Talk:Marie Antoinette
Recently added, recently deleted
I recently removed the following (which had just been added). There are three sentences and three different issues, so I'm explaining here:
"She had faced a horrifying series of attacks, tragedies and cruelties since the days of 1789." - pointless restatement of the obvious, I don't think we need to say this; harmless, so if it is re-added, I won't remove it again without someone else doing so first, though I will welcome it is someone does so.
"In her life, she had evolved from a carefree archduchess to a royal martyr; along the way she had been an extravagant queen, a wonderful mother and a patroness of numerous charities and societies." Again, restatement of the obvious. Mildly POV: "a wonderful mother"? I bet this edit came from the same anonymous contributor who keeps adding material to Louis XVII of France about what an angelic child he was; I haven't checked. I would not object to something to this effect being re-added as a quotation from an identified biographer or similar source. It does not belong in the narrative voice of the article
"In the words of a biography of her published in 1933, despite being a woman of average intelligence, “Marie-Antoinette became tragic and finally achieved greatness commensurate with her destiny.”" What the heck kind of citation is "a biography of her published in 1933"? Name the author, name the book, and then this would be a perfectly acceptable addition to the article.
correction or vandalism
Could someone who knows more than I about the Bourbon monarchs scrutinize the recent, uncommented edit by User:209.112.215.94, which makes factual changes without citing any source? I have no idea whether this is a correction or vandalism. I'd really appreciate a comment one way or the other from a known editor. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Completely rewritten?
It looks to me like this has been recently and completely rewritten, anonymously and without comments or even a single cited reference, and removing the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica reference that was previously given. This cannot be entirely good. On the other hand, it doesn't look like a terrible article. I don't have the interest and the patience to evaluate it myself. I suspect that some material from the old version should have been preserved; certainly references are needed. I hope someone will take this on. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
du Barry
Re: the sentence that begins, "Du Barry had begun life as Jeanne Bécu, a common prostitute before she had been noticed by Louis XV and become his lover." Normally, I'd suggest "mistress" rather than "lover", but it's already used once in the paragraph, so "lover" is probably the right word. Some anonymous editor keeps wanting to substitute "woman", which really comes off as a euphemism here (and can also be read as either folksy/comfy or demeaning). One of his/her edit summaries suggests that the problem is one of grammatical gender agreement. "Lover" is a gender-neutral word in English, so I don't see the supposed problem. "Lover", like "mistress", clearly indicates a sexual relationship distinct from matrimony. "His woman" fudges the sexual issue, and falsely suggests an exclusive relationship on both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- There are not many appropriate words to describe it, Mr. Mabel. Sir-reverence, "courtesan" would not suit the sentence since the word "prostitute" is already in it. "Lover," except in plural, always refers to a man. (unsigned)
- I have to ask, where are you from? That is certainly not the case in either American or UK English, at least not in the last 50 years or so. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Here are some recent examples from major press sources that refer to Camilla Parker Bowles as having been Prince Charles's "lover"
- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I only prefer to avail conventional language, and "lover" in reference to a "lady" is unconventional, Mr. Mabel. (Presumably the same anon)
- Avail used this way isn't "conventional": in both U.S. and UK English, it is absolutely archaic. Similarly for your restrictions on the use of "lover". We are trying to write Wikipedia articles in contemporary English, not in 19th century English. (That, in fact, is one of the main problems with using 1911 EB material.) Again, how can you say that a word that I can find used in an exactly parallel context by major newspapers in the U.S., UK, and India isn't "conventional" English? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Newspapers, sir, frequently are not written in proper English. (Presumably the same anon: would you at least sign with ~~~~ so we can see that these come from the same IP address.)
- I'm not going to keep fighting over this, because I don't think it is important enough to keep eating my time, but I think this persistent person is dead wrong, and would appreciate if someone else would take up the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Mabel is right. Also, "Woman", "anon" and "avail" as used by (Presumably the same anon) are correct neither in nineteenth-century nor in contemporary English. I presume that the writer is a francophone, in which case a little advice may be in order: in what you call the Anglo-Saxon world, literary trends have been on the side of simplicity and clarity since, at least, Hemingway's time. If you read Proust in English, you'd find that long French sentences (elegant in the original language, but unseemly in the "target" language) have been cut up into shorter English ones. This is not to say that complex sentence structures and high-sounding words are not used in English: they are, but not normally in history or literature. Anyway, you have to know how to use them correctly first before you can use them elegantly. Indeed, once you master the basics, you can even break a few rules and get away with it. Many writers do it. But first, better err on the side of simplicity and clarity than on that of the amateurishly grandiloquent.
- I'm not going to keep fighting over this, because I don't think it is important enough to keep eating my time, but I think this persistent person is dead wrong, and would appreciate if someone else would take up the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)