content go for Napoleon, Joan of Arc , Mary Queen of Scots execution, w'll see much more tragic descriptions. Finally in the past essential information's was removed, the most illustrious example was when the fourteen of July 1790 was completely removed, it was the most important event in Marie Antoinette life and the Revolution, also key events were removed almost completely; in addition Marie Antoinette relations with her family and the most important leaders of the Revolution was also removed. Eight it is my right to edit as it is yours, I know on this subject and I have much more sources than you yet I 'm ready to work with you and help you with my sources; I'll continue making this article better by mainly using new sources which is the priority know. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: NebY, it seems that the solution is to keep reverting and reporting Aubmn, and to keep the article WP:Semi-protected to avoid his WP:Sockpuppeting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Negativity behavior and harassment continue rather than cooperation together which I always offered to see my proposal rejected, Flyer say some content removed, first she was saying with NebY that this article was too large and that new sources were needed other than Fraser and that copyright violations should be removed, I have the book of Fraser, I removed paraphrasing, copyrights violations and sometimes nonessential information's, that mission is almost done; know I 'm putting new sources to replace Fraser in some cases so the article don 't depend on one source. That article was left unchanged since 2012, there was major omissions in Marie Antoinette life, I added them (more than 4000 words) than I removed non essential informations, paraphrasing and quotations from Fraser (around 3000 words); finally today I 'm massively using new sources in order to make this article not depending on one source while keeping most of Fraser sources because Fraser book is a good reference both academic and popular at the same time. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New Sources

While working on editing any article is important and the right of any editor, the priority for this article right know is to find new sources not in order to totally replace Fraser who did write a very good book, both popular and academic but to supplement it with many new books and articles which I have, and I also demand from all editors who has importants books and sources about Marie Antoinette to make their own contributions so we all work together because that is the spirit of Wikipedia not exclusion.Aubmn (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight issue in the introduction

The removal of the "However other historians and scholars defended her either because of their dislike of the Revolution or because of sympathy with her terrible fate." sentence is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. If the number of historians who hold views critical of Marie Antoinette's opposition to liberal reform in her time were roughly equal to the number of historians who are sympathetic, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". Historians sympathetic towards Antoinette's reactionary behavior are, by user Aubmn's own admission, a minority view. NPOV stipulates that Wikipedia should favor mainstream views throughout its articles in order to avoid issues of undue weight, and allow these minority views little, if any, coverage.

The current prose within the introduction is a textbook example of undue weight, and therefore constitutes a NPOV violation. This policy states that the views of tiny minorities should generally not be included at all. Unless the prose is rewritten as to reflect its very low importance relative to mainstream historical views, and/or is moved from the introduction to a more appropriate section of the article, it will be removed per WP:UNDUE. Esnertofidel (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok at least a commonsense proposal, I 'll rewrite it noting that you broke the 3 revert rule.Aubmn (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Observation about the ongoing edit wars being instigated within this article

In response to user Aubmn's repeated violations of Wikipedia policies in this article (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:OWN), my initial reflex was to call for mediation to resolve the issue. This talk page reveals such steps have already been taken by several other editors in the recent past, but to little avail. In light of this irregular situation, it is worth recalling how the historical figure of Marie Antoinette is the quintessential representative of both class conflict and white privilege to mainstream historians, as well as of the European aristocracy that instigated colonialism and human slavery.

Consequently, editors should take note that articles such as these are regularly targeted by adherents of white supremacy and far-right politics, with the intent of introducing revisionist or negationist edits and marginalize the historic consequences of white privilege and class conflicts. The nature of this user's edits bears this out, as they consistently give undue weight to revisionist views that miscast Marie Antoinette as a heroine or victim. I have noted previously that the arguments this user employs bear similarities to arguments also advanced by the proponents of creationism in articles pertaining to evolutionary biology.

In both these instances, Wikipedia appears confronted by vocal, committed and highly disruptive advocates, advancing political or religious agendas at the expense of encyclopedic integrity. Since this issue appears to grow in frequency and severity, an appropriate response by administrators is called for. Esnertofidel (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First, you are the person reverting 3 times and breaking Wikipedia rule; I did not revert you once today but only trying to fill the void and trying to reach a compromise with no response from you.

Second, the points you brings are beyond the scope of this article and it seems you have a certain opinion which should be respected but that concerns the whole of Wikipedia community; as for my edits many persons blamed me on being to harsh on MA by showing that she betrayed her people, spent their money on herself and even called foreign armies to destroy the French Revolution so what you are talking about is totally false but I'm not an ideologue like you. Also I'm very good in Social Sciences, I have a PHD but very weak in biology; Your informations about MA are totally false, she has something to do with aristocracy and class conflict, she played the greatest role in arguably the most important social and political revolution of all times but colonialism and slavery happened in all continents many centuries before her. In fact her husband will sign a decree abolishing slavery without using his right of veto which he used under MA influence to protect the Church. Finally for your information MA accepted to double the representation of the tiers etats or the Middle Classes in 1789 to break the power of the Aristocracy, she was not doing this for the people but for the supremacy of royal power(Castelot pp=290-295,Fraser pp=260-265). History is not white and black only it is grey also.

Third, there is an important numbers of historians, a very strong minority who defended MA, even Fraser her most important modern biographer sympathize to a certain degree with her subject, even her critics who are a majority in the scholar community respected certain aspects of her life like her motherhood, her courage in dying, her charisma etc...

Fourth, a number of elite people were inspired by her, they saw her as the inventor of the glamorous, aristocratic, star system; that's a fact which I might not like.

Five, I repeat you are talking out of scope, neutrality requires all opinions to be presented, Second the majority opinion should be given the direction of the article and this is present in the introduction, it agree 98% with the majority opinion but you cannot eliminate the remaining 2%, we can give them a line or two. MA was certainly not an angel but you wants to present her in a total negative picture which is not neutral, false and even dictatorial..Aubmn (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I proposed many times a compromise and proposed and changed many texts, you always rejected it reverting me 3 times breaking Wikipedia 3 revert rule, I propose this "MA was defended by a minority of historians" or "The great majority view her role as negative but not all". With no positive respond from you if you continue your disruptive negative attitude, I 'm making the change or else please give sources for your information like I used Fraser and other sources or stop taking ideological positions who are out of scope of this article. Thank you, I still hope from a positive response from you.Aubmn (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

"Long after her death, Marie Antoinette remains a major historical figure linked with conservative and the Catholic Church positions; and a major cultural icon associated with high glamour, wealth and a certain style of life based on luxury and celebrity appealing today to the social and cultural elites; frequently referenced in popular culture,[4] being the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Most academics and scholars but not all, have deemed her the quintessential representative of class conflict, western aristocracy and absolutism government in addition to being frivolous, superficial; and have attributed the start of the French Revolution to her in addition to the beginning of the French Revolutionary Wars of 1792 which ended with the Congress of Vienna with their millions of victims and the introduction of nationalistic and modern ideas in addition to the concept of mass mobilization.[5][6][7][8][9] On the other hand Marie Antoinette supported the American Revolution in 1776, and helped inspired a conservative reaction in France after 1791 which saw its greatest manifestation in the War in the Vendee which led in the long run long after the death of the queen to the end of the Revolution and to the return of conservative and religious ideas in France and in Europe.[10] That tendency saw its first manifestation in the writing of Edmund Burke the most important theorist of modern conservative thought; who criticized the Revolution as early as 1790 and defended Marie Antoinette in his various books."

What does the above over-sized & opinionated last paragraph have to do in the lead, which should logically end with mention of her execution? --90.62.50.101 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What end with her execution was the mention of the main events in her life, here like articles about major figures in Wikipedia like Napoleon or Lincoln or Elizabeth Tudor, her legacy and impact is mentioned in one paragraph, the opinions she defended, the accusations of her adversaries and specially what most scholars and historians think about her in addition to the public perception, this was written by many editors through a long period of times and it is only describe facts, events and perceptions in Marie Antoinette life which are developed in the article below with their sources. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Should you plan on extending Marie-Antoinette's biographic article to the analysis "most academics and scholars but not all" have deemed her to be, you are undertaking quite a mission and will have to extend your reading beyond Burke & Fraser, starting with the writings of the pre-Burke Philosophes, and the impact of the success of the American Revolution on the French. Also reading about who, beside Louis XVI or Marie-Antoinette, was responsible for the French Revolutionary Wars of 1792: Who wanted to go to war? Only Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette? It may also be interesting to note that there had been revolutionary episodes in Europe as early as 1770, in Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands... One good book to get started with would be that of Jacques Godechot: Les Révolutions (1770-1799), PUF 1965. Good luck with this project - a handful. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, about the war of 1792 in the main section, it is said that the Girondins and the assembly also wanted to go to war. You are right about early revolutions,,,,this article depended to much on Fraser it is why I'm using new sources not to replace Fraser who is a great writer both academic and popular but to complete it, I have more than 50 books but this will take some time...Thank youAubmn (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Going back to my first comment: I do maintain what I wrote on the lead being over-sized and opinionated. On 6 May, you began editing it, turning an acceptable text into a long diatribe more in the style of a gossip magazine than that of an encyclopedia. Also, are you implying that by being responsible for the 1792 Revolutionary Wars, Marie-Antoinette was responsible for the deaths of millions of people? And, what does "mass mobilization" have to do with her? Is it attributed to her or to the Congress of Vienna? If the latter, then it has absolutely nothing to do in the lead on Marie-Antoinette. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

First I did not write this article, it was there since 2011 with its reliance on Fraser.

Second thank you for any constructive edit you make.

Third MA was a conservative figure who was opposed to the French Revolution arguably the greatest and political revolution of all times, the queen whom I admired a lot played a major role in that revolution, she pushed for the declaration of war which was proposed by the king to the assembly the only constitutional authotity who could do that, she gave military secrets to allied powers, she was not the only one responsible about the war, the girondins and the majority of the revolutionary leaders were also involved; the millions of death were not her responsibility alone. Mass mobilization happened because of the war not because of MA but the dynamics of the war changed everything.

Fourth MA represent glamour and a certain style of life present today in your imagination and is real in the life of a certain elite.

Five if you ask a person in the street what he knows about MA h'll tell you 'let them eat a cake. Yes she did not say it but it represent the class conflict and the question of royal authoriy which the queen tried to maintain in conspiring against the revolution(see her double dealing with barnave a moderate leader who believed in her sincerity).

Six The queen resisted all types of reforms before the revolution with the exception of 1788, she did not want to go more than the propositions of 23 june 1789 well below the aspiration of the estates general.

Seven the queen had her defenders people like Burke who was a liberal but turned to conservative positions after he saws the extremity of the Revolution.Aubmn (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You may not have written the article, and should not be blamed for pre-2015 errors it contains, but is what you are doing to it now bringing improvement to it? Let's remain on the introduction & its 4th paragraph, the great portion of it being your work: implying that Marie-Antoinette is the cause of the French Revolution: the Revolution had been in the making for a long time, with ideas that predated the birth (1755) of Marie-Antoinette. The American Revolution & its cost had more to do with the happening of the French Revolution than Marie-Antoinette and all her wigs & shoes. As for today's popularity of Marie-Antoinette, the "major cultural icon associated with high glamour, wealth and a certain style of life based on luxury and celebrity appealing today to the social and cultural elites; frequently referenced in popular culture..., und so weiter, I think that Antonia Fraser's book (2002) and Sofia Coppola's film (2006) have more to do with this "engouement" than any other reason. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

First you are partly right about Coppola movie and Fraser book about the glamour, it is even much before that but that's the facts as you said we love it or not.

Second I agree with you the cost of the American Revolution was much more than the queen expenses but the queen image was destroyed by her expenses, she was called Madame Deficit by the French themselves. She was called "Autrichienne", the necklace scandal destroyed her reputation and that of the monarchy.

Three the queen opposed the reforms of Turgot and Necker who could have saved the monarchy and perhaps avoided the Revolution.

Four the queen caused the 14 of july when she pressured the king to sack Necker and to use Germanic merceneray troops among others against the French People, her favorite Breuteil was prime minister while Benseval a man of her court was leading the troops.

Five I wont repeat her role with foreign powers and the betrayal of French military secrets or her double dealing with Barnave.

Six since you like the American Revolution, I'm quoting Thomas Jefferson the author of the declaration of independence and who was ambassador in Paris before becoming secretary of state than president: " No Queen no Revolution".Aubmn (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RE the American Revolution, it is not what Jefferson said about Marie-Antoinette that had any bearing on the French Revolution, but the impact of the American Revolution on the French together with the spread of new ideas by the Philosophes in the Age of Enlightenment for over a century. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I repeat the arguments, first you are right on the effect of the philosophes and the cost of French participation in the American War, know something was bound to happen but was the Revolution something unavoidable, was the Queen respected to make reforms, the answer is no (resistance to reforms, madame deficit, the necklace scandal, l'autrichienne etc..), the 14 of july, the refusal of the queen to go beyond the king propositions on 23 June (see evelyne lever, castelot about this...among others ), the 14 of July, the corruption of Mirabeau , the flying to Varennes..., the double dealing with Barnave , the declaration of war, the betrayal of military informations to Austria...etc..All of this led to Madame Veto and the radicalization of the Revolution....Aubmn (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of material pertaining to subject

Note: This section was originally a part of the #Lead section discussion above, but was split by 90.62.50.101 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Forced at the age of 14 by a mother filled with ambition to marry a foreigner she had never seen, then be driven to a foreign country and, in a tiny island in the middle of the Rhine have to change into a French princess, just by magic, then thrown into a corrupted court where, within a few days, her own new family (the nice old aunts) scorned her with the demeaning nickname of L'Autrichienne, this to be followed by seven years of being unable to bear a child because of her husband's whatever problem... and survive it to the birth of her first child, at which time libelles (originating from her French family entourage) started the rumor of bastardise... In our modern world, by the age of twenty-five, the girl would have had to seek the help of a psychologist! But she survived... only to be blamed for the French Revolution! That's quite a twist! A deep look into French history previous to her birth in 1755, the powerful ideology current & even the meteorology charts of 1788/1789 might alleviate some of the burden of responsibility put on Marie-Antoinette's shoulders. Her mother's overbearing counseling for one. Anyway, she paid dearly, so why not give her a break & put some of the causes of the French Revolution where they really belong? --90.62.50.101 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Aubmn, could you stop reverting me? --90.62.50.101 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First it is strange to talk about reverting you, actually you are the one who reverted me, I have the right to edit, I kept your major ideas about the king and the aunts trying to work a compromise while trimming informations who belonged to another article, there is a consensus by editors that this article is already a little large and depending on one source.

Second a lot of what you said is true but it seems you want to present MA as an angel in contradiction with even the historians who are in sympathy with her. I already told you there are many causes for the French Revolution and you rightly mentioned some of them, but the Queen actions and her image (I"ll not repeat the arguments...) helped in blocking reforms and specially radicalizing the Revolution. What you are writing belong to ideology and psychology not history.Aubmn (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What I added, with references concerning du Barry's banishment, are facts that do belong to the article, and it is important to mention them because (1) they are historically true, and (2) what Fraser wrote on p. 124, contradicts what you wrote on MA's role in Mme du Barry's exile from court:

The Comtesse du Barry could not expect her reign to outlast that of the former King. For the time being she was instructed to reside in a convent; later she was able to live at her château of Louveciennes where she received the curious, and on occasion the amorous. [...] All this meant that the late King's favourite had been treated without vindictive severity by the standards of the time. Gossips were furthermore wrong in ascribing her exile to the Queen. It was Louis XVI, under the influence of his pious aunts, who had every intention of banishing their old enemy. Marie Antoinette might have demanded the banishment of the Du Barry, but it was not necessary. Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette, The Journey, p. 124.

Now, I suggest you read the notes you refer us to before you revert the work of contributors who happen to have read & understood them. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First I put the aunts and the king, second I did not write this article, since you are quoting Fraser please go to pages 240 , 256 about her weight, here it is written MA might have interfered, in other books, it was said she interfered, you are writing 10 lines about Madame du Barry about one incident in an article about MA.Aubmn (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a compromise on the role of MA in the exile, I hope it will satisfy you.Aubmn (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless writing about a hermit, it is difficult not to mention other persons in someone's biography. The one "incident", as you call it, with Mme du Barry, has its importance in Marie Antoinette's biography, as the comtesse was the one who shocked MA the most upon her arrival to France and who caused her much anguish. So, her exile two days after the death of Louis XV belongs as much in Marie Antoinette's biography than du Barry's. Also, the fact that the comtesse was sent to the abbey run by her aunt & remained there only one year, then allowed to return to her beloved Louveciennes, shows that, if Marie Antoinette had any part of it, as you insist she had, the royal couple who sent her into exile was not a mean pair, after all. And that does belong to MA's biography. What you have done today is blocking information in order to save lines (!) while you added bytes with quite a choice of words - "massively fat" - to describe her gain of weight (she was pregnant at the time). Her brother's quote would be better.

Reverting my work and adding a *perhaps* is not exactly what I call a *compromise per talk page*, after I complained about you reverting my work in the first place! In fact, looking at the history of that page, and what you have done to my contributions, it may down upon readers that you are bent on destroying the work of others in order to impose your view of History, making sure in the meantime that you reach the 3 times revert rule, so that your "adversaries" (because that is what other contributors are to you, not "colleagues") are unable to go on. One is walking on eggs with you and the result might unfortunately be for this article to be blocked. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. As for the ten lines I added about the du Barry's "incident", which supposedly has nothing to do here & only adds weight to the article, how about that 4th paragraph of the lead, which was the reason I began this section? Congress of Vienna? Millions of dead? Mass mobilization? War in the Vendée? Burke?

First what I mention in the lead in a few lines is very important and connected to Marie Antoinette life not Madame du Barry who dominated the paragraph about MA life between 1770-1774 and is much more mentioned already than the king, her husband or the rest of her family but I believe in compromise (please see below).

Second for the editor before you, MA was a devil, he has a total contrary point of view from you, he wanted to remove anything positive about her, I had to find a balanced position with him and with you.

Three for me you are a colleague, to show you this, I added a positive defense of Marie Antoinette in the lead please feel free to add to it if you want a few lines about defending MA but not a lot and please with moderation.

Four if you add 3\4 lines to Du Barry exile not 10, that's okay with me, I'm happy to finally find an editor who know so much about the subject with sources.

Five ok with her brother description I'm adding his and the king of Sweden plus a positive description by a court observer.

Six By the way I 'm a big fan of MA and she is one of my favorites figures in world history but I 'm not an ideologue, if you are positive, I 'll be much more. Thank youAubmn (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because of the two factions for/against Mme du Barry during the reign of Louis XV & the atmosphere in which the 14-year old Marie Antoinette found herself upon her arrival at the French court that it is important to describe the manner in which Louis XVI sent her into exile two days after the death of his grandfather, and the role MA may or may not have had into it. The Fraser's p. 124 reference you left does not fit what your sentence describes. Fraser wrote: Gossips were furthermore wrong in ascribing her exile to the Queen. It was Louis XVI, under the influence of his pious aunts, who had every intention of banishing their old enemy. There is no *perhaps* there. Moreover, after removing my work, there was no reason on your part not to remove the Goncourt's reference I had brought because it is now irrelevant since the text it applied to is gone.

Being a *fan* of a personage may not be the best attribute to have for contribution to an encyclopedic article expected to remain fair & neutral. The same is true for the opposite. In both cases, it is thus better not to participate and, instead, write a book. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

First I 'm sorry for your negative response and attitude after all my opening and positive proposals, so be it.

Second when I said I was a fan, I was speaking in general about history including MA, your writing before "give her a break" show that you don 't have a neutral point of view and as I told you other editors, as an example the one before has totally contrary opinions in contrast with your opinion and I'm trying to keep a balance.

Third I repeat, Mme du Barry already dominated the paragraph about MA life 1770-1774, writing in details about her should be confined to her own article, a lot of materials concerning MA was removed not to be replaced with Du Barry life.

Fourth I 'm replacing "perhaps" with that MA did it based on the book Marie Antoinette correspondence in French by Evelyne Lever, p 173 in a letter to Mercy her ambassador to Paris (18 may 1774), the Empress Marie-Therese complained about the harshness of MA towards Du Barry who was treated as " la creature". Based on this primary source I could even removed the aunts who are not even mentioned but I would keep them with MA for the sake of compromise.Aubmn (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to create a "Legacy and memory" section

Note: This section was originally a part of the #Lead section discussion above, but was split by 90.62.50.101 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your arguments, but you seem to be both concentrating on the Lead section too much. At this point the article has no "Legacy and memory" section. Compare it to the featured article on Elizabeth I of England. Five sourced paragraphs on her reputation, including:

• 17th century nostalgia for Elizabeth, by those disappointed by the reign of the House of Stuart.
• Napoleonic Wars' revival of her memory in the face of a new foreign invasion. The aborted Spanish invasion apparently compared with Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom.
• Victorian era incorporation of her image to British imperial ideology.
• 20th century use as a romantic symbol of national resistance to foreign threat. The aborted Spanish invasion apparently compared with Operation Sea Lion.
• More recent historians criticism of the idealized image.

With Marie Antoinette, we can also cover how has her reputation fared since her death.

• How was her image treated by the French revolutionaries following her death?
• Does she has a presence in works of the Counter-Enlightenment movement, which has produced criticism of the Revolution since the 1790s?
• Has she served as a symbol for the French counter-revolutionary movement, both during the Revolution and afterwards? The Legitimists are an entire political movement of counter-revolutionaries who continue to defend the French monarchy and the rights of the House of Bourbon. How do they view the queen?
• How did 19th-century histories of the Revolution treat the queen? There was no shortage of Historiography of the French Revolution. What does The French Revolution: A History (1837) by Thomas Carlyle say about her?
• In the 20th-century, the Revolution was re-examined by Marxist historiography and interpreted in terms of class conflict. How has this school of historiography treated the role of the Queen?
• Also in the 20th-century, the Annales School re-examined the role of pre-revolutionary French nobility in terms of long-term social history. How did they interpreted the role of the queen and the royal family?
• The Oxford History of the French Revolution was another interpretation of both Louis XVI's reign and the Revolution, this time from the methods of historical revisionism. How did it treat the queen?
• Lynn Hunt has offered another perspective on the Revolution. "The political Revolution as a whole being seen as an enormous dysfunctional family haunted by patricide: Louis as father, Marie-Antoinette as mother, and the revolutionaries as an unruly mob of brothers." How does she view the queen?
• The article should also cover biographies such as Marie Antoinette: The Portrait of an Average Woman (1932) by Stefan Zweig.

Above all, we can not treat Marie Antoinette as an easily interpreted figure or a mere historical footnote. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, specially Zweig view her as an average woman who failed being neither an angel or a bad person. In the past big focus was put specially by the Marxists on socio-economic events, today there is a tendency to return to the biographies. I think she was not a mere historical footnote but a major actor during and before the Revolution, by the way I have Zweig, I 'll use him in a few days after bringing the book.Aubmn (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC) To begin her image was disastrous during the French Revolution, than in the counter Revolution and even among foreigners like Burke , she was seen in a good way. Today like Fraser there is a tendency to rehabilitee her to a certain extent specially by conservative people without denying her major mistakes. There was a poll in France recently about her, most Frenchmen who participated in that poll said she was guilty but opposed her condemnation to death and opted for exile or prison. It is true she is more popular outside France.Aubmn (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Article's poor quality

I can see there's an editing war between one person and a great number of others. I made edits mostly for grammar and redundancy, and that person reverted those. As a major historical figure, shouldn't a little more concern about this article make a permanent ban applicable?--Trebligoniqua (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A major overhaul is needed: most of the time, content of sections does not correspond to their title. The example in Motherhood: pregnancies & births are mixed with Fersen's return to Versailles, Joseph's claim to the throne of Bavaria, changes in the customs at court, repayment of the French debt, the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson, nomination of ministers, the death of Maria Theresa, the Franco-Austrian Alliance and, the queen's double chin & bust size... the last two possibly acceptable in Motherhood section (!) --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Poor quality will remain as long as one editor hogs the article to the point of rejecting every change made by others, and add only trivia. Then, to top it all off, pushes other editors into an edit war when they put back their contribution. This is the first instance in my time at contributing to Wikipedia that I am personally driven into such a situation.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I talked to you on your talk page proposing collaboration, you did not even responded, you talk about edit war and you are the one who reverted me more than 3 times in less than 24 hours while until today I did not revert you once.

Second, I dealt until today in a very positive manner with your edits never reverting you or doing any major changes or even no changes.

Third, you always changed and even reverted my edits without even communicating with me or discussing it on the Talk Page.

Four, yesterday, I told you I agree to your overhaul proposal in organization without even getting a response.

Five, you are removing sources without even replacing them with the result that this article will always depend on Fraser.

Six, I think the negativity of a certain intervention pushed you in that position which is something regrettable because you have all the talent for us to work together.Aubmn (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn, the disruption you bring by accepting only your contributions as worth keeping, and automatically wiping out the contributions of others does not put fellow contributors in the mood to answer your posts on their talk page.

By the way, isn't what you are doing reverting? because if I supposedly reverted you 3 times, you reverted my reverts as many times.

What does your proposal for the two of us to collaborate mean? Collaboration in Wikipedia is for all contributors working together, period, which is not exactly what your attitude encourages. Your behavior has made contributors stay away from the article. Once in a while one (myself right now) tries to bring some amelioration to it, but soon stops because your constant removing or reconstructing their contribution turns into a duel.

You seem to want every edit brought first to the talk page for discussion with you. Is that a wiki rule? Unless in case of important controversy, isn't the edit summary the place to explain the edit? Or should I bring to this page whether or not I should name the island & its position on the Rhine where Marie-Antoinette was handed to the French, and incorporate this detail into article only after getting your permission? Who has put you in charge of article?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm happy that you are talking for the first time.

Second, the facts speak for themselves until today, I left all your edits, I did remove nothing of them (the aunts, baptism ), on baptism you reverted me although it was the work of another editor.

Three, all my edits (Noailles, Duchesse de Gramont, Paris, looking at Marie Antoinette as future queen, the riots, the pouf, social life, etc... ) were reverted or changed with no communication or collaboration, I respected your works and left your edits, you did not with mines: see my edits in the last few days, you always changed them reverting me more than 3 times.

Four, you proposed to overhaul the organization of the article which I supported, this is not like the Rhine edit, a small issue but a major one, I did not received any answer from you worse when I added social life to the new title you created about MA with Mme Du Barry you removed it on the spot, while I accepted your new organization on the spot.

Five, take today as an example, you removed my entire edit about Marie Antoinette entry to Paris and her importance as a future queen twice.

Six, if only you make your own contributions while accepting some of mine without trying always to change them, it would be much better.

Seven, if you want to give a new direction or major changes in your edits, it is best to communicate to find common grounds and lets reach compromises.

Eight, you did not communicate from the start, I see on your talk page, someone told you to behave in a much better manner.

Nine, please stop removing sources as you did with Castelot, a major French historian without replacing it, today the priority is to give new sources to complete Fraser so the article don't depend on one source.

Finally, ok to work through the edits but stop changing mines or reverting them constantly, respect my work as I respect yours and all would be positive. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn, If you never touched my work, meaning never removed or reverted something I did, how come I constantly have to put it back? Was it removed by the Holy Ghost?

As for my having to behave, I wish you'd go to the Paris talk page & see what the incident was about before using it as an example of what is going on here. In a case where contributors were shouting at each other, instead of anger, I had chosen "wit", which quite a few applauded... Please also note that I never removed that conversation & am leaving it there for everyone to see.

If you check my contributions - and please feel free to go outside en.wiki - I doubt that you will find any revert done to me or by me (unless in cases of vandalism), or even the adding or removing of a single comma to my work in any of the other language(s) wiki articles to which I contribute.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the Holy Gost, are you saracastic with me because another editor told you not only to behave in a much better way but also not to be sarcastic towards other editors.

Second I 'm happy to see that you are not defending your behaviour recognizing implicitely what I said, this is courageous and positive on your part.

Third, you did not respond technically to any of the edits I mentioned speaking only of generalities.

Four, I repeat without mentioning all the edits again since you are not responding to each case I quote as an example: your edit about the baptism, you revert me while I was working on another editor than I kept it like you wanted; on the aunts same stuff, I kept until today when after 4 days of keeping changing my edits and reverting me more than 3 times, I change some of yours and only once.

Five, on organization I kept the Du Barry relation with MA and add social relations, you immediately removed it.I approved your overhaul suggestion that you proposed in the Talk Page without any response from you, only to see you removing my edit about social life.

Six, thing happens like that, I write an edit on the riots, you changed it immediately and if I add something, you remove it. More telling MA going to Paris in 1772, you removed it yesterday, rewrite and removed more than twice today; you call that reverting you, is that a bad joke, you rewrite and remove many of my contributions on the spot. I even did not remove your rewritting of my edits until today, yet you even removed what I added.

Seven, you removed a major source about Castelot a major French Historian three times without even replacing the source, noting that the biggest problem of this article is that it depend on one source and I 'm working day and night to find new sources slowly but surely.

Finally, I will not return on the fact that you did not communicate from the start, please make your edits but be positive and respect the edits of other people and I repeat everything would be positive.Aubmn (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

1. - The Holy Ghost is no sarcasm on my part, just a very innocent remark because, since you & I are the only two right now on the article, if you didn't remove what I had put in, who did? If not you, then it has to be the Holy Ghost.

2. - I am not defending my behavior because I do not believe that I have to justify myself to you & am certainly not recognizing implicitly what you say - on the contrary.

3. - Every edit of mine is given the reason(s) in the edit summary space, that should be sufficient. After you remove my work several times, I do not believe that I should give additional long-winded explanation. I also noted very quickly that you stand guard on the article & keep anyone from working on it. Every addition brought, every change made is either removed or reworded by you to the point of being unrecognizable.

4. - The baptism: when I first edited it, the names of the godparents were nowhere to be seen, only those of the proxies. The godparents are the most important individuals in a baptism ceremony because, should the parents of the child being baptized die, the godparents will take the responsibility of raising the child. The proxies are second fiddles. Imagine mentioning Marie-Antoinette's proxy wedding taking place in Vienna while her husband-to-be is in Versailles, and giving only the name of the proxy, not that of Louis-Auguste. We are working on an encyclopedia: do not take it for granted that all readers know who is who: names & links have to be given at first mention of individual. Same with the aunts, they must be introduced with names & a link to their respective article when first mentioned, which is at the time when they meet MA at Compiègne. These are not the places one should decide to shorten the article. If I added these details, with notification in edit summary, when you remove the details & I put them back, I do not believe that I owe you an explanation.

5. - When I began editing the article, you were complaining that too much space was given Mme du Barry; then you changed course & began adding details on her. Since these details do concern her & Marie-Antoinette & were important in the life of MA up to & shortly after L.XV's death, it seemed logical to gather all these details in one section; hence the creation of that section. Then you come along and, because of a couple of sentences on Lamballe, add "social life". This is mixing oranges & apples. Lamballe, and Polignac which I added, belong in another section, they became part of her household after she had become queen. Same as mention of Gluck who came to France in 1774: he belongs in the arts section, which has everything in the world, except "arts", filled as it is with pregnancies & miscarriages, and some unreferenced comment on Fersen. I made similar type of comment above for the Motherhood section, where very little is written about motherhood, while the whole of European politics & the Revolutionary War in America are discussed.

6. - Your reporting on MA wanting to go to Paris & not being allowed to do so is not correct. First, Marie-Antoinette was not a modern teenager who can take her car & go to the movies with her boyfriend: she was the Dauphine of France who lived at the royal court where following a strict étiquette was the way to do things. Every minute, every gesture were to be done according to étiquette. Mme de Noailles was not a monster, she was only doing the job she was being paid to do. Second, MA could not openly go to Paris before she had been officially received in the city by all its dignitaries. That was an important ceremony to organize. When MA asked to go to Paris, she was thus turned down. Then in 1772, when she asked again, authorization was given by L.XV, and she was to make her entrance in the capital on horseback, but Mme de Noailles got in an étiquette argument with Mesdames the aunts on who should go before whom, and the whole event flopped. Next came time of carnival in 1773: Louis XV gave his authorization to the Dauphin & his wife, to Provence & his wife, to 16-year old Artois & some Bourbon cousins to go attend the carnival ball at the Opera, on condition they go incognito, which they did, and where they were shortly recognized. They had fun. This sortie, which took place some three months before MA's official entrance in Paris was not hindered in any way by Mme du Barry or Mme de Noailles or Mmes Aunts. Details are given in Fraser's & other books. To find them, simply look in book's index, which Castelot does not give - something reproached him, by the way.

7. - Removing sentence & Castelot's reference: After 1773 the attention to turn to the Dauphine with the exception that she might soon be queenCastelot 1957, pp. 70–85: There is absolutely nothing within pp.70-85 pertaining to what you wrote, giving Castelot as reference. There have been more instances of you giving a reference that does not pertain to what is written. If I catch it, I certainly am not going to come to the discussion page to either ask your permission to remove it, or give a long explanation in edit summary, the space of which I usually fill up. So much time is being wasted.

Finally - In my few interventions in this article, I have not been able to go past the death of L.XV & du Barry's exile, this one being another example of you giving references that do not match what you write, Fraser in particular who, on the contrary, writes that the aunts were the ones who pushed L.XVI to exile her. Then the exile itself was not what was written; however, that belongs to du Barry's article. Since the time I began working on this, I have been caught in a battle in the first two sections, unable to go any further, while most work done that remains loses its meaning because of what you remove "to make article shorter", and the trivia you add making it longer with unnecessary 'peacocky' words, something similar to adding feathers to Marie-Antoinette's already over-decorated & imposing panache.

This is my last intervention on this talk page on the subject, and probably soon the last on the article itself, as I have no intention of being "ambushed" into edit warring, then "exiled": Wikipedia can be an interesting pastime & there are other articles to contribute to where one can work in peace and, once done, feel that something has been accomplished.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, here you go again with your sarcistic attitude as the other editor warned you on your talk page and told you to behave in a much better way, okay no problems I can live with it if that make you feel better.

Second about baptism, I respected your reasons for change but you did revert my work with another editor and when I made the proxies change, you removed it also and I left it with no changes until yesterday when I was fed up with you changing my recent edits the whole time without communication.

Third, about her entry into Paris which I added in the last two days, you rewrote it and remove my contributions four times while I simply added that MA wanted to go, I did not say Noailles was a monster or that the king prevented her from going. You also removed her importance as future queen which I wrote in the last 3 days many times in addition to Mercy and the Dauphin visit to Du Barry.

Four, about Castelot, a lot of this concerned him (Grammont exile, the power of the Dauphine versus Mme du Barry plus Mercy visit to the Dauphine which you also removed many times,etc...), you simply remove it without putting a new source with the result that the article would always depend on Fraser.

Fouth, about Du Barry, I did not write this article or its reference about Fraser on the contrary, I quote two primary source letters between Marie Antoinette and her mother who complained about her daughter vehemence in treating Du Barry, I add this information to the Aunts which you put and which I did not touch until today, you immediately remove it like all my recent edits. I added one line about Du Barry fate after her exile, you immediately remove it and replace it with four lines rewritting and removing an edit I wrote 2 days ago immediately.

Five, I approved your overhaul about organisation without any response from you, actually on the first day you changed in the nominations of minister organization with no change from my part, also you opened a section Du Barry with again no change from my part and when I added Social Life, you immediately removed many times, actually she met Lambelle while Dauphine and Polignac as a queen, I put this you remove it on the spot, if you wanted to open a new section about social life how I was supposed to know it if you don't communicate and you don 't even mention explicately it in your edit.

Six, when I talked about the Riots, you left the section where you were working, come to that part of the article and immediately after a few hours of my edit, rewrote it and removed it many times.

Seven, in short, I left you work, tried to communicate on your talk page and respected your work, not removing anything until yesterday; you on the other hand always changed my recent edits , I'm talking of the last few days, changing them and removing them many times; in addition not to communicate with me without even trying to work even on a minumum collaboration on important subjects.

Nine, many editors before you, take the last two one as an example, made many changes in this article, the first one was strongly against MA and his ideas were largely taken in many edits. The second one defended her and also made many changes for ex (her supposed corronation, The fate of Du Barry between MA and her mother in the letters, etc.., he added them in details not me, an editor named krobi added hundred of edits specially in english, organisation and other contributions). Yourself you added the rhine, the aunts, you insisted on keeping the baptism althought it was between me and another editor, you created a Du Barry section, you added many lines about her exile, you organize the nomination of the ministers, I accepted all of that, I only removed part of them yesterday when for 4 days, you always changed my recent edits sometime removing them more than 3 times, and when on my edits not yours I tried to add one sentence, you removed immediately more than 3 times with no communication from you and you don't respond to mine, I'm talking about these edits which I added in the last few days (Choiseul sister exile, Noailles, MA entry into Paris, the visit of Mercy and the Dauphin to Du Barry, the Dauphine position at court, the riots, the exile of Mme du Barry, Removing social life from Du Barry section, etc... )

Finally, I repeat I would be happy to work with you if you respect my works as I respected yours, you don't want to communicate, no problems but believe in compromise, moderation, mutual respect and everything would be positive. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

With all the above accusations, you've got enough to have me decapitated. Too bad the guillotine on Place de la Révolution has been dismantled.

Re the note on my talk page: would it be possible for you to go beyond its title & read the intervention of second fellow contributor, as well as rest of conversation?

As to your last post above: I have answered in a rather long manner, stand by my answer & am through responding to you on this talk page or mine.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Major progress done, any improvement is welcome and the priority is new sources to complete Fraser so article don 't depend on one source which is the worst scenario to any major article

First, I think a few basic facts needed to be addressed and remembered.

Second, I did not write this article, it was left largely incomplete since 2012 with a lot of copyrights violations and depending on one source "Fraser".

Third, beginning last year, I largely completed this article.

Fourth, one editor organize the article specially in English, organization and some content, also others demanded major modifications which were done sometimes with a strong debate but compromises were found.

Five, a major problem is that from time to time, some editors see Marie Antoinette from a radical perspective from both sides overlooking the fact that the truth is somewhat in the middle.

Six, I removed the copyrights violations.

Seven, I reduced the size of this article from 16,000 words to around 10,000 words noting that an article around 10,000 words is acceptable (Elizabeth Tudor 9,000, Mary Queen of Scots 9000 words, Joan of Arc 10,000 words, Napoleon much more I tried to reduce it but two editors there refused and we agreed to include more subjects not only his military career, frankly the editors there were professional and we agreed on most of the stuff), know the article of MA is around 12,000 words partly due to new editors and partly to me adding new sources.

Eight, I don 't mind a major overhaul of the organization of the article, taking into consideration that it was written on chronological events not subjects since 2011 like most Wikipedia articles; or any attempt to improve the content as long as the major information's are covered and I wish we discuss change here before making it.

Nine, I think the priority should be to give new sources to this article in order to complete Fraser and I'm doing this every week. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the #Tone and appropriate content section, and various other sections on this talk page, you wrote a great deal of this article, with a lot of WP:Copyright violations to boot, and the reason this article never significantly improves is because you revert the sound changes. You've been blocked by Drmies and Euryalus for matters relating to this article, and the only way I see this article improving in major ways is if you are WP:Topic banned from editing it, and kept from editing it after that topic ban, or if you voluntarily stop editing it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

An indefinite WP:Block would also help (well, as long as we stopped your WP:Socks), but that goes without saying. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, my block by Drmies was about article T-80 and I was still a novice editor for 36 hours showing that you don't know what you are talking about.

Second, when I first edited in 2014, I was not aware of the Copyrights issue, then I removed those put by me directly from Fraser.

Third, I removed thousands of Copyright Violations and Paraphrasing in 2015 who were there since 2011 before my contributions.

Fourth, this article whom I understand was on your watchlist, you left him unfinished and lacking essential informations since 2012, you should thank me for doing your job and massively completing the informations.

Five, I'm a positive person, in Napoleon another major article (see the talk page I made major changes with the full cooperation of other professional editors).

Six, I have more than one hundred sources about MA and I 'll continue putting new sources because this is the only way to make this article not depending on one source "Fraser" and I 'm sorry that you don 't see the big picture but I think I have to edit with that.Aubmn (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what I'm talking about; this talk page is my evidence. I could get you WP:Banned from this article if I wanted to. And I will likely seek to do just that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do it and don 't communicate with me anymore, I have more important stuff to do like finishing putting and giving new sources to this major article so it don't depend on one source "Fraser" which is something very difficult and involve spending a lot of money and efforts in addition to my previous works in completing the information and removing the Copyrights Violations and Paraphrasing before my contributions.Aubmn (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake, informations is not a word. The plural of information is information!--Trebligoniqua (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverts used as calculated strategy

For the umpteenth time, Aubmn has reverted [12] my edit on Marie-Antoinette replacing it by his repeated comment that MA had influenced Louis XVI in his decision to exile Mme du Barry - and, to boot, insisting on giving as reference Fraser's p. 124, where, on lines 19-21, the author says exactly the opposite! In spite of NebY's intervention [13], and as it stands now, Aubmn reinserted his erroneous statement.

What is behind Aubmn's strategy when he manœuvers other contributors to engage in an edit war they cannot avoid, as it is impossible to knowingly leave errors behind when working on an encyclopedia. So you work for hours on the article & end up with nothing accomplished & unable to continue. And, isn't it strange that after having reverted a couple of times, Aubmn writes down in edit summary the number of reverts done, making it obvious what his game is.

Aubmn stands guard over the article & *occupies* it in such a way that after the first edit, one finds him/herself faced with an edit conflict & when able to return to editing, is treated to his first revert of the day! This is an obvious calculated manœuver - a manœuver planned to keep others out.

I cannot speak for any other but myself, but after having been reverted so many times by Aubmn, I feel that I may have earned the right to be critical & question his style of writing & the meaning it brings to the text. Just picking one at random:

"On the third day, she was declared guilty of treason and condemned to death to her great surprise and sadeness, though she had expected life imprisonment."

After having gone thru one of the most cruel trials ever, one accused of some of the worst crimes on earth - treason & incest - hears the death verdict with "great surprise and sadeness" (sic)? If my cat gets run over by a car & lies dead in the street, I will surely be filled with "sadness", but if I get condemned to death, another word & other feelings will come upon me.

Aubmn is single-handedly making it impossible for other contributors to work on this article. He cannot leave any edit alone without adding a few words that are unnecessary or change the meaning of the sentence. To say that he is disruptive [14] is a kind way of putting it.

It is really too bad that an article that could be a jewel is being turned into a battlefield and, if no one intervenes, will end up being nothing but a piece of trash for a cheap gossip magazine.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Negativity and Harassment continue while priority should be given to new sources to complete Fraser so article don 't depend on one source which would be the worst scenario and the major weakness of this article

First, you continue your sarcastic bad behavior with me not taking into account what the other editor told you on your talk page to respect others by stopping your sarcastic bad manners, no problems if that make you feel better and you enjoy it.

Second, don 't put your mistakes on others, today like two days ago when you removed my edit (the king entourage mainly MA) to put the aunts, I put my other edit with 3 sources which you removed on the spot today pushed by certain negative interventions, you reverted me 3 times on a edit I put "to get her revenge" based on 3 sources: Levron a biographer of Mme du Barry and a major French Historian (P 81, quote:" MA did not disarm and her own mother blamed the queen for her lack of Christian generosity in the treatment of Du Barry ), Evelyne Lever one of the best authority about MA , p 124: "MA will was to insist on the punishment of her enemies [Sa volonte se limitait a exiger le chatiment de ses ennemis], "MA was satisfied, she got the impression of getting a beautiful revenge on the Favorite, what remains to her was to get rid of her other major enemy the duc d 'Aiguillon" [MA a l impression de prendre une belle revanche sur la favorite honnie, restait maintenant a se debarasser de son autre bête noire le duc d'Aiguillon ) and finally a primary source in the article in which MA mother spoke about the vehemence of her daughter in treating the" poor Barry", it is not the first time that you revert me trying to impose your point of view, you reverted me on the riots, MA entry to Paris, her importance as future queen, Social life, baptism, Noailles, etc...I will not name them all, I described them before with no response from you. Today I was trying to have a compromise between Fraser and the 3 other sources, we cannot make this article to depend on Fraser alone which your actions are leading too and this is the worst scenario and the major weakness of this article; in addition you removed Castelot as a source one not seeing how important that other sources than Fraser should be used because simply it did not suited your edit, that's the most irrational editing decision I have seen in this article. It seems you are not at all understanding that while it is fine to edit and to make better this article, putting new sources should be the highest priority because no major article should depend on one source.

Third, I did not revert not one of your major edits, you changed the place of a major portion of the lead without going to the talk page which no other editor before you did and I did not interfere, you added baptism, the Aunts, Section about du Barry, organization of ministers, palaces in Vienna, Governess, Education etc.., today more than 10 lines who where between me and another editor; I thanked you three times never reverting you except when you always change and revert my edits.

Fourth, from the beginning there was no communications from you, I proposed twice on your talk page to collaborate, until know there was no response from you.

Five, you don't believe in compromise, that's the problem, I left you work, you did not leave me work the whole time, reverting my edits many times, it is natural that I restore some of them (For details see the section above to which you did not responded in details because you can't).

Six, all the reverts are on edits I created meaning you are the one making the problems, the edit today about the revenge of MA on the favorite, I wrote it, you removed it 3 times. All your major edits are still there, many of mine have been changed or reverted by you.

Seven, I completed this article left since 2012, removed thousands of copyrights violations and paraphrasing; and finally putting other sources than Fraser which is the highest priority today so leave me to work and do whatever you want to do, I ' m done with you, you don't want to communicate, collaborate or make compromises fine, me neither after your actions. Aubmn (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

Your reverts of the day, for which you do not seem to have had any prior discussion with contributor either here or on his talk page (one of your main reproaches to me):

[15]

[16]

May I also point out that whatever information this contributor has added to article has been automatically removed by you.

[17]

[18]

[19]

As for my including in article such details (your quote: ...and I did not interfere, you added baptism, the Aunts, Section about du Barry, organization of ministers, palaces in Vienna, Governess, Education etc..,) as to where she was born in Vienna, a detail given for every prince, princess, king or queen, or jazz player, as well as full name, education etc. - aren't these details as important as her double chin (not shown in David's drawing of her hardly one hour before her execution), her gain of weight (when her brother made the remark, she happened to be four months pregnant) or the size of her breasts. Whether she had a double chin, was overweight or had large breasts, what is the importance of these details in an article from which you keep removing more important information because you want to keep its size down?

High priority of article is not only the adding of sources other than Fraser, which is great to do, but also improvement of the style of its redaction, which in quite a few sections seems to come out of the pen of a thirteen-year old. Improvement will never be achieved as long as you add trivia & keep others away by leading them into an edit war.

Finally, you keep on bringing up a discussion on my talk page [20], which was rather friendly in spite of its title. May I bring out to your attention that I never removed it, while you dare not leave anything on yours that could attest to your disruptive behavior:

[21]

Four (4) minutes later:

[22]

And within twenty (20) minutes, you had reverted this contributor's edits to go back to the only acceptable one... namely yours:

[23]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm happy that you are saying having other sources than Fraser is important, actually it is by far the most important priority because it is the major weakness of this article.

Second, I see that you continue your sarcastic bad manners and behaviour in treating other people (13 years really..no comment); I don 't need to quote the other editor who warned you about this kind of comment, you did it with me many times, in spite that I respected you all along and tried to communicate, collaborate and made compromises with you, you did not even responded from the start. As for the editor you quote, he should have warned you because you reverted 3 times the same edit in one day following another 3 reverts the day before, that editor has a negative behavior based on harassment here and in due time his behavior will be reported.

Three, this article was not written by me, actually most of my contributions has been rewritten using my information, with your talking about 13 years old, you are insulting hundred of editors who have contributed to this article.

Four, my relations with other editors doesn't concern you, the last one accepted my changes because his good faith edits covered a lot of materials making the article reach almost 11,000 words, for example is it possible to mention 10 lines for Mozart meeting with MA or her baptism or every incident in her life when she was young. You mentioned La princesse de Lamballe ok, should you mention also her family in details yet it was kept. All the weight, beauty and health of MA which played such an important part of her life is mentioned in less than 10 lines (court, beauty, health, fashions, Versailles, etc,, ) and that concerned her whole life, it was suggested by another editor by the way.

Five, as usual you are not telling the truth, the last editor added the reasons of the marriage, education, her sister etc...and also many pictures perhaps more than ten. Of course something like Louis fourteen marriage place is not here. You seem to forget there was not an edit war, the other editor until know accepted the changes because he seems a descent person.

Six, I see like usual (more than twice until know) you cannot answer me in details about your reverts, you go to other editors relations with me. All of this is none of your concerns and since you refused to communicate, collaborate or made compromises with me not even answering me on your talk page, do whatever you want, don't communicate with me (I will not respond to you because of your sarcasm and bad manners out of principle not because it bother me) and leave me alone to work in peace.Aubmn (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

Equal to the concern of 99 percent use of Fraser as reference is the writing style which, I do insist, at times has more to do with the style found in a teenagers' forum than with that of an encyclopedia. By the way, I love teenagers, but I don't think that their style of writing is the one Wikipedia wants to adopt.

In order to obtain decent articles without undue weight one way or the other, consensus has to be reached between contributors, which does not mean that compromises have to be done between two of them in the style: "If you accept my wrong, I will leave your right alone", which is exactly what you are proposing to me & want to discuss on my talk page. Backroom deals are not the way to go at Wikipedia.

RE the 3-revert rule: 3 reverts are accepted, it is only with & after the 4th one that the culprit is exiled for a few hours or days.

I have as much right to bring up the discussions & removals on your talk page as you are bringing up a discussion on mine.

As for the editor whose edits you go after with a machete, if I was you, I would not bet on his never rebelling against your removal of most of his contributions... Should he do so, in my eyes, he would remain in the "descent person" category. By the way, why don't you go to his talk page or here before removing his work, as you are claiming should be done in my case?

Whether brought up by another editor or not, MA's double chin, overweight & size of breasts are in the article, which you claim being busy re-writing since some time in 2014, which should have given you plenty of time to remove negligible details... although, since you are the one who added it on 17 May 2015[24], *weight* of article must not be your major worry. Talk about details of importance when we are trying to reduce the size of the article!

Responding to your last sentence: I have not touched your article since yesterday & have no intention to do so[25] since you are making it impossible for others to participate. So, it's all yours to work "alone and in peace", unless/until others contest your reverts as being a calculated strategy to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason a higher-up hasn't been called in on this?Trebligoniqua (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time & space above answering Aubmn and, for some reason, did not mention the terms that person has been using toward me.

However, I think I should get this off my chest, especially in a section which begins with the words "Negativity" and "Harassment".

Aubmn went to my talk page & saw a discussion, which I left because it is an interesting piece and, moreover, I have nothing to reproach myself: in that instance, I stood my ground as to the reason of my discussing certain things on the Paris talk page, which, by the way, has nothing to do here, but Aubmn brought it up & has been using it to insult me on this page with the following:

• sarcasm
• bad manners
• bad behaviour (negative behavior was also addressed to another contributor)
• not telling the truth, meaning that I am a liar
• implying that I am not a decent person, by comparing a certain editor's attitude, who never complains at having his work reverted, thus qualifying him as a *decent person*.

On another subject:

With his tactic of using reverts as a weapon, Aubmn has succeeded in chasing all contributors away from the Marie-Antoinette article. The time he begins contributing is right after someone has begun working on it - then he finds a reason to revert the work of that person until, having put back his/her edit 3 times, the contributor leaves for the day, usually after having been warned by Aubmn that he/she has used his ration of reverts for the day, with the threat of reporting him/her to higher wiki authorities (my sarcasm!).

If that is not obvious of the tactic used by Aubmn, I don't know what is.

This article needs a major overhaul, section by section, line by line, word by word. References must be checked because so much edit warring has taken place, they often do not correspond to the facts they are attached to: for instance, the reader being sent to a 10-15 page reading session, only to find that the subject is not touched by the author. I spent all day yesterday going thru most of the article taking notes, then stopped in despair, but retained four main problems, which are not new to those who have been participating in this discussion before I invited myself in:

(1) the article is filled with junk;

(2) its style is horrendous;

(3) the titles of the sections do not make sense as they are over-burdened with subjects that have nothing to do with one another; two examples:

• Motherhood and Foreign Policy
• Declining popularity, Friends, Fersen and support of Arts and Sciences

(4) the large sections prior & during the Revolution are practically unreadable. C'est un ramassis de verbiage qui n'a ni queue ni tête!. That is where the weight of the article is.

What does Her primary concern in late 1787 and 1788 was the improved health of the Dauphin, who suffered from tuberculosis and his condition continued to deteriorate.[121] mean? Is it saying that the Dauphin's health was improving, while his condition was deteriorating?

As is, this article cannot be corrected, especially with its editor of the past 12 months standing guard over it, keeping everyone away. It needs to be completely blanked & redone.

So far, it has taken me over two weeks to manage to rewrite a few sentences & put details that should be there - something that could be done in a few minutes; yet, I have been unable to make it into Queenship: every sentence, every word has been contested, removed, put back, removed etc.

My contribution is not important as there are Wikipedians right on this page who can do a better job than I can. There is also a great choice of articles to work on.

I had previously written that I would not come back to this page, but I believe that, in this case, it is important to spell out the reasons of one's decision not to contribute to an article. It is quite disturbing that in en.wiki, an article on such a person as Marie-Antoinette is being held hostage to the whims of one contributor.

Because that is exactly what's happening: this article is being held hostage.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue Indigo (talk · contribs), whenever you are ready to report Aubmn to WP:ANI, let me know. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you for your offer; however, situation seems to have quieted down since 18 June...

To quote Napoléon's mother: Pourvou qu'ça doure!. If it doesn't, I'll call on you.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 3 days

If edit warring resumes after protection has expired then I will look at blocks. If the editors involved cannot reach an agreement, please look at WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC

Thank you, I totally support this, I ' m ready to reach compromises with Blue Indigo if he wants, from the beginning I proposed collaboration on his talk page with no response from his part. As an example the necklace incident his contribution was not removed by me although it doesn't focus on MA, mine focused on the queen role in it specially the bosque incident , I don't mind Blue Indigo writing it as long as it is mentioned.Aubmn (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

NeilN - After my last edit on Marie Antoinette early today,[26] and before touching the article again, I was going to come to this talk page & ask for someone to step in.

As you can see if you have time to read this very talk page, maybe you will be able to help solve the problem that has been going on for quite a few months now.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)