Talk:Louis XIV of France/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dumas[edit]

Louis XIV features in the d'Artagnan Romances by Alexandre Dumas. The plot of the last of the three Romances, The Vicomte de Bragelonne, involves a fictional twin brother of Louis XIV who tries to displace the King. In The Man in the Iron Mask, a 1929 movie based on The Vicomte de Bragelonne, William Blakewell portrayed Louis and his twin. Louis Hayward played the twins in a 1939 remake, and Leonardo DiCaprio did the same in a 1998 remake.

While technically part of his legacy, it does not fit really well with the rest of the section, which deals with broad assesment of his political and cultural lagacy. How about a new section for Louis XIV as character in fiction?

Yes, I believe that there is a novel set at his court. After all, it isn't really his cultural legacy- it is just a portrayal of him in history. His cultural legacy was probably, the construction of Versailles. Perhaps he could be looked at in this way. So the seperate section is a good idea.

image[edit]

Is the image on this page backwards? The book I have here shows the same image, but its reversed along the vertical axis. Pizza Puzzle

Also, I'm confused as to why only half of the image is shown. Although it's name/artist escapes me at the moment, that's a fairly famous picture and it would have a lot more impact if the whole thing was showing. However, I don't know enough about the structure of Wikipedia yet to know how to fix it. --Alex S 01:42, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ill look at fixing it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

heart[edit]

Can someone please verify this latest addition:

His heart was stolen by grave robbers and bought by Lord Harcourt, who sold it to Reverend William Buckland, the dean of Westminster Cathedral. His son, Francis Buckland, inherited the purloined heart, and eventually ate it.

RickK 02:45, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You mean by doing something as simple as a Google search for "Louis XIV heart Buckland"? I suspect anyone can. - Binky 02:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There are at least five different versions of this story online. I don't think it should be included here. Smallweed 16:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hotel des Invalides[edit]

Was Louix XIV the one responsible for Hotel des Invalides? I believe so... I'm surprised it's not mentioned at all... Krupo 20:29, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Add it if it is, seems like interesting information. --ShaunMacPherson 11:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right. A biographer of Napoleon's cited his re- building of the church as 'a continuation of the labours of the Sun King.'


he is often cited as an example of an enlightened despot.

Age of Enlightenment[edit]

Not being a historian, I may be wrong about this, but as I recall, the Age of Enlightenment was a bit after Louis' time, and he himself was certainly not particularly enlightened. (The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, anyone?) So by whom and how often is he called "enlightened"? Cheers Io 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Science Devotion[edit]

Louis XIV's Science devotion attributions: This king has enhenced a lot of weapons and metals inventions; some projects that he supplied as following: 1. Electricity ideas, that can be stored in liquid, or saved in liquid, and suggested those elements under the sea. 2. Encourage people who do research should find out metals to burn to instead of candles or oil. 3. Analyzing weapons to understand those different metals, including density and features. That created the first gun, could be put into 2 bullets. 4. Research the tide and atmosphere. 5. Especially advocating people in the government need to respect personal intellectual property. Advocation of IPR, which continuing the patent law formulation. All the theories had been concluded inside 19-21 century's important inventions projects and research. In Weapon study & research he and his master blacksmith and all the soldiors fought in battles also had devoted a lot.

I think this is an important history....And matter of fact, please add on..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powercode2008 (talkcontribs) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ambigious phrase about slavery under the Section "Decline"[edit]

Suggestion for edit: The phrase "but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless a member of the Roman Catholic Church" under the section "Decline" is ambiguous. To clarify it, it should be changed to either:

  • "but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless the slave owner was a member of the Roman Catholic Church"

or

  • "but no person could own a slave in the French colonies unless the slave was a member of the Roman Catholic Church".

May I just add that the former is most probable

H Padleckas 23:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Jules Cardinal Mazarin"?[edit]

Is there a specific reason his name is given like this? Cardinal was his ecclesiastical position, not his rank.

All cardinals are properly known, I believe, as "A Cardinal B." See List of notable cardinals, Cardinal (Catholicism), etc. -- Emsworth 17:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"L'etat, c'est moi"[edit]

I rephrased the claim about this quote based on the The fabrication of a king by Peter Burke and I added it in the reference section. The closest he ever got to this famous cliché was:

Quand on a l'état en vue, on travaille pour soi.

The rough translation would be something like: "When you have the well-being of the state before your eyes, you work for yourself." In the first chapter of the book Burke explains quite thoroughly why claiming to actually be identical to the state is over-simplifying the situation. Peter Isotalo 23:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Shenkman, Legends, Lies, & Cherished Myths of World History, p146, says Voltaire made it up. Trekphiler 04:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Furniture[edit]

This important issue is not mentioned in the article. Frankly, the only thing people remember his 14theth is that any original furniture of "Louis XIV era" is worth millions and sold at high profile auctions.


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I agree with the site manager's comments. Any road, it is true that there should be a small seperate section on furniture. Also, Philip II of Spain has been very badly vandalised.

Louis XIV- Did his reign benefit France and the French[edit]

No. After his death he left France in extreme debt because of his extravagent palaces and his wars. With the clergy and nobility not having to pay taxes it raised taxes cinsiderable towards the peasants. Does anyone have any arguements for this topic, it would really help thanks

Although Jean Baptiste Colbert was an economic genius, every dollar that came in because of him was spent by Louis on his Versialles palace and multiple wars. In fact, he imported fully grown trees to be transferred to Versailles instead of just planting saplings. alex

sorry[edit]

i meant "it raised taxes considerably towards the peasants"

Because of Louis XIV's leadership he sucessfully set up mercantilism in France, and expanded colonies this will end up benefitting France in the long run. Also with the new land gained in his wars France can recover and remain a major European power.

The thing was he listened to those aides de thrones of his and took their advice, which relates to the fact that he might have been bled to death b/c he listened to them. No offense to the king though

vandalism[edit]

Regding the recent vandalism on the page the last 2 days, i know who has been doing it, i hapen to be in the same class as them in school and overheard them laughing at it, i have told them that doing that kind of stuff is not nice and hopefully they will stop

Age of Four, Not Five[edit]

I changed the age he took the throne to the correct age of four. I cited the source i got it from (although every source i have seen agrees with me), and fixed the problem. 68.106.85.55

Enlightened Despot?[edit]

To my knowledge, Louis was NOT an enlightened despot. For him to be that would involve a vague care for the well-being of his people, and all Louis honestly cared about was the furthering of his absolutist regime. Mercantilist theory thoroughly forbids the helping of peasants, as well. Responses?

It is very unusual to refer to Louis XIV as an enlightened despot. The comment needs to be removed. Joseph II of Austria and Frederick II of Prussia are enlightened despots. Imperial78

Well, an enlightened despot was one who wanted to rule well in foreign policy. Only Louis knew what he thought about the peasantry, so is this comment not biased?

If you look up the term "enlightened absolutism" you will find that the enlightened despot is supposed to be (among other things) rational and tolerant. Louis XIV persecuted protestants and was a religious hypocrite for a part of his life. Tuchmann uses his behaviour as an example of human folly in persisting with obviously self-defeating politics. I do not doubt that Louis XIV was called all sorts of flattering things by his fawning entourage but I do not know of anyone who called him an enlightened despot post mortem. -Sensemaker

I don't know about despotism. I know that so many wished for their ruler to be enlightened but doesnt despotism directly related to deism? alex

Judging from how the term "enlightened absolutism" is described in wikipedia it is not directly related to deism. However, it seems reasonable to assume that deists often wished for an enlightened despot. (Being a religious minority they naturally wished for a rational leader who tolerated religious deviation for pragmatic reasons. Someone who was tolerant as a matter of principle was probably too much to hope for.) -Sensemaker

It's odd that there's no mention here of Louis XIV's "dragonnades", or organised persecutions of Protestants. They were, by all accounts, extremely cruel and unpleasant, which gives us an impression of a rather ugly and tyrannical Louis XIV. They also drove the Hugenots from France, which weakened the army, industry and the French state; hardly the actions of a king with his subjects well-being foremost in his mind. The dragonnades also stiffened opposition to him outside his borders; the Dutch Protestants were hardly likely to submit to his will, given the way he had dealt with the French Protestants and this opposition, assisted by the English, led to Louis XIV's armies' defeat at Blenheim by John Churchill, Lord Marlborough. Some writers assert that the defeat at Blenheim broke French military power in Europe for a generation and produced the discontent which led eventually to the French Revolution. Louis XIV seems to me to be the very model for an UNenlightened despot! Dick Bentley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.126.220 (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

fun fact[edit]

I found this out recently and don't know if it was mentioned but Louis wore shoes w/ red heels to accentuate his legs. I have never seen a king who spends so much money on dress!!! Everyone was to wear expensive clothing to be allowed in Versaille!

Legacy section[edit]

End of the legacy section has the following paragraph: i think whoever writes this should make clear the date of the Spanish Succession, because there was also an event by the same name in 1868.KEV MC ICR

See Carlist Wars. Louis XIV really couldn't have been less interested of course. --Wetman 09:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Questionable source[edit]

I'm rather astonished that someone would include in the reference list an article from The Book of Knowledge -- a kid-level encyclopedia of no particular utility and zero academic credentials. C|an we include "Classics Illustrated" comic books? --Michael K. Smith 21:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

last comment in article[edit]

Is the reference to "loulou la fistule" appropriate in this article ?

Please put in less French. It's rather annoying to understand.

Major fix[edit]

I fixed a sentence which stated that Louis' maternal grandfather Philip III of Spain was of English descent. What a strange error that was. He was a Habsburg of course!! Imperial78

Well, Philip III was technically of English descent... John of Gaunt-->Philippa of Lancaster-->Edward I of Portugal-->Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu-->Manuel I of Portugal-->Isabella of Portuga-->Philip II of Spain-->Philip III of Spain. john k 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Um..........[edit]

Seeing as the word 'Parlement' is French and we have our own word for it (Parliament), shouldn't it be in italics?

Parliament and Parlement derive from the same source, but the French parlements are never any longer referred to in English as "Parliaments," since they were not what we conventionally see as parliaments (i.e. representative legislative assemblies), but rather courts. In terms of italicization, I'm not sure - parlement is used by all English-language historians as the word for the French parlements. One would have to look at whether reliable sources Italicize or not, I think. john k 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

wordiness :)[edit]

First paragraph:

currently: "...the longest reign of any French or other major European monarch."

proposed: "...the longest reign of any major European monarch."

French is in Europe, therefore isn't the current sentence a bit redundant? If there are no arguements for it, I'll be looking to change it soon.

--Tatteredpaper 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "French" is the name of the country. VolatileChemical 22:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to my knowledge he was the longest- reigning European monarch anyway, so could you please remove major. And the last comment before me about the name of the country is a bit pompous.

Age[edit]

From and including: Wednesday, September 5, 1638 (Julian calendar) To and including: Thursday, September 1, 1715 (Julian calendar)

It is 28,121 days from the start date to the end date, end date included

Or 76 years, 11 months, 28 days including the end date

Note:Both dates are Julian calendar dates. The current Gregorian calendar was adopted in United States where Thursday, September 3, 1752 was the first of 11 days that were skipped.

Age at death[edit]

There has been a faintly absurd edit war over the phrase, "until his death at the age of n.", where n is either 76 or 77. In English, and in the Western European cultures I'm sufficiently familiar with, a person's age is counted from birthday to birthday, starting with the the actual day of birth as 0. There are some cultures that count a person's age as "1" at birth, but this material is not written for those cultures; (most of the) English-speaking culture is not that way, and I don't believe that was ever the practive in France (though I'm not certain).

Louis XIV was born on 5 September 1638:

  • 1 year old - 5 September 1639
  • 10 years old - 5 September 1648
  • 50 years old - 5 September 1688
  • 70 years old - 5 September 1708
  • 75 years old - 5 September 1713
  • 76 years old - 5 September 1714
  • 76 years old - 1 September 1715, on the day he died
  • 77th aniversary of his birth - 5 September 1715

If there is some reason we should use an unconventional counting strategy, please explain, and if possible provide sources. Alternately, we cut the phrase to "until his death." studerby 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up and sorting it out once and for all. M A Mason 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammar?[edit]

Can someone explain to me how this is a featured article, and it has grammar that to my uneducated mind seems rather wrong? For example:

"ruled Earth for seventy-two years—the longest reign of any Bender or other major Earth monarch. Bender XIV increased the power and influence of Earth in Europe..."

Why does it say Earth and not France? Is this just vandalism? If not, my mind is going to hurt.

Don't worry yourself, it was vandalism and I've since reverted it. M A Mason 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

France = she?[edit]

These cultural achievements contributed to the prestige of France, her people, her language and her king.

Not being a native English speaker, I don't know what is the convention, or what are the connotations of referring to a country as feminine, but to me it feels just a little bit enamoringly POVish, or, at any rate, unencyclopaedic. How about "France, its people, its language and its king"? It is a country, after all. 194.157.147.7

As far as I'm aware it's just a tradition. I am a native speaker of English and I've heard any and all countries reffered to as feminine many many times. It's not POV, or as far as I'm aware unencyclopedic. There's possibly a wikiconvention on this. M A Mason 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
As a native speaker, I'd say the connotation of referring to a country in the feminine is "slightly old-fashioned." It probably ought to be changed, but it isn't a big deal. john k 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of doing the edit. If someone objects to it feel free to revert; I don't find this a big deal either. 194.157.147.7
I would argue that using a gender pronoun for a country is in fact adopting a mildly nationalistic POV; such gender pronouns are heavily used in "nation as parent" metaphors (motherland, fatherland) that don't have a place in general expository text (though should often be explained in discussing certain historical movements). And in fact, in the English I know, gendered pronouns are almost never used in refering to the United States. While there is in fact a male personification of the nation, Uncle Sam, it is only rarely used, usually in cartoons and marketing pieces. To use a gendered pronoun for France would be to adopt a French nationalistic POV. Studerby 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is somewhere along the lines of what I was thinking when I proposed the edit. Seems that it did get reverted. Oh well. I must say I much prefer the more neutral "its" to "her". Anyone? 62.78.243.98 (used to be 194.157.147.7)
It is standard English worldwide to use the feminine when referring to certain items. They include cars and other vehicles, and countries. It may have been linked to old English usage. Stud is wrong. Occasionally, during an outbreak of nationalism a country may for militaristic reasons adopt a mixture of male and female. Female however is the universal standard. Even PC-pushers regard finding offence at the normal way of using language when it comes to the use of gender for countries, as a bit nonsensical. FearÉIREANNIreland-up.png\(caint) 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, as this concerns the English language, I'll probably have to phase out for the reason of not being a native speaker; but, surely, cars? I cannot imagine referring to a car as feminine would be quite neutral (would, say, Reuters use that in reference to cars?). If such use is what is understood as "neutral" here, my objection to referring to a country as feminine still stands. 62.78.243.98
Google gives 13,400,000 hits for "its people" and 2,760,000 hits for "her people" (both searches quoted), though this is not necessarily entirely relevant. 62.78.243.98
Yes, cars. I was watching a programme only tonight where the presenter said "her engine runs sluggishly." It is standard. One thing about google searches. Remember much of what is on the net is bullshit. It will show up in google searches. A google search once proved that the Prince of Wales possesses a surname he hasn't had since 1960. Google searches are notorious. I am not doubting the genuineness of your search. I just how from having used them before how utterly unreliable they are. A user on WP once created a phoney article. I came across it and deleted it. WP pages get replicated all over the net. Today there are thousands of references to that entirely ficticious fact made up byt someone here. The bottom line is, don't take google searches with a pinch of salt, but with a bucket of it. FearÉIREANNIreland-up.png\(caint) 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know, hence the disclaimer. (But having a presenter say that engines run sluggishly fails to convince me in this case.) Anyway, my bottom line is that the article loses nothing if "its" is substituted for "her". "Its" is definitely not wrong (or is it?) and is more neutral (correctly or incorrectly, "her" has been deemed "slightly old-fashioned" or "mildly nationalistic", so these connotations seem to be there); I see no reason not using "its". Can you give reasons why not use it? 62.78.243.98
If there will be no arguments against it, I think I'll redo the edit in a while; to summarize my rationale, I think that using "its" is equally valid and less subject to interpretation than "her". 62.78.243.98 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems that there's an anonymous user insisting on "her" instead of "its"; could you please state your rationale why you consider "her" better? Naphra 09:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is used, but slightly old-fashioned, as I said before. I don't see why we should use "her" when "it" does just as well, and is less jarring. john k 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"She" used of a car engine has been transferred from ships and implies a Navy background. "She" of nations is a neo-Victorian affectation and should be avoided. --Wetman 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

someone deleted the last few sections[edit]

I don't know how to restore sections deleted by Tatteredpaper at 18:56, 12 September 2006, but I'm just hoping someone who knows how to do so will read this. Thanks.

75.41.254.193 04:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Laurie

Thanks, fixed. Users with account who are logged in have access to the complete change history of an article and can easily revert it to any previous version... Studerby 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The prestige of the French[edit]

These cultural achievements contributed to the prestige of France, its people, its language and its king.

Come to think of it, I find it kind of silly to claim that the French people all possessed some particular widely recognized prestige; would, say, a poor, starving Polish peasant, upon meeting a poor, starving French peasant (and there were plenty of them), think "Now, that's one prestigious peasant, 'cause he's French"? I would rather phrase this like "These achievements contributed to the prestige of France, its culture, its language and its king", or something to that effect. Anyone? Naphra 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (used to be 62.78.243.98)

Recent vandalism[edit]

There's been quite a lot of messing around with the article recently, should it locked for a while at least so that it can be checked and restored? Naphra 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reign length[edit]

...ruled France for seventy-two years—the longest reign of any French or other major European monarch.
Just curious, who in history has ever reigned for longer than that? --Xyzzyva 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pepi II of Egypt? There was a Prince of Liechtenstein who reigned for 71 years, but that's obviously less long. john k 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl Friedrich, Grand Duke of Baden inherited the Margraviate of Baden-Durlach in 1738, and reigned over those lands until his death in 1811 (although he inherited Baden-Baden in 1771 and became known as simply the Margrave of Baden, and later assumed the titles of Elector and Grand Duke). That's 73 years. So he reigned for longer. Is that the longest reign in European history? john k 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sobhuza II of Swaziland reigned for 82 years, although much of that time was a regency of one or another sort; then again so was some of Louis XIV's reign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Swaziland doesn't happen to be in Europe. Hence, Sobhuza II of Swaziland is hardly a European monarch. The length of his reign is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion.

Neither is Egypt; the question is not whether the statement is accurate, but whether the adjectives are necessary to make it accurate. Baden and Swaziland show that they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note also that the claim must be longest reign. not longest rule; he did not rule at the age of five. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Louis XIV of France[edit]

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Why is this article at Louis XIV of France rather than Louis XIV, which redirects here? The implication of this name is that there is some other significant use of the name Louis XIV. --00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because WP:NC (names and titles) so provides, both in order to name the Kings of France consistently; and to provide for the (admittedly small) chance that there will be someday another Louis XIV, either in the future or as the name of a mediatized prince. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the value in naming the articles about the kings of France consistently with each other, when doing so means having articles names like this one that are inconsistent with Wikipedia's most widely adhered convention of using the most common name of a subject as the article name when there are no disambiguation issues? --Serge 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, to start with, it's not inconsistent with the convention, which says that "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions" may give a different indication.
Serge, please read WP:PRO and take it to heart; all our conventions, including WP:COMMON are approximations, made up of Scptch tape and piano wire; they accomplish different ends. Having Louis XIV of France parallel Louis III of France (which we must have for disambiguation) is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I read (and have read) WP:PRO. It has no application to what I'm talking about. You are confusing process with convention. A process is to have the naming of the article of one king of France "parallel" the naming of another king of France, just because. But the convention in Wikipedia is to use the most common name of the subject of an article unless disambiguation is required. That's just how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are named. It's a fact. That's the convention. There is no arguing with that point. Hit random article any number of significant times and see how often that convention is followed versus how often it is not. Why should this article be an exception to that? --Serge 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Conventions are processes; like other processes, works in progress. What WP:NAME actually says on this aubject is, in full:
Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
Serge knows this; he proposed other wording and (as elsewhere) was in the minority. His "fact", therefore, is a falsehood; I do not see any further point to discussion with such an editor, except to oppose his proposals to violate consensus guidelines and policy. I will cosign any RfC on this disruption. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know the guideline says that. So what? The fact remains: The way the vast majority (not all) of Wikipedia articles are named by convention is to use the most common name unless there is an ambiguity issue. --Serge 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the exceptions; there are many others Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Are there any objections to moving this article to Louis XIV? --Serge 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are. I apologize for letting this single-purpose editor loose here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
*tsk, tsk* No cookie for you! :p Agne 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone besides Pmanderson and Agne object to renaming this article in accordance with the widely adhered-to most common name convention (I said convention, not guideline, intentionally)? Anyone agree it should be renamed to Louis XIV? --Serge 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find some objections among the folks at WP:NC (names and titles). It took quite a bit of time and a lot of discussion for them to come to form of consensus. I think it would be proper to open up a discussion there about your move idea. Agne 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A responsible move always includes fixing any double redirects that have been created. Looks like about a day's work for the mover. --Wetman 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
How many redirects are there? john k 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
19 double redirects would be created by the move. 130.132.94.174 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not oppose a revision of the naming convention for monarchs that would allow this article to be moved to Louis XIV, but I would oppose a series of piecemeal moves of this sort. Discussion of this ought to be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Serge 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I note that the present discussion there is whether to move these articles to Louis XIV, King of France, which is the opposite direction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Note[edit]

For those puzzled by this proposal, Serge is making points at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), where he has been pushing this view (that only his favorite half-sentence of WP:NAME counts) for months, against a majority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet the same argument - Wikipedia articles should only be disambiguated when necessary, except for individual article exceptions, despite what the guidelines say, because that is the predominant actual naming convention at Wikipedia - was supported recently by a strong consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Not to mention that this is the single most cited arguement at WP:RM, bar none. --Serge 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From where to Versialles?[edit]

Where in Paris was the court before it moved to Versailles? The Louvre? Sylvain1972 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Tuileries. Bigturtle 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


What happened to the discussion "of France"[edit]

I just read this article, and was very surprised about the "of France" after "Louis XIV". I have read the discussions in this talk and I have tried to follow some of the links, but I can not find what happened to the discussion. This would have been interesting to read. What happened to the discussion? Which area is it in ? DanielDemaret 18:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scroll upwards, its under 'name of article'.Eyedubya 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Is there a legitimate reason why his second spouse is not listed?[edit]

Françoise d'Aubigné, marquise de Maintenon should be listed as his spouse where his vital statistics are listed. The fact that she was his morganatic second wife should not preclude her from being listed. It's deceptive to not place her there. Agrippina Minor 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox lists consort and I do believe she was never Queen of France and therefore never his consort. I might be wrong, I'm no expert on the matter.Carl Logan 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The definition of "consort" includes "spouse." It also includes "a companion or partner." While he did not advertise the relationship because she was a widow and "low born" he did nonetheless marry her. Leaving her out is more deceptive than including her IMO. Agrippina Minor 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While that is, strictly-speaking, true, one must also concede that "consort" implies something more than a mere "companion or partner". For instance, one does not commonly refer to one's wife as one's consort because to do so would seem highly pretentious given the nuances and connotations with "consort". ("Damp" and "moist" for example both generally mean "wet", yet are used in very different ways.) If the infobox may be changed to reflect "wife" rather than "consort", then I believe our issue here would be solved203.116.59.28 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Young Blades[edit]

How come "Young Blades" TV-show is not listed in the "Depictions of Louis XIV in entertainment" ? Berrie Leigh 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I added it, hope I'm not wrong. Berrie Leigh 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate issue[edit]

I'd like to have more information of illegitimare issue of Louis XIV. In Wikipedia is a list of French royal mistresses. Why not list of french royal bastards? --Hannu (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish succession[edit]

Someone simply deleted this section. I've returned it. The section needs to be condensed, focussing on the French involvement. But it can't just be eliminated. Or was that vandalism? Same difference: same result. --Wetman (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I had a go at trimming, but found it very hard (school flashbacks). I'm not sure it is disproportionately long. More is needed on the bad winters & grim air of the last years. Johnbod (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation tag[edit]

I removed the citation tag after adding a dozen references. I will be adding more in the next week, and those concerned about the lack of citations can feel free to add REF tags to individual passages instead of reverting to the article citation tag. Historymike (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Last two sentences in second paragraph[edit]

"His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch[2] and the second-longest documented reign of any monarch since antiquity. Only Sobhuza II of Swaziland had a longer precisely documented reign (1899-1982)." It seems to me that part of these sentences do not belong in the text but should be made into a footnote because, while they do compare length of long reign of several sovereigns, they go way beyond the subject being discussed, which is Louis XIV. I think the sentence should read: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch."

The rest of the sentence & last one should be a footnote. Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll make the change. Historymike (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dedication of France to the Virgin Mary & the birth of Louis XIV[edit]

Son of Henri IV (who had converted to catholicism in 1572), and a fervent catholic, Louis XIII dedicated France to the Virgin Mary on 10 February 1638, in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, seven months before the birth of his son, Louis XIV, born on 1 September 1638. When one reads the king’s official text – in French, Le Vœu de Louis XIII

http://philidor.cmbv.fr/jlbweb/jlbWeb?html=cmbv/BurAff&path=/biblio/bur/02/96/296.pdf&ext=pdf, nowhere is to be found a single word about his to-be-born child, most being about the victories of France upon its enemies, external & internal, heresy in particular. One should not forget that during the previous century, France had been torn by the Wars of Religion which were ended during the reign of his father (Edict of Nantes, 1598), although troubles persisted during the reign of Louis XIII. It should also be noted that Louis XIII could not thank the Virgin for the miracle of the birth of a Dauphin before the birth of said Dauphin since, in 1638, there was no way of knowing if the mother was expecting a boy or a girl.

This leads me to disagree with the sentence: “As a sign of gratitude, France was dedicated by his father, Louis XIII, to the Virgin Mary, who, many believed, had interceded for the perceived miracle” - sentence edited several times since first introduced on 24 January 2008. Frania W. (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been unable to find a source for the dedication-to-the-Virgin-Mary claim. I did find a source that spoke of the gratitude of Louis XIII to God, and I will amend the passage to reflect this source. Nice work, Frania W. Historymike (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Frania is correct with regards to the dedication happenning seven months before the birth, but incorrect as to its reasons. The source that proves she is incorrect is the reference already quoted in the article. Here is the pertinent quote that proves Louis XIII and his wife believed the pregnancy and birth of Louis XIV were to be successful thanks to the Virgin Mary: "As the King and Queen had absolute faith in a happy outcome, it would have been absurd, not to say indecent, to wait further before issuing the famous Vow of Louis XIII, conceived as a thanksgiving. Three days later, the King therefore signed this Consecration dedicating France to Our Lady." Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


The "pertinent quote" given is only someone's opinion, not historical fact.

The sentence about Louis XIII & Anne of Austria being childless for twenty-three years and the divine miracle of the birth of their son can be traced word for word to several articles, a series of “copy & paste” of one original article, the origin of which is lost. Only facts should be taken into consideration in an historical article: (1) after twenty-three years of marriage, the royal couple was still childless; however, the queen’s acknowledged pregnancy in January 1638 was not her first one as she had previously had several miscarriages – so, no miracle in her pregnancy; (2) nowhere in his vow of 10 February 1638 does Louis XIII mention the coming birth of his son, or rather child-to-be – so, it cannot be said that the king consecrated France to the Virgin in gratitude for the birth of his not-yet-born child. The only evidence we have of the king & queen thanking God upon having a boy is the name they gave him: Louis-Dieudonné – a statement that stands on its own.

In consideration of the above, the mention of Louis XIII’s vow has no place in an article about Louis XIV. Frania W. (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Frania, you are wrong to claim that only "facts" (i.e. absolute truth) can be included in Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (WP:Verifiability) I have a reliable source for my edit, you don't for your POV. If you can find a source that says that: 1. Louis XIV's birth was not considered a miracle, and 2. the dedication by Louis XIII was not in thanksgiving to the Virgin Mary for his son's birth, then you can include your POV also. WP:NPOV mandates that my POV, since it's backed by a verifiable source, can be included regardless of your POV. Otherwise, without any sources that state clearly the above two things, you cannot include your POV in this article. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


To Lil' mouse: Please quote me right: I wrote above that “the queen’s acknowledged pregnancy in January 1638 was not her first one as she had previously had several miscarriages – so, no miracle in her pregnancy”, and I do stand firm on my assertion that there is no miracle when pregnancy occurs after a woman had several miscarriages.

Before getting to your second point, may I direct you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources? “This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - italics mine. In other articles by the same “reliable" source you are quoting, there are glaring inaccuracies on dates & facts – some going as far as saying that the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son.

On your second request that I show you proof that “the dedication by Louis XIII was not in thanksgiving to the Virgin Mary for his son’s birth,” I believe that the request should be reversed & that, since we have the entire text, you should quote the lines from Louis XIII’s own vow and show where he thanks God or the Virgin Mary for the upcoming birth of his son. Your “reliable source” is not in agreement with Louis XIII’s vow because it is putting in the mouth of the king words he never pronounced - so "verifiable", yes, since you can click on the link & read the lines, but certainly not "reliable" because the vow of Louis XIII has been "edited", and... by whom?

Finally, I still see no reason to incorporate in an article on Louis XIV the vow of Louis XIII which, again, does not mention the birth-to-come of his son. This article is on Louis XIV, not Louis XIII. Frania W. (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis of the text of the dedication itself to draw conclusions constitutes original research. You cannot do that on Wikipedia. You have to find a source that states your POV as I mentioned above and only then you can quote that source to include your POV in this article. I have a source for my POV, you don't have one for yours. So no, you cannot ask me to quote the very text of the Vow, because, in fact, you are inviting me to break the Wikipedia rules on original research (see WP:OR). Still waiting for your source...
PS: Your argument that my source is unreliable is equally false: my reference does not say anywhere that (quote) "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son." Before you make any further comments on my source, please,: 1. come up with a source for your POV, and 2. learn to read more carefully. Thank you in advance! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Frania's point still stands: "I still see no reason to incorporate in an article on Louis XIV the vow of Louis XIII which, again, does not mention the birth-to-come of his son. This article is on Louis XIV, not Louis XIII." Furthermore, analysis of a source is clearly not original research. If it was, the entire content of this encyclopedia would be restricted to exact copies of sources. Coemgenus 21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If I buy your argument, I can then analyze the very same source as Frania and conclude from it that just because it doesn't mention the birth of Louis XIII's son, the Vow doesn't exclude it as a reason for its issuance. I base my conclusion on the following judicial principle: just because something is not mentioned in a law, it does not make it illegal. In fact, anything that is not specifically banned in a law, is allowed in many countries, and, to my knowledge, France was one of these countries. Since we are talking here about a royal decree with law effects (the King being the supreme legislator in France at that time), my logic stands. So no, on logic and inference alone, I cannot accept Frania's conclusion. She must bring additional sources that clearly prove her POV. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. This has nothing to do with law, it's a religious dedication with no legal effect (and, as stated above, no bearing on this article). You're citing a source to prove a point the source says nothing about. If that is allowed, what is the point of citation? Coemgenus 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken: it is a royal decree, so it carries the weight of law, since the King was supreme legislator. The Vow is, in all but name, a law. It is a royal decree dealing with religious matters, ordering the people of France to do something for Virgin Mary (e.g. novenas, etc). It had law-like effects, just like the edict of Nantes and its revocation almost a century later, both dealing with religious matters, both issued by royal decree: people had to comply with it. After all, this is one of the key effects of any law, regardless of its name or type: people have to comply with it. It is the same case here: the people of France were ordered to do something. The fact that the object of this edict is a religious matter doesn't make the edict any less of a law.
As to the actual conclusions one can draw from this edict, as from any law, we all know that laws have stated reasons, clearly written in the law, and hidden reasons as well, not spelled out black on white. There are countless examples throughout the history of mankind of laws with stated, obvious reasons, which nevertheless hoped to achieve secret goals also, goals and reasons which were never spelled out in the law. So to conclude from what is written in the law that there is no other reason for that law, is fallacious. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


I am at a loss trying to understand Lil’ mouse’s interpretation of Wikipedia rules. What I get so far is (1) Lil’ mouse can read an article written by a 100 per cent catholic organization (talk about POV and NPOV!) and have us accept without question what he/she reads, while (2) from the same internet link, and taken from the very same article, I read Louis XIII’s vow and am being told that this is original research, not allowed by Wikipedia. Someone please tell me the difference between Lil’ mouse reading an article with a marked religious point of view – normal in church-related articles about miracles, yet questionable when that source happens to be the religious “headquarters” of where said-miracles occurred & earns its living from tourism related to said-miracle - while I, reading from the same link the original text of Louis XIII’s vow, am being accused of original research (!) and of giving my POV. Since when is reading from an original, and I say “reading”, just reading and relaying what I read - not giving an analyzed opinion on the matter - since when is this giving my own POV? And what kind of source do I need to give when I am quoting the very source? Is reading from original source forbidden? As I understand Lil’ mouse’s interpretation of Wikipedia rules, we should pass over the original text, read someone else’s interpretation of it, then quote that second-hand story as “verifiable” without worrying about the ‘truth”.

This is turning to be rather long; however, I would like to add a couple of comments to Lil’ mouse on his/her way of addressing other “fellow wikipedians”. The first one on my having to “learn to read more carefully”: please do read what I had written, and I put in bold what you seem to have missed in order to understand what I wrote: “In other articles by the same “reliable" source you are quoting, there are glaring inaccuracies on dates & facts – some going as far as saying that the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son.” By this sentence, I was pointing out the fact that the same organization you are quoting has published & put online other articles on the same subject with wrong data, which makes me question its “reliability”.

But what I really want to say is that the aggressivity of your tone spills over into rudeness. There is no need to barge in with words such as: “you are wrong” “you cannot do that” “and only then you can” “I have… you don’t” “learn to read...” We are all adults here, people from all around the world & from all walks of life. I do not know you, you do not know me. You have no right to talk to me or anyone else as if you were the school teacher with a Russain knout ready to lash at us at the slightest mistake. We, quite willingly, work with others on articles, and in so doing learn as much as we contribute. When we are wrong, we can be told in a nice, even jovial manner & return the courtesy to others. We should not have to fear to be threatened with the word “vandalism” because we changed a comma in someone else’s sentence. Everything should be discussed nicely. And if we do not like it, we can leave. In summary, what I want to say is that nowhere in the “Constitution of Wikipedia” do I find an article giving anyone the right to treat other wikipedians with disrespect. Frania W. (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)~

P.S. on the above: It could not be sent because someone else was sending at the same time. So my long piece is not in answer to the above comment by Lil' mouse but to the two previous ones. Frania W. (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking any lessons in history or manners from somebody who does not bother to read carefully or does not even know the most basic Wikipedia rule (see my prior message on your "historical fact" vs. verifiability). Where on that entire website of my reference did you see it written that (quote) "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son."??? Where??? This claim about my reference is outrageous!!! If you can quote that exact paragraph and also post here the weblink to that page, then we will talk more. Otherwise, please, do not bother to reply to me, especially when you fail to address a specific matter (e.g. the legal nature of the Vow or this outrageous claim of yours about my reference) and resort instead to personal attacks (e.g. false accusations of "disrespect" and "rudeness" with regards to my calling white - white ("Frania is correct") and black - black ("you are wrong/mistaken")). Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere and, with the most recent comment, is becoming contentious. Shall we seek a third opinion? Coemgenus 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As Coemgenus was posting the above, I was preparing the following - close to the original paragrah - in order to discuss it & come to an agreement, thus avoiding an edit war:
"Louis XIV was born in the royal Château of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 5 September 1638, almost twenty-three years after the marriage of his parents, Louis XIII and Anne of Austria. Many regarded this birth as a divine gift and, in show of gratitude to God for the long-awaited birth of an heir to the French throne, his parents named him Louis-Dieudonné (“God-given”). He also received the title Premier Fils de France ("First Son of France") as well as the more traditional title Dauphin".[1] Frania W. (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, consider yourself warned: I will report any such changes as vandalism, due to the fact that (so far, until contrary evidence from you) you lie about my reference so as to render it "unreliable", edit out my POV based on it, and, thus, aggressively further your biased POV (anti-Catholic bias, as per your prior message). Your lie is that somewhere on the same website of my reference it is stated something to the effect that (quote) "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son." Again, do not attempt to edit out my POV without first proving here that the above mentioned idea exists somewere on the website of my reference or else you will be reported to the appropriate Wikipedia Administrator boards both for vandalism and for uncivil behavior (false accusations of "disrespect" and "rudeness"). Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Frania: this sounds like a good compromise to me; I would support including it in the article. Lil Mouse: you are becoming increasingly uncivil. I would welcome you bringing this discussion to an administrator's attention. Coemgenus 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, any such changes will be reported as vandalism as they are not made in good faith. Coemgenus, you are effectively supporting deleting my POV based on Frania's bad faith (i.e. lie) about my reference: she has not proven yet that my reference website states anything to the effect of her above mentioned quote. If you have any other reasons than the alleged "unreliability" of my reference in support of such deletion, please, state them here beforehand. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe a better compromise is possible, one that, unlike Frania's, does comply with the WP:NPOV rules. See my edit to the article. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


As a compromise, I propose:
"Louis XIV was born in the royal Château of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 5 September 1638, the first live-birth in the almost twenty-three-year of marriage of his parents, Louis XIII and Anne of Austria. Many regarded this birth as a divine gift and, in show of gratitude to God for the long-awaited birth of an heir to the French throne, his parents named him Louis-Dieudonné (God-given). The royal prince also received the title Premier fils de France (First Son of France) as well as the traditional title Dauphin.".[2]
And as a footnote:
Several months before his birth, France had been dedicated by his father to the Virgin Mary who, many believed, had interceded for the perceived miracle;[4][5][6] However, the text of the dedication does not mention the royal pregnancy and birth as one of its reasons.
Should this compromise be adopted, I then would add the following, also a footnote:
"Irrité de voir tant de courtisans parler de "miracle", Louis XIII aurait répliqué que "ce n'était point là si grand miracle qu'un mari couchât avec sa femme et lui fasse un enfant." (Transl. "Irritated to see so many courtiers speak of “miracle”, Louis XIII is said to have replied: “it was not there so great a miracle that a husband go to bed with his wife & make her a child.”) (Claude Dulong, Anne d’Autriche, Hachette, Paris, 1980; reedition by Gallimard, Paris, 1985; reedition by Librairie académique Perrin, Paris, 2000).
Frania W. (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was going to suggest that most of this information about France's dedication to the Blessed Virgin be put in a footnote, since most people who read the article couldn't care one way or another. I did the same in James II of England with certain obscure points, such as the ultimate location of his remains, which is disputed (but about which 99% of readers couldn't care less). Coemgenus 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Why is his name Dieudonné more important and deserving to be mentioned in the main body of the article than the dedication of France to the Virgin Mary, both in relation to his birth?! If anything, the latter is much more momentous in consequences than the former, because of the magnitude of national events that the dedication entailed. Also, Coemgenus, you cannot speak for all the users of Wikipedia as to who would care more or less about one or the other because you didn't take an opinion poll of their preferences. And also, the burial place of a king is not comparable in magnitude or importance to the dedication of a whole country to Virgin Mary, so your comparison does not apply here.
Frania: I would agree to your including Louis XIII's skepticism in the main body also for WP:NPOV reasons (not the full quote, though, not to make the article hard to read -- the quote can go in the footnote). Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


The name "Dieudonné" is more important and deserving to be mentioned in the main body of the article because the article is on Louis XIV and Dieudonné happens to be his name. As for the dedication of France to the Virgin Mary, it was done by Louis XIII during his reign, and before the birth of Louis XIV, so it belongs in the article on Louis XIII - and it gets enough coverage as a footnote in this article, as does the reply by Louis XIII about said miracle. Anyone interested in additional details can look them up in books or online articles dedicated to these subjects. Frania W. (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is no other footnote in this article of the kind you want to create, it seems very suspect why you would want to start a footnote with just this particular aspect. There are many other details in this entire article. Why not relegate all of them to a footnote also?!
Moreover, something as momentuous as the dedication of the whole of France to Virgin Mary because, among other reasons, of the miraculous birth of Louis XIV, does belong in the main body because this event is about Louis XIV also, not just about Louis XIII. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, the dedication of France to the Virgin Mary was done before the birth of Louis XIV and in his Vow, nowhere does Louis XIII mention the upcoming birth of his son - and besides, at the time, he had no way of knowing whether his wife was pregnant with a boy or a girl. Louis XIII took the time to prepare his text and if he had wanted to mention the pregnancy of his wife, he would have done so, for instance: "We" - as the king speaks of himself - "we are thanking God for the upcoming birth of the child my wife is carrying... hoping to Heaven it's not a girl!" So wanting to insist on including something in this article by putting words in the mouth of people who did not say them & who lived four centuries ago does not make for a serious article in an encyclopedia/wikipedia of any sort. We have to stick to facts. Frania W. (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is original research because you are inferring from what is not written in the Vow what Louis XIII must have thought, i.e. that he did not thank Virgin Mary for the upcoming birth of a son. Your analysis is OR as "unpublished (...) arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis (...) of published material that serves to advance a position." It is a fact that Louis XIII did not mention the upcoming birth in his Vow and so I agreed with it being included in the article as this fact is undisputable. However, it is pure speculation that he did not have the upcoming birth as a secret, unstated reason for his Vow. Pure speculation. As I mentioned above, edicts (such as this Vow) and other laws can have both stated and unstated, secret reasons. Your speculation is, thus, not only unwarranted, it is also 1. not published anywhere and 2. an analysis of a primary source, and as such it constitutes OR.
I, on the other hand, am not "putting words in anybody's mouth": I am simply quoting secondary sources for the reasons of Louis XIII's Vow. Between your original research with your primary source and my secondary sources, one of them by a well-respected French historian, I think that the evidence speaks for itself loud and clear. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay everyone, if we want to have mention of this dedication of France to the Virgin Mary, what is needed is a respected historian who explains the events in that way. The actual text of the declaration is pretty irrelevant. I really don't know what the answer on this one is, because I've never heard of this issue before. But pointing out that the declaration doesn't say it's about the imminent birth of a son to the king is pretty irrelevant if this is how historians have explained it. If this is not how historians have explained it, then I don't see how Lil' Mouse has a leg to stand on. So why don't we bring on reliable secondary sources, rather than dubious analyses of primary sources? john k (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, John. Unlike Frania, who analyzes a primary source (i.e. the text of the Vow) to further her POV, I have a reliable secondary source by a respected French historian. This source is already referenced in the article: Henri Bremond. La Provence mystique au XVIIe siècle. Paris : Plon-Nourrit, 1908. p. 381. The pertinent quote is: "Sans l'assurance d'avoir un fils, Louis XIII n'aurait pas fait le voeu de 1638." Translation: "Without the assurance of having a son, Louis XIII would not have made the vow of 1638." The author of this book is the French historian Henri Bremond. He was a well-respected historian, with an impressive list of works, a member of the prestigious French Academy, decorated with the highest French order, Légion d'honneur. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My knowledge of French may be imperfect, but the way I read that source, M. Bremond is not stating that sentence as a fact, but merely quoting Abbé Laure, who actually said the words you have attributed to Bremond. Coemgenus 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Bremond seemd to say "Abbé Laure shows that these two documents are a result of the same inspiration: 'Without the assurance of having a son, Louis XIII would not have made the vow of 1638." So Bremond seems to be doing more than merely quoting Laure - he is using Laure as evidence, and seems to accept Laure's characterization. That being said, Lil mouse's post above was misleading, implying that Laure's words were, in fact, Bremond's. I'm not really clear on what's going on here - it seems like we have POV pushing on both sides of a very obscure issue. Aren't there more direct discussions of this issue? john k (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I never attributed the quote to the historian himself, but to his book. If a well-reputed historian accepts as valid a historical document (Abbé Laure's writings) and bases his book on it, I think this suffices, unless, of course, we want to start performing OR analyzing further this document ourselves... Also, the issue of the Vow is obviously obscure for the secular French Republic had no interest in publicizing a Catholic event of such great implications and importance for the French monarchy. Just because this event has been less publicized doesn't make it any less relevant to this article: there is at least one reliable source, so it deserves to be included. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If there really is only one source discussing this issue, it seems arguable that mentioning it constitutes undue weight, and thus violates NPOV. We should be careful about this. john k (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't just one source, but you wanted one by a respectable historian. This is it. There are also others by non-historians (Catholic clergymen). One is already referenced in the article. I have a couple more also. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been saying for some time now that this whole issue is being given undue weight. At best, it belongs in a footnote. Once there, partisans of the "secular French Republic" and the French monarchy can fight it out to their hearts' content without disturbing the article for ordinary readers and editors. Coemgenus 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight deals with competing viewpoints and their relative prominence on a specific topic, not with the prominence of the topic itself: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." More on this from the same WP page: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Therefore, undue weight in our case pertains to how much weight should be given to Frania's/Coemgenus's POV vs. my POV on the topic of whether or not the Vow was also made for the upcoming royal birth, not to how much weight, if any, should be given to the topic itself. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


After reading the referenced page of the book by Henri Bremond, La Provence mystique au XVIIe siècle, my curiosity made me read other pages and footnotes. Hopefully, the rules of Wikipedia allow that I give a translation. Reading the text is rather laborious as there are three authors with one quoting one who is quoting another one, i.e. Henri Bremond (Provence mystique, publ. 1908) quoting Abbé Laure (Histoire de Cotignac, publ. 1886) who himself quotes F. Fiacre whose mémoires were published in Paris in 1722.

p. 380 of Henri Bremond is a quote from Histoire de Cotignac by Abbé Laure, "curé-doyen" of Cotignac, parts of Abbé Laure’s text being quotes from F. Fiacre’s mémoires. According to the story, F. Fiacre, who was in Paris & had never been to Cotignac, was able to give a perfect description of the Virgin represented in the church of Notre-Dame de Grâces in Cotignac, and of the church itself. Bremond then directs the reader to a footnote & gives a quote from p. 121 of Abbé Laure’s book: : "On se tromperait - écrit-il – si l’on imaginait qu’à Paris le choix du sanctuaire de Notre-Dame de Grâces dut paraître étonnant. Il y avait vingt ans que des relations suivies et publiques s’étaient établies entre l’Oratoire de Cotignac et celui de Paris." Transl: "One would be mistaken – writes Abbé Laure - to think that in Paris the choice of the sanctuary at Notre-Dame de Grâces appeared strange. For twenty years, continual & public relations had been established between the Oratory of Cotignac and that of Paris."

NOTE by FW: Even if I am not supposed to give my opinion (POV), it is hard for me to skip over the fact that Fiacre had no problem giving a description of Virgin & church at Cotignac, although he had never been there, knowing there was a twenty-year relationship between the two (Paris & Cotignac) oratories. (end of my note)

p. 381 of Henri Bremond’s book - the very page Lil’ mouse directed us to: From p. 135 of Abbé Laure’s book, Bremond *quoting* from Abbé Laure: “Le 5 septembre de la même année 1638, *naquit le premier enfant d’Anne d’Autriche, le fruit des prières de F. Fiacre, neuf mois précisément après la promesse, malgré vingt-trois ans d’un mariage stérile.* Transl: On 5 September of the same year 1638, *the first child of Anne of Austria, fruit of the prayers of F. Fiacre, nine months precisely after the promise, in spite of twenty-three years of a sterile marriage.*

Then Bremond directs us to a footnote marked as (1) on page 381 of his book, giving as reference p. 135 of Abbé Laure’s book:

(1) Le savant historien place ici des considérations sur le « miracle » de cette naissance. Il va peut-être un peu trop loin lorsqu’il écrit « si l’on explique… tout naturellement la naissance de Louis XIV, le F. Fiacre n’est plus un homme de Dieu… il devient simplement un imposteur. » Translation: The well-learned historian (meaning Abbé Laure) places here some considerations on the “miracle” of this birth. He may be going too far when he writes “if one explains… quite naturally the birth of Louis XIV, F. Fiacre is not a man of God anymore… he becomes an impostor.”

It should be noted that both Laure & Bremond were priests in the catholic church. So when Abbé Laure, the very “curé-doyen” of Notre-Dame de Grâces at Cotignac writes that sentence, he cannot be accused of "secular French Republic" anti-clericalism.

This argument taking us nowhere is becoming tiresome. Frania W. (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this entire argument of yours is taking us nowhere because it's original research. You are not supposed to analyze a source to draw your own conclusions from it, if these conclusions of yours are unpublished; this constitutes OR. Just like your other analysis of the text of the Vow... Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Original research? What I discussed above came from the very source YOU sent us to! I just happened to read one page before and also the footnotes, which you skipped. We could so easily come to a compromise, which is by including footnotes, but you are holding us indefinetely. Frania W. (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And what is your conclusion based on what you read, please? I didn't understand it. Please, state it clearly. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What I wrote above - quotes from the book you sent us to - is lengthy enough without my having to dissect it. And since, from our previous discussions, it is obvious the two of us will never come to an agreement, I am leaving the matter in the hands of our "judges". Frania W. (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What you quoted above is off topic -- the topic being the dedication of France to Virgin Mary due to the upcoming birth of Louis XIV. Nowhere in these quotes is the Vow mentioned. So far, what we have seen from you is just some original research on the text of the Vow and an unsubstantiated claim (some may call it a lie) (i.e. "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son") about my other reference on the topic of the thread. None of these "works" of yours is worthy of Wikipedia. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


You sent us on a specific page of Bremond’s book. What were we supposed to do with it if not read it? I read the part you mentioned… then took the liberty (private research!) of reading the end of the paragraph and then go to the footnote. Why should you pick a few lines to prove your point then claim that what you are doing has more value than my continuing to read what you skipped? Your interpretation of the lines you are quoting are not right if taken out of context, ignoring what else is there. The footnote is pretty harsh on F. Fiacre & does point to an hesitation on the part of one of the writers to believe 100 per cent in the reality of the “miracle”. The judgement is not mine.

Unfortunately, the way this “discussion” has been going, the only future I see for the article on Louis XIV is that it will soon have the band “neutrality of article disputed”, or get blocked altogether. A continuing saga…

In finishing, and repeating myself, incivility has no place here. Your accusations of “lie” and constant denigration of my “work” as not being “worthy of Wikipedia” are at the limit of the permissible. Frania W. (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no shred of doubt expressed when Abbé Laure writes that "Sans l'assurance d'avoir un fils, Louis XIII n'aurait pas fait le voeu de 1638." So the Vow was clearly motivated by the upcoming birth. This is the topic of the thread, not the miracle of the birth.
2. You write: "The footnote is pretty harsh on F. Fiacre." I disagree. It is just an intellectual speculation (a "what if" type of speculation, i.e. "if one explains"): there is no definite alternate explanation to the miracle, only a mere, fleeting thought, a speculation. Abbé Laure never went too far with this speculation: he never said he did not believe in the miracle. Besides, the author himself, historian Henri Bremond, calls even such speculations as going too far, thus underscoring his own belief in the miracle: "He may be going too far when he writesif one explains… quite naturally the birth of Louis XIV, F. Fiacre is not a man of God anymore… he becomes an impostor.”"
3. Original research has no place on Wikipedia, so this is not a "denigration", it is just stating a mere fact, a Wiki rule. If you want to disprove this accusation, you should post an answer at my above message on your OR on the text of the Vow.
4. Until you bring proof (an exact quote and weblink) that somewhere on the website of my reference there is something stated to the effect that (quote) "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son", this unsubstantiated claim can be called a lie and a sad attempt at smearing my work (speaking of "denigration"). And this lie, until further proof to the contrary from you, disqualifies morally all your attempts of editing this section of the article. If a lie is not proof enough of bad faith, nothing else is. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lil Mouse, I think you misunderstand the idea of original research. That policy is meant to keep people from publishing here the results of their own investigations into the subject, not to prevent them from reading the sources. You seem to suggest that you may support your opinion based on a couple of sentences from Breslin's books, but then deny that Frania W, John Kenney, and I may read that same source or decide whether your chosen quotation is taken in context, or even attributed to the correct author. Every editor who has joined this conversation has disagreed with you. Perhaps you should also read up on the idea of consensus.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here -- your entire edit history appears to be uncivil edit wars on three or four articles -- but this sort of POV-pushing holds ordinary editors back from improving the scholarship of the article. If you wish to promote royalist or ultramontane views, by all means do so, but do it on a blog or a website, not in a neutral encyclopedia. Coemgenus 12:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I invite you to answer my message proving Frania's work on the text of the Vow is OR right under that message, with specifics, not here and not with generalities. As to my "uncivility", this claim is just as deceiving as your ideas about what constitutes WP:OR. As to consensus seeking, this presupposes good faith on the part of all the editors: Frania's bad faith (i.e. lie about my reference) prevents it. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is being held hostage & we cannot go anywhere as we are constantly admonished with WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:undue weight, WP:original research, the threat of WP:vandalism, und so weiter, I am taking the liberty to give its boredom a break - lightening it up a bit with some personal remarks. By putting too much weight on the miraculous birth of Louis XIV, and in debating on unwritten words in the four-century old vow of his father, we are ignoring the disastrous marital relationship of Louis XIII & Anne of Austria spanning almost a quarter century after their marriage. While focusing on the "miracle" of the birth, we also pass over the political side of the story and the fact that Anne of Austria was a Spanish princess, sister of the king of Spain, and working behind the back of the king of France, her husband, while France & Spain were at war. (She was caught red-handed by Richelieu in August 1637, and there was talk of repudiation.) It is thus naïve & dishonest in an historical sense to try to project an image of husband & wife kneeling every night by their bed, side by side, and for twenty-two years addressing prayers to Heaven, when we know Louis XIII & Anne of Austria could not stand the sight of one another. In reality, the real "miracle" of the birth of Louis-Dieudonné took place when the king visited his wife's bed. Frania W. (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is being held hostage to your bad faith: you lied about my reference (i.e. that its website claims "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son") not once, but twice, making the same unsubstantiated claim here and here, so as to smear my reference by rendering it "unreliable", push your anti-miracle POV, and wipe out or minimize in a footnote my POV. This suffices to disqualify morally all of your edit attempts. I will remind all the editors and Administrators of your bad faith as many times as necessary. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I fear you misunderstand the guidelines here. You speak of someone improperly trying to "wipe out or minimize in a footnote my POV." Your POV is not supposed to be a part of this article, nor is mine, nor is Frania's. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a NPOV (i.e. neutral point of view). If you admit that what you've been trying to include is POV, you've really just made our case for us: that the material is not neutral.
I would also reiterate the point that this material is tangential to the article, and has been given undue weight at the expense of the important geopolitical impact of Louis XIV's birth. The birth of a son to Louis XIII is important mostly because of the effect on Franco-Spanish relations, the rise to power of Anne of Austria, the continued influence of Richelieu, and the decreased influence of Gaston, Duke of Orléans.
Furthermore, your ad hominem attacks on Frania violate the prescription to assume good faith, and are, frankly, rude. Coemgenus 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand what the WP:NPOV rules say: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." My "view"/POV has been published by a reliable source, therefore it deserves to be "represented"/included just as much as your POV or anybody's POV, as long as they "have been published by reliable sources."
You also misunderstand what the WP:UNDUE rules pertain to: they pertain to the weight that should be given to each viewpoint on a topic, proportional to the prominence of that viewpoint. They do not pertain to the weight or the prominence of the topic itself. For more on this issue, please, see this message.
As to any ad hominem attack on Frania, this means calling her person something, which I never did: I only called her actions for what they are -- lies about my reference. So no ad hominem attack here. Have a good day! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I don't even know where to begin with this. One reference in a century old historian, quoting an even older historian, hardly seems like a very good reason to mention something in a very short article about Louis XIV. On the other hand, it is not particularly appropriate to use your own novel interpretation of a primary source as the reason to remove information. Can't we find a good, recent biography of Louis XIV to resolve this? john k (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A book by a respected historian no less. Does the age of the book make it any more or less respectable? If anything, being contemporary to the author of the quoted document (Abbé Laure), whom historian Henri Bremond was likely to have had the chance to know personally as both were men of the church, should make the latter more knowledgeable about the subject matter (the document, its reliability, etc.) than somebody else writing many decades later, who, thus, did not have the chance to know the Abbé personally. Anyways, this is just my view on the matter, so I would like to learn if there are any Wikipedia rules on the reliability of a source in relation to its age. I for one don't know of any such rules. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary historians are more influenced by the emotions of the time in which they live and write. Later historians have the benefit of everything written about the past, plus the distance from the event that allows them to analyze it impartially. I don't own a Louis XIV or Louis XIII biography, but I will look for one in a library or purchase one online if it is not too expensive. This seems like a much better option than defaulting only to those necessarily ancient sources available in the public domain. Coemgenus 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"[http://www.amazon.com/Fabrication-Louis-XIV-Peter-Burke/dp/0300059434/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product The Fabrication of Louis XIV]", written by Peter Burke in 1994, does not appear to mention the Virgin at all in connection with Louis XIV's birth. See [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300059434/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-1027484-8375864#reader-link here], p. 39 (search for "Louis XIII", and p. 39 will be in the search results.)
Nancy Mitford's "[http://www.amazon.com/Sun-King-Nancy-Mitford/dp/0140239677/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2 The Sun King]" (1995) appears to not mention the Virgin at all in any context relating to Louis XIII or Louis XIV.
Ian Dunlop's "[http://www.amazon.com/Louis-XIV-Ian-Dunlop/dp/0312261969/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203428296&sr=1-10 Louis XIV]" (2000) describes, at pp. 1-3, the birth of Louis XIV without mentioning the Virgin, but does say that Louis XIII found his birth to be "miraculous".
Again, I will look in the library for more sources. Coemgenus 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
More sources: In [http://www.amazon.com/Louis-XIII-Just-Lloyd-Moote/dp/0520075463/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product Louis XIII, the Just] by Lloyd Moote (1991), the author says that Louis XIII "place France under the protection of the Virgin," but not because of anything to do with his son's birth. Rather, Moote relates the incident to a desire for a victorious peace with Spain. See pp. 243-244 (search the text for "Virgin" and those pages will be among the search results.) On p. 260 of the same book, the Vow is again linked to the war with Spain, but the author also writes that "by pure chance, a second agenda became involved." That second agenda is the birth of the future Louis XIV seven months after the vow. Coemgenus 15:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1. My author does not have the bias above-mentioned because he writes 270 years after the event. Neither does his source, who writes over 200 years after the event.
2. This is simple logic: just because it's not mentioned in these books as they remain silent on it, it doesn't mean that the miracle was not a reason for the Vow. Perhaps these authors, unlike my author, during their research did not come across any such documents underscoring the importance of the miracle. Of course, if the language of the book is very clear and explicit, e.g. "these were the only reasons for the Vow" and the miracle is not enumerated as one of them, then we can say that the miracle was not a reason.
3. One must check to see how reputable these historians are. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you look at the last source I cited? It says the opposite of what you've been saying. Coemgenus 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Unlike my source, which gives exact quotes and references a historical document on this matter, yours doesn't do so for its claim that "by pure chance a second agenda [my note: the royal pregnancy] became involved". This suffices to judge which source is more reliable on this matter. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was able to examine two more modern sources at the library tonight. In "[http://www.amazon.com/Anne-Austria-France-Ruth-Kleinman/dp/0814203892/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1203466797&sr=11-1 Anne of Austria: Queen of France]" by Ruth Kleinman (1989), the author describes Louis XIII making the vow to the Virgin "in the hope of her intercession for peace" in the Spanish war. The author does not discuss the vow as related to the pregnancy except to say that Louis XIII's increased devotion may have encouraged him to resume marital relations with his wife, after some time.
In [http://www.amazon.com/Louis-XIII-Elizabeth-Wirth-Marvick/dp/B000OS8SC0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203467000&sr=1-2 Louis XIII: The making of a King], by Elizabeth Wirth Marrick (1980), the author mentions the vow not at all, but I would note that the book is mainly concerned with Louis XIII's earlier life, and describes the events of Louis XIV's conception only briefly.
I could locate nothing in the past century of scholarship that varies from the works I have cited. Although I admit that my search could not possibly be exhaustive, I have examined the most readily available books in English on the three people in question (Louis XIII, Anne of Austria, and Louis XIV). If anyone has a modern source to the contrary, please contribute a quotation from it. A tout à l'heure! Coemgenus 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


The paragraph as edited by Brian junhui sim on 18 February was fine, with all necessary information included where it should, either within text or in footnotes.

The insistance of Lil’mouse to impose his/her point of view that his/her sources are more “reliable” “believable” “credible” “acceptable” than those of anyone else - no matter who – is equivalent to a veto. Is this acceptable in the “Constitution of Wikipedia”? Can one person impose his/her view in such an intransigeant manner, making discussion impossible? Has not Coemgenus done enough running to the library & searching for books online?

This discussion turning into a saga, I propose that we leave Louis XIV as is and start a wiki article on the discussion itself. It's long enough. It takes "18" clicks of the mouse (no pun intended!) from the beginning of this discussion to its last comment - with 25 lines per viewing screen, a total of 450 lines. Frania W. (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


One of the most recent books treating of the Vow of Louis XIII is that of Abbé René Laurentin, with the title Le Voeu de Louis XIII, editor François-Xavier de Guibert, Paris (1988) ISBN : 2868399339, last reedition in 2004. The link below is from the Librairie Catholique, which cannot be accused of anti-clericalism, as cannot the author of the book, a priest.
http://www.librairiecatholique.com/livres/histoire/temps_modernes/le_voeu_de_louis_xiii_.asp
fr:wikipedia link to Abbé René Laurentin http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Laurentin
I am adding a link to a catholic forum quoting lines & pages from Abbé René Laurentin’s Vœu de Louis XIII. [1]
Frania W. (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is not being subjected to my "intrasingence" or "veto" (except to logical comparisons of sources reliability), but to your bad faith: you lied about my reference (i.e. that its website claims "the vow of Louis XIII was signed on 10 February 1638 AFTER the birth of his son") not once, but twice, making the same unsubstantiated claim here and here, so as to smear my reference by rendering it "unreliable", push your anti-miracle POV, and wipe out or minimize in a footnote my POV. This suffices to disqualify morally all of your edit attempts. I will remind all the editors and Administrators of your bad faith as many times as necessary. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


After a Request for Comment was made, John K stepped in and proposed this on 19 February: "... Can't we find a good, recent biography of Louis XIV to resolve this?" john k (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Coemgenus spent hours looking for recent books on the subject of Louis XIII's Vow & the "miraculous birth" of Louis XIV, and so did I. Links are attached to the titles we found, and Coemgenus commented on his findings. The book I found is that of Abbé René Laurentin: Le Voeu de Louis XIII, cited in my previous comment. Abbé Laurentin is an eminent theologian, with an impressive curriculum vitæ, a mariologist & specialist in apparitions. I certainly would not disregard his work. If you would be kind enough to click on the various links, since you know French it will be easy for you to read the Présentation de l'éditeur on one of them, the biography of Abbé René Laurentin in fr:wiki, and a few lines of his book on the last link. What John K invited us to do has been done. And may I suggest that if you want to discuss any further the Vow of Louis XIII and the miraculous birth of Louis XIV, you get in touch with Père René Laurentin who, I believe, is still alive. Frania W. (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The abstract of this book does not quote/present what historical sources its author used to arrive at that conclusion, so it suffers from the exact same reliability problem as Coemgenus's book when compared to mine. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You have two choices to get an answer to your question: #1 go out, buy the book & read it; #2 call the Reverend Père Laurentin & ask him - 'cause I have the feeling that if I brought the Virgin Mary down to you, you still would not be satisfied. Frania W. (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember the judicial principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? You are accusing my POV of being faulty/guilty, so it rests upon your shoulders, not mine, the burden to prove it guilty: you, not I, should go out, buy/read the book, and then present here whether its author quotes any historical documents and which ones on this specific matter. Until then, my POV is not guilty/faulty, but innocent/valid: I have a reliable source for my POV. Your source, less reliable. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You have it precisely backwards. Your "judicial principle" has no relevance to an encyclopedia. You have set one ancient text against the weight of modern scholarship and have been found lacking. You have suggested the idea of the Vow being related to Louis's birth, and you must substantiate the claim. Modern scholars find the Virgin Mary about as much involved in Louis XIV's conception as the Man in the Iron Mask, and everyone here except you agrees with them. I suggest you cease your intransigence and POV-pushing, Petit souri [sic], lest you find yourself blocked on this Wikipedia as well. Adieu. Coemgenus 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a reliable source. Your and Frania's sources are less reliable. There is no question about this, given both of your sources' lack of clear historical documentation on their position on the matter. The age of any source is only of secondary importance after its reliability. However, in order to seek consensus, I am ready to do either of two things: 1. drop my less reliable few other sources from the reference list and not include yours either, all being less reliable than Henri Bremond's book, or 2. include yours, too, along with my other less reliable sources, so as to say that the several interpretations in favor of my POV are "controversial" (e.g. "According to several controversial interpretations, this was an act of thanksgiving to the Virgin, who, it was believed, had interceded for the perceived miracle."). Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal of reaching a consensus by making deals : “take a couple of my miracles in exchange of a couple of your facts”, is not a serious proposal for an article on History - comparable to an automobile constructor accepting to replace one of the four round wheels by a square one. Frania W. (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What you call "facts" are simply unsubstantiated speculations of your and Coemgenus' authors -- unsubstantiated because they are not backed by any clear historical documentation or quotes in their books. Unlike my author, who quotes such documents. Coming from somebody like you who makes unsubstantiated claims, this is no surprise. I would suggest you rethink your position, negotiate, and seek consensus: you would be, thus, complying with the Wiki rules (WP:CONS, Wikipedia:Negotiation) and would demonstrate that you have learned to act in good faith. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If, as every historian in the past century has said, the Vow was unrelated to Louis XIV's birth, then there is no reason to mention it at all in this article. In the Louis XIII article, however, the Vow should be mentioned. The reason for the Vow, i.e., the hoped-for success in the war with Spain, should also be mentioned. If, in the Louis XIII article, after noting the modern scholarship in a footnote, you chose to add your dissenting source to that same footnote, I think this would not be improper. But most readers of the articles (both Louis XIII and Louis XIV) are interested in a brief summary of the lives of the articles' subjects, not a lengthy aside about this one point. For that reason, the articles should be standard succinct histories of their subjects, with any minor disputes relegated to footnotes where applicable (Louis XIII) and deleted where inapplicable (this article). Coemgenus 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am in total agreement with Coemgenus. Frania W. (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You are grossly misrepresenting the evidence: not "every" historian has said what you say. In fact, most of them, even from your own sources, remain silent on the topic. And, as I already said, if something is not mentioned in a book, it doesn't mean it didn't happen: I have reliable evidence that it did happen and perhaps the other historians just didn't come across that evidence. Your few authors who do mention the birth in relation to the Vow, do not reference/quote any historical documents for their conclusion, hence it is an unsubstantiated speculation. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep saying that these scholarly historians "do not reference/quote any historical documents for their conclusion." Did you even look at the footnotes in those sources? In [http://www.amazon.com/Louis-XIII-Just-Lloyd-Moote/dp/0520075463/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product Louis XIII, the Just], the footnotes clearly state that the author used the published version of the Vow as his source, and gives the details of that source -- see note 15 on p. 351. I don't know what source could be more relevant than that, and I trust the interpretation of a tenured professor and author over that of a Wikipedia editor any day. Coemgenus 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So he didn't do any research on the historical documents of that time, because if he did, he would have quoted those documents also. This is not a reliable source on this topic. Anybody can read the text of the Vow to conclude what he concluded: it doesn't take a PhD in history to do that. Plus, one cannot conclude anything about the secret, unstated reasons for the Vow just from the text of the Vow itself -- we've had this discussion already. And besides, just because he is a tenured professor of a U.S. college, that doesn't make one reputable. There are thousands of U.S. colleges with tens of thousands of history professors. Is the author a member of any Academy, like my author? Was he decorated with the highest honor of any country, like my author? This would be reputable. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Père René Laurentin's DECORATIONS & DISTINCTIONS

Officier de la Légion d'honneur (2002)

Croix de guerre 1939-1945 (deux citations)

Prix de l'Académie française : (1954, Prix Ferrières pour sa thèse Marie, l'Église et le sacerdoce, sur examen de Paul Claudel - 1958, Prix Lods de Wagmann, pour Lourdes : documents authentiques - 1979, Prix Cardinal Grente, pour "La vie de Bernadette (600.000 exemplaires) - 1983, Prix Broquette Gonin, pour Les Évangiles de l'Enfance)

Marian Award de l'University de Dayton pour son œuvre sur la Vierge (1964)

Prix Wlodzimierze Pietrzak (Varsovie) décerné pour l'ensemble de son œuvre (1974)

Prix oecuménique Sapienza (Italie) (1984)

Prix Magnificat pour son œuvre théologique décerné à Manille par Mme Cori Aquino (1987)

Plume d'or des amitiés Franco-Yougoslaves (1988)

Prix de Culture Catholique remis à Bassano di Grappa (Italie, Vénétie) (1996)

Frania W. (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume that this above message is posted in reply to the previous message in which I disputed the reputation of Coemgenus' author. This is the American historian Lloyd Moote, author of the book Coemgenus quotes "Louis XIII, the Just," not your French historian. So your message is off-topic. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lil’ mouse número tres, wikipedially or professionally speaking, for most of us, there is more to do in life than to fall into the sticky trap of the endless sterile discussions you are weaving through Wikipedia internationally. Enough is enough of your antics. There is not one article you have touched that has not been victimized by your weird tactics. Shortly after your first intervention, most articles earn the band “The neutrality of this article is disputed ». (See articles related to Romania.) In French Wikipedia, from you very first intervention as Petit' souri on Louis XVII article, you were politely told that your modification was not acceptable & could be considered “vandalism”, but you were given the benefit of the doubt. However, you ignored that first warning and, refusing the argumentations of French wikipedians, began an edit war similar to this one.

Louis XVII discussion page in fr:wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Louis_XVII

Petit souri http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Petit_souri

and adopting cloned aliases Petit souri 2 and Petit souri 3. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Petit_souri_2

Judged unreliable for articles related to French history, your sources were not accepted and the changes you brought to the articles on first Louis XVII, then Louis XIV & Louis XIII were rejected/removed, your repetitive wiki-accounts questioned, cancelled & you were made to revert to the original "Petit souri". Your first intervention at French Wikipedia was on 16 December 2007, on 20 December, you received your first warning, on 21 December, you were barred for 24 hours, on 29 December for one week, on 24 January 2008 Lil' mouse 2 was sent a warning, and on 30 January the three Petit' souri mouseketeers were barred for one month – your current suspension.

Thanks to you, the article on Louis XVII in fr:wiki is now with the band:

Cet article provoque une controverse de neutralité (voir la discussion).

Considérez cet article avec précaution. (Questions courantes)

Your modifications on both L. XIV & L. XIII were removed. Your suspension cut short further discussion as is happening here. Frania W. (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You lied on the Louis XVII talk page about my contributions on the English Wikipedia (e.g. unlike your false claims, the English articles I edited were not blocked), just as you lied here, too, about my source. You now lie about my other two accounts on the French Wiki: they were not cancelled. I chose not to use them anymore and use just my initial account. Also, they were created not for incorrect purposes, but for reasons similar to those for this account (i.e. password issues). Nothing new about your warfare tactics to push your POV. The admin who requested that ban and removed my edits on the French Wikipedia also lied about my reference (on Louis XVII in his case). His demand for a permanent ban was, thus, rightly denied: my French account, Petit souri, was banned only for a month, not permanently. The English saying "birds of a feather flock together" summarizes well the concerted actions of two people (i.e. you and the French admin) with similar worldviews and similar tactics (e.g. lies) to push their similar POV's and to silence all dissenting POV's by banning their proponent (i.e. me) for trumped-up charges (e.g. your above mentioned lies on the Louis XVII talk page, the "Zizanie" section).
Your bad faith (e.g. lies about my reference and other above mentioned lies) makes any consensus with you impossible. And since Petit souri was banned for a month for failure to seek consensus, I think you deserve the same for similar reasons. I am not going to press for it, though, unless you edit this article without negotiating here first to seek a new consensus in good faith. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

I've referred this matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Perhaps (another) opinion might help resolve this situation. Coemgenus 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The section immediately above this looks pretty daunting. Could the involved parties sum up the dispute in a more or less concise manner? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote on the request for comment: "Several editors disagree on the significance of the dedication by Louis XIII of France to the Virgin Mary. Specifically, we disagree on (1)Whether it relates to the birth of Louis XIV, (2) whether it is relevant to this article (rather than Louis XIII's article) and (3) whether, if relevant, it should be included in a footnote or in the article text." Coemgenus 03:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that Someguy1221 wanted a summary of the arguments on either side of the dispute(s) in the section above, not a copy-paste of the summary of your first Request for Comment, which anybody can find relatively easily. So, please, be the first to summarize your case, since you are the one contesting the current consensus on the above topic, existing cf. the History page. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. And not just for me; more people are likely to chime in if they can form an opinion without reading a kilometer of text. And with all the vandalism intermingling with legit edits in the history, it's hard to even see the specific edits being disputed. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. The passage in question is the second paragraph of this section. Lil' mouse 3 added language that refers to a Vow of Louis XIII to place France under the protection of the Virgin Mary. Louis XIII took this Vow in February 1638. While all of the editors here agree that this is true -- the Vow is well-documented -- Louis XIII's motivations are in question. Lil' mouse 3 says that the Vow "was an act of thanksgiving to the Virgin, who, it was believed, had interceded for the perceived miracle." The passive voice construction is what first attracted me to this sentence. When I attempted to change it (to indicate who believed this miracle), Lil Mouse 3 (under his previous persona), reverted me, as did an anonymous editor. As I investigated further, I discovered that not only was the sentence in passive voice, but that it was poorly sourced. The five or six modern sources I detailed above either say that Louis XIII's reason for the Vow was related to his war with Spain (as the text of the Vow says) or else they discuss the birth of Louis XIV without mentioning this Vow at all. In either case, those sources all suggest that this has nothing to do with Louis XIV, the subject of this article, and belongs (if anywhere) in the Louis XIII article. User:Frania Wisniewska added a French source, which she could probably explain better than I can, with her superior knowledge of that language. Lil Mouse 3's sources are (1) a 100-year-old history written by a clergyman, and (2) the website of shrine to the Blessed Virgin. I believe that the weight of modern scholarship accords with Frania W and me. Lil Mouse 3 disagrees. And so on, for several weeks now. I'm actually a little embarrassed to have spent so much time on such a small point, but this is an important article that I would like to see featured again someday, and to leave it full of fringe theories just doesn't sit right with me. Coemgenus 04:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
1. I, Lil' mouse 3 with all my previous personas, Lil' mouse 2 and Lil' mouse, have a source by a well respected French historian (who happens to be a clergyman also), Henri Bremond (Wiki article in English here). He was a member of the prestigious French Academy, decorated with the highest French order, Légion d'honneur. He wrote the book I quote in 1908. His book quotes and references historical documents to conclude that the Vow of Louis XIII was made also because of the miraculous concurrent pregnancy of his wife and upcoming birth of his son, Louis XIV, miracle apparently interceded by Virgin Mary. This is the topic of the above dispute.
2. I am afraid Coemgenus makes a logical mistake: just because a book does not mention something, it doesn't mean that thing did not happen. Silence does not equal negation. Perhaps his (American) authors, during their research for their books, did not run into the evidence that my (French) author ran into (something very plausible, given that a French would likely know more details than an American about all the relevant French historical documents on a topic). Most of Coemgenus' authors remain silent on the topic of dispute. Only one of Coemgenus' sources suggests that the upcoming birth of Louis XIV was not a reason for his father's Vow. Therefore, Coemgenus is wrong to claim that "all" of his sources suggest this idea: most of his sources don't say anything on the topic.
3. Frania's book also supports the same idea as Coemgenus', but it does not quote any historical references. In fact, Frania did not even read the relevant part of the book: she only provided us with its abstract, not the exact page where the case is made. Therefore, in absence of any proof of historical documentation on the topic, Frania's book is less reliable than mine.
4. Coemgenus' book does not quote any historical documents either, except for the text of the Vow itself, which does not mention the concurrent royal pregnancy or upcoming birth as one of its stated reasons. This book draws conclusions about any unstated, secret reasons the Vow may have had only from the text of the Vow itself. I say that without additional historical documents to put the Vow in the context of its time, it is impossible to draw any such conclusions about any secret, unstated reasons. We all know that a law (a royal edict such as this Vow, a law in all but name, given that the King was the supreme legislator in that time and that the Vow, like any law, forces the Frenchmen to do something), like many examples of laws in the history of mankind prove, can have both stated, clear reasons, and unstated, secret reasons for its issuance. Based only on the stated reasons of a law, one cannot draw any reliable conclusions about its unstated reasons: they can be inferred only from analyzing other related historical documents. At best, one can only speculate based on the legal text alone, but such speculation carries much less weight and reliability than a well-researched conclusion, based on other historical documents. Hence, I say that my book is more reliable than Coemgenus' book also.
5. Another issue appears to be the age of a source: is a newer source necessarily better than an older one? Is the age of a source more important than its reliability? I say that the age of a source can only be of secondary importance after its reliability. As far as I know, the Wikipedia guidelines remain silent on the age-reliability relationship.
6. Another issue revolves around criteria for source reliability (the reason for Coemgenus' second RFC). By me, the reliability of a source on a specific topic (which may very well differ from its reliability on a different topic), must be judged by: A. how much historical documentation on that topic it uses to draw conclusions, and B. the reputation of the author. I will not judge myself the reliability of the documents themselves, as this would be equivalent with me, an anonymous editor, claiming historical expertise impossible to prove given the Wiki editors' anonimity and, thus, contesting/judging the already established reputation/reliability of the source's author him-/her-self.
7. I am a little embarassed, too, for having spent so much time on the above dispute, but I could simply not allow Frania's bad-faith to hijack this topic.
8. In the end of his summary, Coemgenus exagerates again, just as above, at point 2, where he spoke of "all" his sources as opposed to just one. This article is not full of fringe "theories." At best, there is only a single one so-called "fringe" theory: the topic of the dispute. The other related topic (i.e. the miracle itself, that of Louis XIV's birth and his mother's pregnancy), which is not being disputed, is actually very well established not to merit at all the adjective "fringe." So there are no multiple "theories": only a single "theory." Also, this theory is not "fringe" at all: in the popular memory of the French, Louis XIII's Vow and Louis XIV's birth are linked, as evidenced even by those who attack this link (e.g. Frania's book: "Le " vœu de Louis XIII ", qui consacrait la France à Dieu par la Vierge Marie, n'est pas ce qu'on croit. La mémoire populaire l'a mythifié. Elle a confondu la naissance mortelle d'un dauphin, le futur Louis XIV, avec cet événement " immortel ", comme disait le roi lui-même." Fr. René Laurentin, "Le Voeu de Louis XIII").
9. This was the last compromise I proposed in light of the above considerations and in an attempt to seek consensus. It has been turned down. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


(1) "He [Bremond] was a member of the prestigious French Academy, decorated with the highest French order, Légion d'honneur."

While not a member of the Académie française, Abbé René Laurentin has been honored by four prizes from the prestigious institution. He also was decorated with the Légion d’honneur. However, with all due respect to both abbés Bremond & Laurentin, being a member of the first one or receiving the second does not make one infallible.

(2) "...just because a book does not mention something, it doesn't mean that thing did not happen."

Lil’mouse 3 wants us to give unshakable proof from a reliable source, yet his/her above statement is in total contradiction with his/her demand, adding personal interpretation by quoting unwritten words found between the lines of royal edict signed by L.XIII.

(3) "Frania's book also supports the same idea as Coemgenus', but it does not quote any historical references. In fact, Frania did not even read the relevant part of the book:..."

Request was made that we find titles & we went searching. Even if we could get the books into our hands immediately, we would need more than one day to read them & find all the quotes needed here. It happens that Père René Laurentin’s is not an easy book to get overnight & all I could quote was the editor’s text which I found online. That’s why "Frania did not even read the relevant part of the book." According to abstracts, its author worked from four (4) original documents, which I intend to find.

(4) "Coemgenus' book does not quote any historical documents either, except for the text of the Vow itself, which does not mention the concurrent royal pregnancy or upcoming birth as one of its stated reasons."

A clear reason why we should stick to such text & not extrapolate by putting in the mouth of L.XIII words he did not say.

"Based only on the stated reasons of a law, one cannot draw any reliable conclusions about its unstated reasons: they can be inferred only from analyzing other related historical documents."

Once signed into law, the law is the law, applicable in the very words it has been signed – not to be interpreted at one’s convenience. If after being put into effect it is felt that the wording of the law does not cover all it was meant to cover, then it is amended or revoked. No such thing with the Vow of L. XIII as, for instance, the Edict of Nantes by Henri IV (1598) and its revocation by L. XIV (1685).

Frania W. (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I wish Lil'mouse 3 had had the courtesy of not inserting her comments within my text rendering impossible for a neutral party to read my argumentation, as if it had been edited. Could this be changed? Frania W. (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to Frania's request, I moved my answers to her points out of her text and regrouped them here together:

1. This is beside the point. I never made the point that your author is less reputable/reliable than my author. I only made the point that your author's book is less reliable than my author's. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
2. I did not add my personal unreferenced interpretation to the Vow (as this would be WP:OR), but quoted a reputable source for its interpretation of the Vow. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Ok, I'll be waiting. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
4.A. Re: ""Coemgenus' book (...) did not say." Again, there are unstated reasons for any law, which is not "putting words in anybody's mouth." To claim otherwise is to ignore many laws throughout history with their hidden agendas. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
4.B. Re: ""Based only (...) (1685)." Any law (not just those two edicts) can have more than obvious reasons. The fact that there are sources saying so about this particular law (e.g. Henri Bremond's book) proves you wrong. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, everyone's had their say -- let's wait for others to weigh in before re-hashing the lengthy arguments above. Remember, this was supposed to be a summary! Coemgenus 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I feel I have expressed my arguments clearly & was going to propose we stop here & "wait for others to weigh in". Coemgenus beat me to it. Frania W. (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll be waiting for others to weigh in and also for Frania's proofs of her source reliability. Specifically, I would like to see a photocopy of the page(s) in the book with her argument as well as of those with its references on the topic of this debate. This guarantee is necesssary, in my opinion, given that she has made unsubstantiated claims about references on this topic. It would not be too difficult a thing to do: Frania could make a simple scan of the page(s) as JPG file(s), which could then be uploaded on a free web page that could be created, for instance, on Yahoo-Geocities or any other similar free web host. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What else? Have you every heard the word “copyright”? Do you know the penalty for violating it? You do not go around photocopying pages of a book & uploading them online. If Père René Laurentin AND his editor (!) wanted the book online, they would give authorization to GOOGLE. In the meantime, one has to go out & buy the book. We also had agreed not to chime in until "others weigh in", so that's the end for me. Frania W. (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You can email the photocopies to me at petitsouri2008@yahoo.com. This does not infrige copyright laws, because it's not mass distributed, but for your private individual use, cf. the legal exemptions from both the French copyright law and the U.S. copyright law (i.e. "fair use"). I quoted both laws since you live in France, I presume, and I live in the U.S. and also as the English Wikipedia is based here, in the U.S. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If the subject is Louis XIII's dedication of France to the Virgin, 1638, the point being debated here may matter. Otherwise it is a very minor detail which has no place in an article on Louis XIII or Louis XIV. WP:UNDUE is relevant here: does any published biography of Louis XIV, and there are rather many have been written over the years, discuss this point? Hard to prove a negative, but easy enough to disprove by showing one that does. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not relevant here, in my opinion. As to the books that discuss the reasons for Louis XIII's Vow (three so far), they are presented in this as well as the prior thread, along with their respective weblinks. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Angus McLellan; this is such a minor point in relation to the subject (Louis XIV, whose article this is, not his father's) and I could consider it as falling under WP:UNDUE. I believe users are making a mountain out of a molehill, really. No matter whose POV is in question, or who is engaging in original research by synthesis, I read the entire above discussion thinking, "So?" Why does this matter? This is perhaps even too minor to be moved to Louis XIII's article. María (habla conmigo) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Angus and María. This point is quite minor (I say that despite all the time I've wasted debating it). Coemgenus 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Angus, María & Coemgenus - and so much so with Angus' opening statement, that I propose removing the second paragraph of Early years. Frania W. (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, any of you who are supporting this removal, quote the exact paragraph that says the prominence of a topic (not of a viewpoint on a topic) determines what topic can or cannot be included in an article. I have not seen any such a paragraph in the WP:UNDUE rules or in any other WP rules. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Coemgenus 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed: the WP:UNDUE rules apply to topics also, not just viewpoints. Therefore, please, what are the evidence-based arguments that this topic is insignificant to the article? I am asking because the rules mention "significance to the subject." Anybody who dislikes the topic (e.g. non-Catholics) can claim the topic is "minor" to further his/her bias; however, such claims must be substantiated with verifiable references. I'm awaiting for your sources.
I have evidence that this topic is not minor at all: in the popular memory of the French, Louis XIII's Vow and Louis XIV's birth are present together, as evidenced even by those who attack their link (e.g. Frania's book: "Le " vœu de Louis XIII ", qui consacrait la France à Dieu par la Vierge Marie, n'est pas ce qu'on croit. La mémoire populaire l'a mythifié. Elle a confondu la naissance mortelle d'un dauphin, le futur Louis XIV, avec cet événement " immortel ", comme disait le roi lui-même." Fr. René Laurentin, "Le Voeu de Louis XIII"). Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do biographical studies of Louis XIV include it? That would be a key indicator of its importance in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I cited a few Louis XIV biographies that you can consult on Amazon.com. "[http://www.amazon.com/Fabrication-Louis-XIV-Peter-Burke/dp/0300059434/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product The Fabrication of Louis XIV]", written by Peter Burke in 1994, does not appear to mention the Virgin at all in connection with Louis XIV's birth. See [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300059434/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-1027484-8375864#reader-link here], p. 39 (search for "Louis XIII", and p. 39 will be in the search results.)
Nancy Mitford's "[http://www.amazon.com/Sun-King-Nancy-Mitford/dp/0140239677/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2 The Sun King]" (1995) appears to not mention the Virgin at all in any context relating to Louis XIII or Louis XIV.
Ian Dunlop's "[http://www.amazon.com/Louis-XIV-Ian-Dunlop/dp/0312261969/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203428296&sr=1-10 Louis XIV]" (2000) describes, at pp. 1-3, the birth of Louis XIV without mentioning the Virgin, but does say that Louis XIII found his birth to be "miraculous".
These are not the only ones, obviously, but are among the most recent scholarly biographies of Louis XIV. Coemgenus 13:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


In order to answer Angus, one would have to read the following (retrieved from article on L.XIV in fr:wiki), and, excepting that of Voltaire, all recent work by respected historians:

Biographies

  • Yves Marie Bercé, Louis XIV, Cavalier Bleu coll Idées reçues, 2005, (ISBN 2846701229) ;
  • Lucien Bély, Louis XIV premier d'entre les rois, Gisserot, coll. Histoire, 2005, (ISBN 287747772X ) ;
  • François Bluche, Louis XIV, Hachette, coll. « Pluriel », 1999 (1re édition 1986) (ISBN 2012789870) ;
  • Gérard Sabatier, Versailles ou la figure du roi, Albin Michel, coll. « Bibliothèque des idées », 1999 (ISBN 222610472).
  • Béatrix Saule, La journée de Louis XIV, 16 novembre 1700, Actes Sud, 2003
  • Max Gallo, Louis XIV (2 tomes : Le Roi Soleil (1638-1682) et L'Hiver du grand roi (1683-1715)), Xo, 2007

Synthèse

  • Le siècle de Louis XIV par Voltaire - 1751
  • Olivier Chaline, Le règne de Louis XIV, Flammarion, 2005 (ISBN 2082105180) ;
  • Pierre Goubert, Le siècle de Louis XIV, Livre de Poche, coll. « Référence », 1998 (ISBN 2253905453) ;
  • Joel Cornette, Chronique du règne de Louis XIV , SEDES, coll. Regards sur l'Histoire, 1997 (ISBN 2718190116) ;
  • Hubert Methivier, Le siècle de Louis XIV , PUF, coll. Que sais-je, 1995 (ISBN 2253905453) ;
  • André Corvisier, La France de Louis XIV: Ordre intérieur et place en Europe SEDES, coll. Regards sur l'Histoire, 1994 (ISBN 2718136766 ) ;
  • François Bluche, Le temps de Louis XIV, Hachette, coll Vie quotidienne, 1994 (ISBN 2012351050) ;
  • Ragnhild Hatton, L’Époque de Louis XIV, Flammarion, 1992 (1re édition 1969) (ASIN 2080609904) ;
  • Robert Mandrou, Louis XIV en son temps, PUF, coll Peuples et Civilisations, 1990 (ISBN 2130358640)

Monographies

  • Faruk Bilici, Louis XIV et son projet de conquête d’Istanbul, Turk Tarih Kurumu, 2004 (ISBN 9751617014)
  • Daniel Dessert, 1661, Louis XIV prend le pouvoir. Naissance d’un mythe ?, Complexe, coll poche, 2000 (ISBN 287027792X) ;
  • Hervé Hasquin, Louis XIV face à l’Europe du Nord, Racines, coll.Racines de l'Histoire, 1995 (ISBN 2873863900 ) ;
  • Peter Burke, Louis XIV : les stratégies de la gloire, Seuil, 1998 (1re édition 1995 (ISBN 2020206382) ;
  • Pierre Goubert, Louis XIV et vingt millions de Français, Hachette, coll. « Pluriel », 1998 (1re édition 1970) (ISBN 201278870X) ;
  • Jean Meyer, 1638, La Naissance de Louis XIV, Complexe, coll. Mémoire des siècles, 1989 (ISBN 2870273037)

Frania W. (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Frania, I was evidently unclear in what I said. LM wants this included, so LM can look for a biography of Louis XIV, or even a monograph on some aspect of his reign, that gives space to this minor point. You and Coemgenus can never hope to show that none do. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would a reliable book that is not a biography not suffice, only a biography would in order to decide what is worth mentioning or not in this article?! Where in the WP rules is this specific criterion talked about in regards to "significance" of a topic? Are you applying this same criterion to, say, Louis' presence in the entertainment?! Is such a presence talked about in any biography?! I strongly doubt it.
I have a reliable proof (not a biography, but there is no WP rule that says such proof must be a biography) that shows the Vow and the birth are present in the popular memory of the French. This automatically makes these events important enough, if the people remember them. So to prove the opposite you, the ones challenging this fact, would have to show that the popular memory of the French does not, in fact, remember these things. Only then you would be able to say that these events are "minor." Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Angus, no need to apologize; I understood clearly what you were saying and thank you for stepping in to help make some sense out of this.
The debate here is not whether L.XIII made a vow & some people “believed/perceived” the birth of L.XIV, seven months after the vow, to be a miracle – both are correct - and the fact that he was named Louis-Dieudonné (God-given) is the incontestable proof of the gratitude of his parents to the Almighty. Our problem here is about the inclusion of L.XIII’s vow into the article on L.XIV – and I propose a compromise by putting the contentious paragraph in a footnote (in fact, this "debate" could be turned into an article of its own.) Frania W. (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are we all consulting biographies? Because it's a biographical article. I fail to see why this is confusing. All of your wiki-lawyering to the contrary, the emerging consensus here is in favor of deleting the whole second paragraph of the "early years" section. To be sure, I suggest a survey on the proposal. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but I think we've reached the limits of reasoned discussion long ago. Coemgenus 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted your Poll proposal as it was made in bad-faith: you have violated WP:AGF when you accused me of wiki-lawyering. Your thoughts on "reaching the limits for discussion" are prompted by your losing the debate on the double-standards issue I raised in my last message on biographies (why used for one topic, but not another to decide its "significance" for an article). Therefore, I suggest we wait for others to weigh in. Such double-standards cannot be part of good Wikipedia editing and, furthermore, biographies are not the only sources used to edit a biographical article, unlike your claims.
P.S. If you truly want to be constructive, you should refrain from further Polls and comment instead on the compromise proposal bellow, as per WP guidelines. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The only way I would agree to such a compromise would be for the wording of the paragraph remaining in the main body of the article to be changed to reflect more accurately the way the birth was regarded: as a "miracle interceded, it is believed, by the Virgin Mary," not merely as a "divine gift." The rest of the paragraph about the Vow and its reasons could then go in a footnote. There is ample evidence, some quoted even by you, Frania and Coemgenus, that the birth was regarded as a "miracle." There is also ample evidence that this miracle was attributed to Virgin Mary. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


There was a conflict in sending and the following is in answer to LM 3:15 post:

To Lil'mouse: I had written my answer to Angus before your 29FEB08 2:35 post, but had to leave my computer & when I came back, your post was there. So, I figured that it would be fine to put my answer to Angus right under his answer to me. It made more sense.

This being said, I am appalled at your behavior, inserting comments into someone's comment (mine), moving texts around without asking (mine), deleting propositions (Coemgenus) without letting anyone read what someone else had to say. This is a discussion. If we all agree that Coemgenus' proposal is not acceptable, then we tell him and HE can remove it. We should not have to read what one of us is saying up there thru your editing. You are acting like a dictator, as obviously is the case in all your interventions in Wikipedia. Frania W. (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Too late to decry my moving your message to restore temporal and logical order to this thread, per its History: your message came after mine, regardless of your excuses. Also, your concern that I inserted comments into anybody's answers is false. I could accuse you of the same -- you moved my answer down to make room for your later message above mine, making mine look as if it was in response to yours, which was not. I am also appalled at your repeated acts of bad-faith, so, please, no moralizing from you.
If you want to be constructive, please, comment on my above compromise counter-proposal: after all, this is what WP strongly encourages instead of polls. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


RE your latest point quoting Wikipedia as encouraging "discussion instead of polls", I don't believe this is meant to encourage "endless" discussions.
We have resolved nothing in miles of Talk page & Request for comment made to resolve this "minor point" with the help of third neutral parties. The current discussion can do nothing but discourage anyone from participating. You are constantly on the attack & I refuse to be dragged into this ridiculous warring.
By the way, LM, read the above (false?) P.S. 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I had to write after you inserted comments within my presentation on this RfC, making it unreadable.
Do widzenia! Frania W. (talk) 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought you meant in this last message you referred to in your prior post. I apologize, you are right: I did insert comments in that message on that one occasion.
"Ridiculous" warring?! You caused this war with your repeated acts and edit attempts of bad-faith.
As to the "endless" discussion, let's put an end to it right now by negotiating a compromise: you came with a proposal, which I would accept under certain conditions above mentioned. Do you agree with these conditions? Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried several methods of dispute resolution, all without success. If the survey was improper, I apologize, but deleting my additions to the talk page is an improper way of resolving this problem. I have restored my comments, below. Coemgenus 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the majority of the comments here... the the vow itself is essentially irrelevant in an article on Louis XIV as it was made by another person, before his birth. Thus, we should not even discuss it in this article. It might belong in the article on Louis XIII (although the Undue weight issue would need to be addressed if that happened). I feel we should delete the entire paragraph. Since the vast majority of historians writing on Louis XIV do not think this vow worth mentioning when discussing Louis VIV, neither should we. That said... As a second, less preferred option, the idea of shifting the paragraph to a footnote is acceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Coemgenus, you are in violation of the WP:Negotiate and WP:Consensus rules, on top of WP:AGF (unsubstantiated claims of "wiki-lawyering"): there is a compromise on the table proposed by Frania being negotiated by me and her, which you are refusing to comment/negotiate on. So your Poll is just a measure to derail any compromise. Due to these three violations, as well as your lack of impartiality, I will delete your poll again. If you want the Poll reinstated, somebody more impartial, such as an Administrator, should decide whether or not it's appropriate at this stage. Please, do not reinstate the Poll without first seeking an Administrator's opinion or else I will have to report your actions for possible sanctions. Again, the most constructive behavior, IMO, would be for you to negotiate on the proposed compromise measures. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lil mouse: There is NO compromise being negotiated between the two of us. My 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) sentence and I propose a compromise by putting the contentious paragraph in a footnote meant, yes, I would agree to a compromise, but nowhere did I say that I would discuss it only with you. At the point we have reached, any proposal has to be discussed by ALL of us, and the Poll initiated by Coemgenus is the best way to do it. I am asking you to reinstate it. Frania W. (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the section you deleted, Lil mouse. Please do not delete talk page sections. Coemgenus 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an outside observer who stumbled upon this melee via the RfC page. I am not an administrator, but I was nevertheless was about to restore the poll too. Any editor can restore text to a talk page. Please note that it is considered bad practice on Wikipedia to remove material from talk pages except in exceptional circumstances, e.g libel, revelation of personal details, violations of the rules for biographies of living persons, and sometimes personal attacks and incivility (although it is considered controversial to remove the latter). Repeated removal of any other material from talk pages can result in blocking.[2] Note also that having a poll is discouraged but by no means forbidden and can occasionally have its uses. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I should also point out that threatening to report someone with whom you disagree to "the admins" is also considered unacceptable

Coemgenus, you might want to consider renaming the 'Poll' to a 'Position summary'. This page definitely needs a separate section like that, where succinct summaries (max 1 sentence) of each editor's positions can be added under the various alternatives. There is so much verbiage on this page that it's virtually impossible to tease out people's relative positions quickly and easily or even see what the state of the consensus is. If everyone is serious about achieving consensus (which incidentally doesn't mean unanimity) then a 'straw poll' or 'Position summary' can be a valuable tool to achieving it. Good luck to you all. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Position summary[edit]

Delete the paragraph concerning the Vow (or at least reduce it to a footnote)[edit]

  1. Coemgenus 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Frania W. (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Folantin (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave it in[edit]

Revised first paragraph[edit]

Lil mouse has moved the discussion of how Louis's birth was viewed to the first paragraph (which deals with his birth)... with a few edits by me, that paragraph now reads:

  • Louis XIV was born in the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 5 September 1638 and promptly received the title "Premier fils de France" ("First Son of France") as well as the more traditional "Dauphin".[4] His birth came after the almost twenty-three years of childlessness of his estranged parents, Louis XIII and Anne of Austria. As a result, contemporaries regarded his birth as a miracle[5][6][7][8], and, in a show of gratitude to God for the long-awaited arrival of an heir, his parents named him Louis-Dieudonné ("God-given").

I find this acceptable... it is short and concise and does reflect the historical facts in NPOV language. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. I'd consolidate notes 5, 6, 7, and 8 in one note, just to avoid the clutter, but the text is completely appropriate, to my mind. Coemgenus 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Given Lil Mouse's most recent revert, what seems to be important to him/her is the mention of the Virgin Mary. I find this to be totally irrelevant information. It does not matter who caused the "miracle"... what matters is that Louis's birth was viewed as being miraculous. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless you prove here with the exact quotes from the pertinent WP rules why this info is "irrelevant," I will report any such deletions of well-referenced material as WP:Vandalism. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of Wikipedia:Undue weight: we've already got it mentioned that the birth was viewed as miraculous (and that only needs one reliable reference, not 4). We just don't need who was supposed to have caused the birth: even the fact that the birth was supposed to be miraculous is of dubious relevance in a general encyclopaedia article. Please also remember Wikipedia:Edit war. Moreschi (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is an encyclopedia article. Not an exhaustive biography. We use summary style. Some significant information is going to be left out. It's a complete logical fallacy to think that everything that can be referenced, even multiple times, belongs here. Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you, please, quote the exact WP rule that allows you to claim what you just claimed? I think you cannot, because anything that is "significant" can be included, per WP:UNDUE rules. And this fact is "significant:" I can drown this Talk page with all the references that mention the topic, but it's already a very long page as it is, so I'll refrain. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As demonstrated by the previous several yards of text, the consensus here is that the information is, in fact, insignificant. Coemgenus 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You are misleading, once more: the previous Talk was on a different topic -- the relationship between Louis XIII's Vow and Virgin Mary's intercession. This is a different topic: the intercession itself -- no Vow here. So no consensus here. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The logical fallacy is to assume that "can be referenced" == significant. This is not necessarily the case. Think about it and you'll see why. Tons of stuff can be referenced to multiple reliable sources: this does not mean it is significant. Especially not for "main articles" like this one. Moreschi (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lil'mouse, you've had 3 editors revert you. You have gone over the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, and by all rights should be blocked right around now. One more revert and you will be blocked. Moreschi (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, quote what are the rules for establishing "significance". If you cannot, then it's all arbitrary stuff, so your word has no more weight than mine. We would have to refer this to the appropriate Board to decide what are the criteria to establish "significance". Until then, you cannot invoke the rule of "significance" (per WP:UNDUE) to delete a well-referenced statement. You will have to find another rule in the interim, unless you want your deletion labeled as vandalism and reported as such. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph quoted at top by Blueboar at 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) is very close to the one Coemgenus & Frania has offered on 16 February. I thus accept it as is. Frania W. (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lil Mouse, Feel free to report us for vandalism if you wish. Deleting irrelevant content in good faith is not considered Vandalism. We make editorial decisions about what to discuss in an article and what not to discuss (ie significance and relevance) all the time. As the person who wishes to include the information, it is up to you to demonstrate that the belief that it was the Virgin Mary (as opposed to some other Saint) who interceeded in Louis's birth has significance and relevance in this article. It is not up to us to demonstrate that it does not.
Oh... by the way... you are in violation of WP:3rr (which is considered a form of vandalism)... please do not revert to your preferred language again. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that keeping the "Blueboar version" is best. If we had to include every apocryphal legend about a figure as well-known as Louis XIV this article would probably be several gigabytes long. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not "apocryphal" at all: Louis XIV believed in this intercession and acted on this belief! See the quote bellow. Also, I have many sources referencing it, so it's "significant", not "irrelevant". Here's the quote in French:

" Après la mort d'Anne d'Autriche (1666), Louis XIV fit placer dans la chapelle Notre-Dame de Grâces une plaque de marbre noir, aux armoiries de France, où était gravé:

Louis XIV, Roy de France et de Navarre, donné à son peuple par le voeu qu'Anne d'Autriche Reine de France, sa mère, a fait dans cette église, a voulu que cette pierre fust ici posée pour servir de monument, à la postérité, et de sa reconnaissance, et des messses que sa libéralité y a fondées. pour l'âme de sa dite mère. Le 23 avril 1667.


Le rôle joué par le frère Fiacre est donc attesté avec éclat: inspiré de prier pour la fécondité de la reine Anne d'Autriche, il fut reconnu, soutenu et mandaté par la famille royale. Louis XIV lui-même fut élevé dans la conviction qu'il devait sa naissance à Notre-Dame de Grâces; il le reconnut officiellement par son pèlerinage festif de 1660 et par cette inscription de 1667, gravée dans le marbre." (René Laurentin. Le Voeu de Louis XIII, Paris: François-Xavier de Guibert, 1988, pp. 62-63) Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(It might help if you provide a translation for those who don't speak French)... OK... if I read the French correctly, you have one historian who, in the context of discussing an inscription Louis put on his mothers tomb (an inscription that does not mention Mary), quotes a theologian (a marianologist?) saying that he thinks that this shows that Louis thought his birth was caused by Mary's intercession ... but you still have not discussed why is this significant? Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful for me to clarify my position for Lil Mouse... I am not challenging the fact that people in France in the 1600s thought that the birth of Louis the XIV was a miracle. I am not even challenging the fact that people thought the miracle was due to the intercession of Mary. In fact, I am sure they did (given that France was a Catholic country in the age we are talking about, and people believed strongly in the Saints and especially the intercession of the Virgin).
What I am asking is whether the belief in an intercession by the Virgin had any direct impact on Louis's life and actions. For example, did it have an effect on his domestic or foreign policy? If it did, what was that impact? This is what I mean by significance. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ François Bluche (translated by Mark Greengrass (1990). Louis XIV. New York: Franklin Watts. p. p. 11. 
    • ^ François Bluche (translated by Mark Greengrass (1990). Louis XIV. New York: Franklin Watts. p. p. 11.