Wikipedia

Talk:Louis XIV/Archive 2

< Talk:Louis XIV
Latest comment: 13 years ago by 220.253.218.165 in topic Rescue from drowning
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Was he Great?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Professional historians have never called him as "Louis the Great". Why? Because Louis XIV lost wars & battles. Louis the great = Louis I of Hungary

Yes, he was great. He remains to this day perhaps the most well-known monarch in all of the Western world and beyond. Never has a monarch ruled longer. Never has a kind had so much influence on the World's culture. His descendants still rule in Spain and elsewhere. As for your obscure Hungarian king, I doubt anyone outside of Hungary (assuming Hungary has existed as a country for as long as France has) has ever heard of him. Funny how Hungarians seem to suffer an inferiority complex which drives then to making false claims. Just look at the current French president Nicolas Pal Sarkozy de Nagy Bocsa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


France was only a nominal anarchic mosaic "state" in rest of the medieval age similar to Holy Roman Empire. France become great power after the centralization and absulotism in Early Modern age. The inland revenues of medieval french kings were very low, and the military potential of medieval France was laughable. Don't forget: Louis XIV lost a lot of important battles. Louis the great of Hungary owned bigger territory than Louis XIV of France, and Louis I of Hungary was more successfull in its age. Just read the English Britannica Encyclopedia , Louis the Great means Louis I of Hungary. Or read German Brockhaus encyclopedia. Learn more History!


Sárközy is not Hungarian, but a jewish descendant from Hungary.

Translation?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Doesn't "L'État, c'est moi" translate to "The State is me"? "I am the State" should be "Je suis l'état", no? Tzittnan (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, it translates directly as "the State, it is me". But the most common translation of "l'État, c'est moi" has been, to my knowledge, "I am the State".Brian junhui sim (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion section

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section "conclusion" needs a new name. This is an encyclopedia article, not a paper. Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I propose merging the natural son Louis de Bourbon, comte de Vermandois to this article on the basis that he lacks independent notability. Louis de Vermandois was part of a group of bastard children of Louis XIV and he died aged only 16 years, having achieved nothing. I suggest expanding the illegitimate children section to include:

  • Louis de Bourbon, comte de Vermandois (October 2, 1667 - November 18, 1683), also known as Louis de Vermondois, was born at the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Louis was legitimated at the age of two in 1669 and was given the title of comte de Vermandois. At the same time, he was made the Admiral of France. After his mother left to become a nun, he lived at the Palais Royal with his uncle and aunt, the Duke and Duchess of Orléans. The duchess was said to have a great deal of affection for her nephew. While he was at the court of his libertine and homosexual uncle, he met the Chevalier de Lorraine, his uncle's most famous lover. It is said that the young comte was seduced by the older chevalier and began practising le vice italien. Louis XIV exiled his son and the Chevalier de Lorraine and in June 1682, Louis was sent to live in Normandy. Seeking peace between father and son, his aunt Liselotte suggested to the king that Louis be sent as a soldier to Flanders, which was then under French occupation. The king agreed and his son was sent to the Seige of Courtray. There Louis became ill but continued to fight, desperate to regain his father's love, regardless of advice given by the royal doctor and the marquis de Montchevreuil that he return to Lille in order to recuperate. He died aged just sixteen and was buried at the cathedral at Arras.

See, one paragraph. The rest is not notable information and reads as a mere genealogical entry. The following should go in other articles if it is important:

"His sister and aunt were greatly impacted by his death. His father, however, did not even shed a tear. His mother, still obsessed with the sin of her previous affair with the king, said upon hearing of her son's death: I ought to weep for his birth far more than his death."

That is all... Charles 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start I will, as before, voice my disaproval of Charles' way of dealing with articles he deems "unnecessary" - by just redirecting them without even a discussion on the talk page. The article on the comte de Vermandois is of good length and referenced. In other words, certainly not an article that should be redirected on the whim of one editor, who when redirecting also said in the edit summary "If you actually want to help wikipedia, write about him at the article's of his parents" - not a very kind comment to User:Tbharding, who created the article in good faith. Charles seems to have some campaign to redirect as many royal articles as he possibly can, and most without discussing first, and this person, like others, warrant an article in my opinion. One of Charles' reason for the directing appears to be the article contains little information; being a stub is no reason for redirection. It is possible more information can be found, but regardless I think the article stands as it is. And it certainly warrants a discussion first.--UpDown (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment on the situation, not the person. UpDown, please do not create a repeat of a prior situation. If you want to investigate the Tbharding issue further, by all means do so, but you will likely be humbled by your findings. If it warrants a discussion then DISCUSS it. Length and references alone do not make for encyclopedic content. Further comments about me should be directed to my talk page otherwise I will seek administrative intervention. Charles 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
May I remind you that you also commented on the person, with comments in edit summaries like "We all know what you "think". Or is it going to be another silly revert-and-run?". I have no interest to rake through Tbharding's edit history, but he created an article that could be argued to be notable, so a straight redirect is not the right answer. I also have no interest to start a discussion about you, but your actions are important to this article. Regardless, I believe this article to be notable, and it is referenced and has room for improvement. --UpDown (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with UpDown's sentiment that "being a stub is no reason for redirection". As he notes, more information could be found and the "Vermandois" article itself lengthened.Brian junhui sim (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article could be three times as long and it wouldn't be encyclopedic. Charles 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well there we strongly disagree.--UpDown (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
i can understand the points of view of both from reading the above but the length of an article or who the person is/was is also of little importance. charles, like your similar views on Louise Adélaïde, wait till what others say. overall though, I would prefere this one to stay as it is :) Tbharding (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefere to see this article kept, if only because it seems fairly significant for LGBT history. Particularly if his homosexual affair was the only reason for falling out of favor with his father. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Nun of Moret

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know of mainstream respectable historians who believe and have convincingly argued the case that Marie-Anne de France did not really die but in truth became the black nun (Louise Marie-Therese)? So far, it seems mostly court gossip and conspiracy theory.

Nonetheless, assuming the story of the black nun is true and that she really was Marie-Anne and that she really was the result of Marie-Therese's adultery with Nabo, should we continue to place her in the section of "Legitimate children of Louis XIV"? To say that she is both the illegitimate child of Marie-Therese and the legitimate child of Louis XIV is akin to claiming that the duc du Maine was both the legitimate child of Marie-Therese and the illegitimate child of Louis XIV. Contradictory and ridiculous.Brian junhui sim (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I will temporarily "remove" the Black Nun from the article until we can figure out her rightful place in it. As I mentioned above, I'm sceptical about the Marie-Anne-becoming-the-black-nun-issue; and, in any case, if she really were Marie-Therese's illegitimate child, then we need to relook her place in an article on Louis XIV.Brian junhui sim (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lived vicariously for 50 years in the Court of Louis XIV, along with my historian husband. We have looked at just about every manuscript and printed source that has survived; and if we personally haven't looked at a specific source, we know several French historians who have! I can assure you that no serious scholar has ever discussed this matter. And why? Because in no reliable source has anyone found a statement or gossip about the legend you have unearthed. What there is is this: The Grande Mademoiselle was recounting the sort of hurtful wit that courtiers were wont to display: a newborn who is a month premature and who has some sort of oxygenation problem that caused the sort of cyanosis that "blue babies" used to have before the heart operation. The 17th century was a time when anything atyical in the appearance of a newborn was chalked up to something the mother had seen during gestation: a hare-lip: she had eaten rabbit, had seen a rabbit up close; a club foot: she had seen a cripple walk by. It is in this vein that Mademoiselle's comments should be seen: the queen had seen a Moor too frequently and even though they removed him from her service once they knew she was pregnant, it was too late: the bad vibes (and "black" color) had done their work. Actually, most of the Moors who served princesses were children and were scarcely able to make the queen commit adultery. So, you are very wise to have "temporarily" removed it.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

***The 17th century was a time when anything atyical in the appearance of a newborn was chalked up to something the mother had seen during gestation: a hare-lip: she had eaten rabbit, had seen a rabbit up close; a club foot: she had seen a cripple walk by. ***
I can assure you that such beliefs were not uncommon in 20th century France...
Frania W. (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-empting an edit war

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Factstraight, please understand that, my edits are similarly in good faith from my point of view at least, and WP:OWN has nothing to do with this.

If you read carefully, you will note that most of my edits have been to standardise the article. These include italicising "Parlement" or "Fronde". I also capitalised, as is common practice, references to buildings, like "Châteaux de...", or to specific institutions, like "Church" and "State". Similarly, this was done when referring to specific international agreements--one usually writes "the Peace", "this Treaty" or "that Truce" rather than "the peace", "this treaty" or "that truce" (which changes the meaning), just as one refers to the Great War as "the War" and not "the war".

I have also included additional or rectified faulty information, such as noting that the succession of the Electorate of Cologne played a part in causing the Nine Years' War, or that Fouquet was sentenced by the Parlement to banishment rather than by Louis XIV who commuted it to life imprisonment. I have added links to other articles as well as references and notes.

In addition, I have altered some paragraphs to improve the flow of the article or the presentation of facts. Certain passages I have similarly changed for the same purpose, and I have sought to establish an individual's full name before referring to him by a better-known name for the sake of clarity.

Indeed, some portions of the article that I amended have nothing to do with your edit. You may note that, unlike how you reverted my edit to yours, I didn't revert your edit to that of Johnello, but merely added to and changed it where I thought necessary. In truth, I appreciate much of your conciseness and diction, but think some changes important after having re-read the whole article.

However, it seems that you didn't even see a need to read my edits but simply reverted it to your version and, in the process, removed all that could be useful, ludicrously causing me to have to explain my changes. And so now, because your reversion seems senseless and unjustified, I'm going to have it reverted. Brian junhui sim (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as you say you did not revert my edits wholesale, I did not do so to yours either. However in an article this lengthy, we may both be missing some of the other's nuanced edits. I checked to see whether several specific but minor changes were left intact and noted that most of my input was deleted without explanation. Thank you for now clarifying some of your edits. Now that I understand your intent, I'll pay closer heed to your efforts at "standardisation", and will try to defer to you on those points you seem to find more important than I do (such as capitalisation even on second reference, and using full names & titles instead of shortening the article by allowing the wiki link to do that work) despite my disagreements.
Over all, however, this article contains excessive capitalization and I would like to see it reduced. It also includes more detail about people other than Louis XIV than is justified in so long an article; again, wiki links allow people to retrieve peripheral data (why does this article need to tell us which Polish primate proclaimed Conti's accession, or 3 different ways to refer to Montmorency-Bouteville, or how Couperin influenced Bach, Strauss & Revel?).
I object to most expressions of opinions in bios unless they are quotes; I may agree with you that Louis XIV was "the ultimate patron" of the visual arts, but I daresay some may think otherwise. And it is enough to know that Louis XIII diluted Anne's authority as regent without speculating that he did so because he doubted her; mightn't he have just wanted to reward some loyalists posthumously with a share of the royal power? Some of my changes were matters of fact; the Electorate of the Palatinate was an electorate by this time, no longer a "comital Crown". I wikified Lyons because the French and English often spell it differently, and the link clarifies usage.
Finally, I too prefer to avoid an edit war. So I can't agree that having to explain deletions of someone else's work is "ludicrous": that's what edit summaries and this talk page are for. Of course I believe my input is appropriate or I wouldn't insert it. But since you naturally believe that yours is correct, we must compromise. Accepting 10% of edits it took time and effort to make doesn't feel like reasonable compromise to me. I'm willing to accept some changes I'm not keen on, if you are. In that spirit, I await your response before editing the article further. FactStraight (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
After re-reading more thoroughly, I am sorry to say that I may have overlooked those edits of mine that you had left unchanged. You will allow me to excuse myself on the basis of the length of the article. Moreover, if the lack of explanation in my amendment caused you displeasure, I hope it may comfort you to know I was attempting a complete overhaul and standardization; this would have resulted in many changes, difficult to explain on an edit summary page and usually unnecessary on a talk page.
I agree that, with regard to bias, a measure of discretion is necessary. Some sections, such as the “ultimate patron” remark, I think can be removed or altered. Others that you note, however, such as the regency council issue, may not have anything to do with opinion at all and need not be changed.
While I acknowledge that my understanding of events and facts cannot be 100% complete (and so I must defer on issues such as the “Palatine crown”), there are things of which I am quite certain. On those, I am unwilling to compromise. So, for instance, I will not be able to defer to you if you insist on Fouquet’s sentencing.
I can understand your desire to avoid excessive capitalisation. However, as it is, I can’t really find examples where capitalisation in the article is not the common practice. As you contend that there is in fact excessive capitalisation, and as you note, it is a lengthy article, I hope you may be able to indicate to me certain examples for consideration.
Also, regarding “peripheral details” and full names, I believe that in some instances, they are necessary, and in others, greatly appreciated. You see, like most people, I edit according to how I like articles to be presented to me for reading. I am not fond of articles which constantly direct me elsewhere to find the smallest details, but prefer those which provide enough additional information to allow me to continue with minimal interruption and yet see the bigger picture. Therefore, these little details are important to me and will naturally be included in an edit by me.
As you may see, I am willing to compromise, and as a preliminary gesture of goodwill, have edited the article to remove or alter some sections that appear offending. I am open to further changes and hope that you too are willing to compromise and that, out of our discussion and compromise, the article will emerge the better. Brian junhui sim (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen: As one of the editors of some of the French royalty (mainly Bourbon) & other articles on French history, I feel that I should have my say in this discussion. I happen to agree/disagree with both of you... at times. As far as the current dialogue is concerned, I shall concentrate on the use of wikilinking & capitalisation - both overdone, in my opinion.
  • Once the reader has been directed to an article or site, it is not necessary to redirect further down the article. It is not only distracting, but implies that the reader is not able to remember what he read three lines earlier.
  • As for capitalisation, my opinion is that it is overdone in articles written in English. The word "king" means "king", so why capitalize it? And if we decide to capitalise it in instances such as *King Louis XIV*, why capitalise the castle the dear king lived in? To me, it is blowing a lot of hot air in an article! Will the castle of Versailles/château de Versailles be less of a historical splendor if the word château is not capitalised? However, to name a few, I am for capital *C* at the beginning of *Church* when it means the institution, the same with *S* for *State*, *C* for *Court*, *T* for *Treaty of Versailles* but not for *after the treaty was signed*, *P* for *Peace of Whatever* but not in *after the peace was signed*, *H* for *History* and *M* for *Man*.
Furthermore, to me, nothing is more distracting than have French wikilinked before a French word! Obviously when the French translation of a word is given, it is in French, and there is no need to be sent to a silly wiki French site that includes French fries, French kiss & French horn!
Thank you for trying to avoid an edit war, which would be the second one this Louis XIV article went through within a few months.
Frania W. (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my concerns, Brian junhui sim, and I appreciate your edits in response even more. I don't dispute the accuracy of your Fouquet comment (although I find it difficult to imagine, post-Athens/Rome, that life imprisonment was better than banishment -- even from Paris!), but about its relevance: how he came to be jailed rather than exiled belongs in his article, the removal from the king's trust and cabinet is, in my opinion, what belongs in this one. As for Anne's regency and similar issues: here I admit I'm discouraged by Wiki historical articles that tell readers "He trusted X" or "She did Y because she felt Z", describing the emotions and thoughts of people who have been dead for hundreds of years. If you deem it important to state what someone's interior considerations were, please source it, otherwise I feel obliged to "tag" it as speculation. Lastly, I'll defer to your capitalisations where standardisation is called for. In other cases, I agree wholeheartedly with Frania W.'s recommendations as a compromise, reducing the capitalization to which I otherwise object, and ask that you accept those modifications. Thanks to all for a considerate & successful collaboration on an important article! FactStraight (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad that we are able, in such a civil manner, to resolve this issue. To be frank, I had expected a rather different sort of discussion.

On links, we should follow Frania W.'s recommendations, especially when “hav(ing) French wikilinked before a French word.” Also, I defer on the issue of opinions expressed in the article and will seek to find or remember sources supporting such statements of opinion. With an article of this length though, a longer period of time, I believe, is necessary. I hope that the offending portions may be noted so that all contributors to the article may help too.

Regarding the relevance of certain lines, I cannot defer completely as it does depend on the interpretation. With the Fouquet case, for example, FactStraight, you opine that only his loss of the King's trust and place in the council belong in this article. However, to me, Louis' intervention merits a mention not only because he did it (and shouldn't his actions merit a place in his article?), but also because it may reflect on his character and politics. Therefore, the issue of relevance cannot be easily decided and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Now, on to capitalisation. In truth, I'm not some crazed "capital-iser" who goes around capitalising everything he sees. I do so because I see a need for it. (If you've already decided to throw in the towel and give in to me, then this is just for the record.)

Capitalisation is not done to add "historical splendour", or any other type for that matter, to words. One capitalises for many reasons, amongst which: to differentiate words with the same spelling but different connotations, to refer to specific things, or to indicate a title or a name. Hence, "king" in "King Louis XIV" is capitalised as it is a title/name. Likewise, "Château de Versailles" is capitalised because it is the name of a building. Similarly, one writes "Windsor Castle" (not "Windsor castle") and the "Forbidden City" (not the "forbidden city"). For example, "forbidden city" simply means any city which is forbidden, rather than the palace in Beijing. Consider also that "king" refers to a generic king, while "King" refers to a specific one. Similarly, "the Peace" is a specific peace treaty while "the peace" is a period of peace. So, therefore, there is a great difference between the two sentences: "this Peace ensured Dutch independence" and "this peace ensured Dutch independence". The former means that the Peace (of Westphalia with its terms) ensured Dutch independence, while the latter implies that Dutch independence came as a result of a period of peace.

I hope this explanation has not been found patronising as I thought it necessary to explain why this issue is important to me. I am very reluctant to defer on this, not because I enjoy seeing capital letters, but because I believe meaning will change. However, I am more than willing to defer on instances of true excessive capitalisation. And so, I hope that such instances can be brought up for discussion. Brian junhui sim (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mazarin

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A sentence that should be edited: "She entrusted power to her first minister, the Italian-born Cardinal Mazarin, who was despised in most French political circles because of his foreign origin, despite having already become a naturalized French subject." What made Mazarin be "despised* was less the fact of his *foreign origin* than that of his *low birth*. If not edited, then a source should be given in this instance. Frania W. (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Should there not be a mention of the recent , and quite plausible, suggestion that Mazarin was actually Louis' father? 82.10.97.23 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be totally inappropriate to suggest such an outlandish, baseless theory on the paternity of Louis in this biographical article. Dgrom (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

capitalisation (bis)

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Just read the last correction of Brian junhui sim to Louis XIV article with his "cute" note: The capitalisation issue again; but I didn't change much... (love that part!). Although I do not agree with some of his changes, I am not going to dispute it. There is no doubt that the subject will be brought up again (by others) on other articles dealing with France. I am not disputing that English speakers/readers write Buckingham Palace, Palace of Versailles, etc., but I strongly feel that when words or expressions are used in French, they should keep their French grammatical "privileges" in italics. Ex: château de Versailles, Premier ministre. What brought about this reaction on my part is that I also read changes brought by Brian to another article where he corrected Conseil d'en haut by Conseil d'en Haut, which should be Conseil d'en-haut. Now, the reason this Conseil was named d'en haut is not because it was a High Council (although it, in fact, was), but because it was held in a room upstairs (en haut in French), hardly a case of capitalisation in my eyes. Brian, please take this in the friendly manner in which I wrote it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Frania W., thank you for your kind advice, and I'm happy you enjoyed the last bit of my edit summary. In truth, I really didn't change much--only capitalised some ("bishop of Bayonne"), undid others ("Prime minister"), etc. If it helps, I have made changes to the other article so that it reflects what you have noted as the correct practice.
Returning to this page, would you say that changes should be made to the French terms to properly reflect the original language's conventions? On the other hand, should we simply anglicise the offending words and save the risk of making or causing others to make mistakes in a language not all of us are all that proficient in? I am of the opinion that the article should be "correct" to the greatest possible extent, and that includes being grammatically correct. Brian junhui sim (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Brian junhui sim & FactStraight : I believe that each article should follow the same rules within. Also realise that while the three of us may come to an agreement on the articles we work on, other participants may not agree with us. This put aside, why don't we attempt to agree on some of the controversial points of this very article & see how it works?
Such as:
(1) which words to translate & which words to leave in French;
  • some articles give within a sentence (id. infoboxes) some French titles in English & others in French. Since translating French titles can become problematic, because of "de" or "du", these titles are better left in French. For instance, while it sounds correct to translate duc de Bourgogne by Duke of Burgundy, it sounds atrocious to translate duc du Maine by Duke of the Maine (du = de le), (by which logic we would come to translate Jean de La Fontaine by John of the Fountain). And what to do with Mme de Maintenon? Does she become Mrs. de Maintenon? Mrs. of Maintenon? Lady of Maintenon?
  • French titles in French with non-capitalised first letter: duc d' Orléans;
(2) not overload the text with French words *just to sound French*; it's silly, except for historical expressions such as: "L'État, c'est moi!" or "Après moi, le déluge!", followed by English translation;
(3) follow English grammatical rules for words/titles in English;
(4) follow French grammatical rules for words/titles kept in French;
(5) definitely anglicise as much as possible. This is en:wikipedia.
Frania W. (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Most titles & terms which we keep in French can & should be wiki-linked to their English equivalent (increasingly French terms are being given their own articles anyway, e.g Prince du Sang, Conseil d'état, Maison du roi, maîtresse-en-titre). When a French title is used in lieu of a name, I suggest that it be italicised, but when a name or combination of name and title is used, normal roman should be used. I still don't see why "aristocracy" is capitalised? FactStraight (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with practically everything the both of you, Frania W. and FactStraight, have mentioned and suggested.

I am of the opinion that the grammatical rules of whichever language used should be kept. This being English wikipedia, I also agree that as much of the article as possible should be in English. However, some words and phrases should remain or have a translation in the original French so that, where ambiguity exists, it may be dispelled. These include particular quotes or expressions or the names of particular institutions or movements in history or even of particular placenames, such as "Île Royale" ("Royal Island" sounds funny). It also means that I think titles should remain in the original French.

However, FactStraight, I don't really think it necessary to italicise them since, in my view, titles are the extension of one's name and not its replacement. As a compromise to this issue of italicising titles or not, I suggest we do without using solely titles as much as possible. What I mean is that the first time we refer to an individual, we do so with his full name (i.e. "Philippe I, duc d'Orléans") just so we know which duc d'Orléans is meant; thereafter, we refer to him as, in this case, simply "Orléans". If, in the middle of the article, there is a death and succession, then we repeat the process by noting the new holder of the title (i.e. "Philippe II, duc d'Orléans") and then by "Orléans" thereafter. In this way, I seek to avoid the awkwardness of having to spell out the fullname and title everytime someone is mentioned and that of having either to translate a title (rather strange) or to italicise it. I believe this is what is usually done and thus am proposing this be our course of action as well. Brian junhui sim (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian's suggestion of using full name with title only once, when individual is first mentioned in article, then drop the title and use only "Orléans" or "Bourbon", as the case may be, makes sense to me. The traditional address in royal circles, it was carried out well into the 19th century. A good example are the memoirs "Vieux souvenirs" of François d'Orléans, prince de Joinville, the seventh child of king Louis-Philippe. Out of ten children, six were boys. Within the family, except for the girls, no first name & no title were ever used, only *Chartres*, *Nemours*, *Joinville*, *Penthièvre*, *Aumale* & *Montpensier*. Royal children not being baptised before the age of 4, the only manner to acknowledge them was by the name attached to their title at birth: duc d'Aumale = *Aumale*. Frania W. (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Need for citations, expanded references, and judicial editing.

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article lacks substantive references and needs a more deliberated approach to citations. While some section have are cited, the general paucity of sources places that article in question. Additionally, the sections on the War of the League of Augsburg and the War of the Spanish Succession appear to be articles in and of themselves and do not directly relation to Louis XIV, the subject of this article.

--E. Lighthart (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dental problem

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've just read that he "lost half his upper jaw to a determined tooth-puller in the 1680s". That would cause a lot of pain and distress even today, but back then, with no anaesthetics, it would have been a huge problem that surely would have affected his functioning. Maybe what I read was an exaggeration, but is there any truth to it? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz: You read correctly. You can read about it in Philippe Erlanger's Louis XIV, published in France in 1965 by Fayard & translated into English by Stephen Cox, Praeger Publishers, 1970. In the English edition: Part Three: HEAVEN AND OCEAN (1680-1689), chapter 6 Stoicism and Violence, p. 215 & following. The surgery was extremely painful & his teeth were not the only health problem suffered by L.XIV at that time. Frania W. (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Frania. Maybe something needs to be mentioned about this in the article. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but right now I am busy with so many things! Maybe in the winter when I am blocked in by a snowstorm... Frania W. (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
That may not have been the most painful treatment he ever received - Louis also suffered from an anal fistula, and underwent a successful surgery (in 1687) to correct the problem. Dgrom (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Full name"

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently states that Louis's full name was Louis Dieudonné Bourbon. Is it really proper to consider "Bourbon" his family name? I thought that royalty did not have last names, just the names of their royal houses. At any rate, if it is appropriate to speak of Louis having a last name, shouldn't it at least be de Bourbon? Funnyhat (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot consider Bourbon or "de Bourbon" as a family name. It was the name of the Capetian branch, coming from the title the head of the branch had. And in opposite of one urban legend, Capetian Dynasty never had a last name. Some say "Capet" refering to Louis XVI and the french revolution, but it was a mockery from the revolutionaries. So you're right to say, it would be more appropriate to use "de Bourbon" instead of "Bourbon". In another way, when the Valois branch arrived to the throne, their "last name" became "de France" instead of "de Valois". The Bourbon branch kept this tradition as the Capetian considered they litteraly made France, they owned this country. 90.9.158.249 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be, but majority says... it's not... duh! The one you're talking about is the dynasty itself... you're right, and they never had surnames, unlike us, we do have That's all that I can consider...

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I did a Google search for a sample phrase from this article ("Shocked by the rapidity of French successes and fearful of the future") and got a hit on Google Books for _Top Ten- Lives of the Greatest Monarchs of History_ by Mohsin Ashraf. It's apparently a 2007 book, so it could well have borrowed from this article, or perhaps both this piece and that book were cribbed from some other source. More investigation may be warranted. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WAS HE FAMOUS AROUND THE WORLD

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why did they mistreathim and neglected him.most persons around the world didi not no anything about him or wat he was famous famous for.and wat was his intensious is to do with the castle or things like dat.

was he very popular were he was living and did persons reconize him as a king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.224.73 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Historians agreed he was the only european head of state to receive an ambassador from the kingdom of Siam (South East Asia), so yes he was quite famous. 90.9.158.249 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WHY DID LOUIS XIV GLORIFY HIMSELF THROUGH ART?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Louis XIV reigned in an era when France was the most powerful, rich state in Europe. He invested mo ney into infrastructure, architecture and art, particularly that represented his his godliness to the world. Why? Did he want to get rid of all of France's misfortunes by beautifying France as well as giving the people privileges? Did he just want to lather himself in pleasures? Did he want to genuinely represent hiumself through the beautifying of France? Or did he want to fabricate himself in order to maintain utmost authority?

As at this time, it was considered a king was a reflect of his kingdom, glorying himself is quite the same to glorify his own kingdom. You should have a look at the article Absolute monarchy, you will find your answer. 90.9.158.249 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is too long!

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Printed out, it is 22 pages. I agree with the Wikipedia insertions about the need to remove so many long and detailed discussions. It should not be difficult to cut and paste the sections on the different wars and make new articles with them, and in the "Louis XIV" article, simply summarize very briefly the time slot, the aim of the war, where it was waged, and the consequences. That would bring the focus back to the actual subject, Louis XIV. Could much of what is written here about Saint Cyr (and Maintenon) be added to existing articles? And the same for Le Tellier/Louvois and the military? These are my considered thoughts, after watching my printer spew out all those pages. Why did I print it? Because the article is so loooooooong that it is very difficult to follow it on-screen. And even off-screen it is difficult, because the death of Marie-Therese and his re-marriage are tucked into "Height of Power," although they are very personal subjects. As it is now, there is no start-to-finish picture of Louis XIV the man and the various troubles and successes and failures he had as king. The germ of that sort of article is here, but it's concealed by the welter of detail that takes us away from the king. Hope this very honest appraisal helps. (PS: after skimming through this talk page, which I did before printing out the article, I fully expected to find L'Etat c'est moi, and Mazarin as his father, and that mysterious illegitimate daughter, none of which have any historical basis. How pleased I was NOT to find those things! Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wars in the Low Countries

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

To make the article shorter, I put a simplified account of the two wars discussed in that section. Can the person who keeps putting in the really detailed one back in please stop. The article is very long and the sections on these wars dont have to be as detailed as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.135.170 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to delete significant amounts of text, you need to leave an edit summary. This article is repeatedly vandalized, and unexplained deletions of text will be almost invariably reverted. Also, please ensure than when you make a block deletion, you don't inadvertantly remove illustrations or references that should remain in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Voceditenore, I shouldn't have deleted those pictures but the fact remains that the article is too long and that that section is too detailed, the sections on the wars should be drastically simplified. The article is about Louis XIV, not the War of Devolution, the Franco-Dutch War, the War of the League of Augsburg or the War of the Spanish Succession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobisusie (talk • contribs) 14:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the need to drastically prune the article, but as I said, any major change like that needs an edit summary. Otherwise, it will get reverted. I suggest leaving a summary like: "Removing unnecessary detail. See talk page." If you're unsure of how to add an edit summary, click on the link in my previous message. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.127.27 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Revamping Article and Excessive Tags

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I spent a few hours on cleanup, citation, and text-trimming duty, and I think I addressed some of the most glaring problems with this article. However, at some point some user(s) filled the article with two page-level tags, 12 sub-level tags, and something like 40 citation tags. While I applaud the efforts of these users to identify problem articles, perhaps we could refrain from going tag-crazy. Let's use a few tags to spotlight glaring omissions and problems, while using the Talk page for more specifics. The net result of excessive tagging is the creation of an article that is aethetically unpleasing and one that is borderline unreadable due to the frequent tag breaks.Historymike (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I revamped the whole article and attempted to reduce the word count by changing the phrasing, instead of deleting whole passages. Hopefully, I made the article somewhat shorter, simpler and more concise. But, despite cutting out apparently about 1500-2000 words, the article still looks long! I suppose it's impossible to make an article about a 77-year life look short.
I have not, to my knowledge, removed anything; however, I have added some additional information. I have rearranged some paragraphs and sections to present a more coherent picture, but substantially, I think the article remains similar. I have of course added citations, though perhaps from a rather small selection of 3-5 books. I agree that tagging should be reduced. Citations are important, but perhaps a case can be made for restricting their use to noting the source of opinions, rather than facts.Brian junhui sim (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Brian, there are people like Louis XIV or Napoléon whose life was such that it is impossible to write a short article about them. On the other hand, you take the life of an 80-year old carmelite nun who lived a life of prayer & silence in her convent, there will not be much for you to dig about her & three lines - no, three words - will suffice: *born*, *prayed*, *died*.
Another thing: no matter what you do with such an article as this one, there later will come new editors who will add, remove, vandalise etc. and the article will have to be reviewed again. So you are doing the best for what is here now. Merci beaucoup et à la prochaine. Frania W. (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Frania, I suppose I will have to disagree with you about the nun. I doubt any life can be summarised into three words. Surely at least a few pages are required! Of course, it may not be interesting enough for many to read, which may explain why three words would actually suffice in Wikipedia. Haha... Thank you nonetheless for your kind words. I was beginning to think that my effort of days or even weeks had come to naught because the article was just as long as when I started! (Yes, I am a very slow worker.) Brian junhui sim (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Brian, I was hoping you'd read through my wit about the carmelite nun... Frania W. (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did! Haha... (Oh! But this isn't the place for conversations, so I shall stop now!)Brian junhui sim (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you become a carmelite nun? Shhh... Plus un mot ! Frania W. (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Image and memory

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a treatment of Image and Memory, and added more books to the bibliography. Rjensen (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Communium & Sex?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the current version: Maria Theresa died in 1683. On his queen’s demise, Louis remarked that she had caused him unease on no other occasion. That she went to communion daily suggests that marital duties were performed frequently[citation needed]. She gave birth to six children. Um, what? I was raised Catholic and STILL can't think of any way to link the action of communion with the implied frequency of sexual relations? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several off-the-wall opinionated insertions in this article (such as the one that Louis XIV was a racist, inserted in the middle of the paragraph about military reform. That one I can't figure out how to fix, either. You're obviously right about communion and sex - high born Catholic ladies usually went to mass daily in their own private chapels.--LeValley 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue concerning British/American English

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recent edits concerning the differences in British and American English have been edited on this(and other) articles. I am asking for a general opinion(consensus) as to whether this article should be written in British English or American English. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that striving for stringent consistency in using either English or American English is unnecessary. Most English-speakers and readers would and should be able to follow the article notwithstanding the lack of consistency. There is really no reason to edit the article to ensure such draconian consistency.
If I may add, I have had many of my edits amended for the sole reason that it was written in English. The amendments were not made in the course of rewriting a phrase or sentence which was poorly phrased or which described an event inaccurately. It would be reasonable if such an editor merely spelt in a manner most comfortable to him. Rather, they were made, as I said, because, presumably, someone thought that "centralised" was completely incomprehensible because it is not American. I frankly find this quite irritating and offensive. Such behaviour should really stop. Brian junhui sim (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He was in fact the Sun King

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So I removed the sentence saying he was not. And,having looked at the major sources cited on this page, as well as several others, there was great rejoicing at the birth of a male heir, and no one "thought the baby was a woman," which is a ridiculous thing to say. If they thought he was female - they'd have said girl. But there was apparently no doubt that poor Anne of Austria had finally produced a male heir for the crown.--LeValley 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Some WP:VANDALISM that got missed when someone tried to clean it up. I removed another remaining bit.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Longest Reign?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states that Louis XIV had the longest documented reign of any European monarch. That fact is contradicted in the article on the longest reigning monarchs of all time. There are quite a few European monarch who are known to have reigned longer than Louis XIV, the longest being Wilhelm IV of Henneberg-Schleusingen, a soverign state within the Holy Roman Empire, who reigned for 79 years (although the exact dates are not known). Christian August of Palatinate-Sulzbach (also a sovereign state within the Holy Roman Empire) ruled for exactly 75 years and 253 days. George William, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe ruled the state of Schaumbug-Lippe (not part of the Holy Roman Empire) for 73 years, and 282 days. A few others reigned longer. Louis XIV is only the longest reigning European monarch of a "major" country (as opposed to a principality, county, margraviate, grand duchy). --Rotellam1 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He was the longest reigning king, I believe, but not the longest reigning monarch. john k (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section on Chateaux that he built...

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was captivated by the entire article. I meant to find out one fact, but couldn't stop reading. Cudos to all who contributed!

I have toured many Chateaux (French plural) in the Loire region. Memory tells me that Louis XIV built one of them for a mistress. I can't find the details of that.

Maybe a section on Chateaux built during his reign, or ones that he built if any.

Merci Beaucoup!

Yearning2learn (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no château built by Louis XIV in the Loire valley for any mistress or for himself: [1]. Louis XIV's main building project in life was Versailles, to which he added in 1670, during the period Mme de Montespan was his mistress, but not for her, the Trianon de porcelaine[2], replaced in 1687 by the Grand Trianon built of red marble of Languedoc[3].
--Frania W. (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Verification of highly likely non-paternity event

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I don’t think Louis XIV was the son of his precursor. The previous king and queen hated each other so it is highly unlikely that it was Louis XIII who made Louis XIV’s mother Anna pregnant. Anyone who can verify the hatred between them?

2010-06-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lena Synnerholm, you are free to think what you want, but leaving an heir to the throne of France was a serious business the King of France had to attend to, whether he & his wife loved or hated each other.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If the king and queen hated each other it is highly unlikely that they ever had sexual intercourse with each other. Human behaviour can’t be squeezed into formalized conditions like that. Is there contemporary eyewitness accounts showing that the king and queen hated each other? If so the fatherhood of the queen’s son should at least be considered unknown.

2010-08-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.47 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. The wicked witch of Marsta is onto a new mission: keep on desecrating any article related to the French kings and emperors. Take a break, Missy Synnerholm! For crying out loud. Get over the Bernadottes being peasants in France and kings in your miserably cold and barren land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.200.120 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

English or French for titles?

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed that a recent amendment changed many of the names and titles in the article from French to English (e.g., "Louis, duc de Bourgogne" to "Louis, Duke of Burgundy"). Personally, I would have preferred the French version, which explains why I even bothered to start this new section. Nonetheless, I'm still curious to find out what wikipedia's stand on this is, and will stand corrected where necessary.

I prefer the French version of the name/title for three reasons. First, I was under the impression that one customarily anglicised only the titles of French feudal nobles who ruled their fiefdoms as semi-independent kingdoms. Thus, we find "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". This then distinguishes them from nobles of the more modern era who did not rule their appanages in any similar way. To me, there is a distinct difference in the impression I get from reading "Duke of Burgundy" and "duc de Bourgogne". The use of English or French is then to differentiate between nobles of different time-periods and, perhaps, degrees of power.

Second, the title, the "de" particle, and the nom de terre, as I understand it, form the individual's name. So, if "Madame de Montespan" is not to be changed to "Mrs of Montespan", why do we need to change "Henri, duc de Longueville" to "Henri, Duke of Longueville"? I don't believe it is customary to anglicise the names of French private individuals.

Lastly, the anglicisation of some names and titles simply seems awkward, such as "Duke of La Rochefoucauld". In my opinion, "duc de La Rochefoucauld" seems much more elegant without any loss in meaning. Brian junhui sim (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Brian,
You are expressing so well what I have been trying to get through for years, and thank you for using the example "Duke of Burgundy/duc de Bourgogne" - it makes clear the difference in the use of the title.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, can I revert the article to French titles first? If our discussion here leads to the conclusion that English should be preferred, then an amendment may be made then. Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.138.79 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, by the way, I'm quite confused by Surtsicna's edits because they don't seem to be consistent. For instance, in his re-working of Louis's family tree, he changes "Margarita of Austria" to "Margaret of Austria". But he does nothing to "Marguerite of Lorraine". He changes "François, Count of Vendôme" to "Francis, Count of Vendôme", but leaves "Françoise d'Alençon" and "Francesco I de' Medici" as they are, without seeking to render them "Frances of Alençon" and "Francis de' Medici". Just out of curiosity, Surtsicna, is there method to your madness? Shouldn't simplicity suggest consistency? Or is this a case of just not having finished with the work? Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.138.79 (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The total anglicisation of first and last names is something that has been irking me for years, specially the translation of "de" to "of" when "de" is not following a title which can be anglicised, but is part of a last name. And then, it is not consistent throughout. For instance, in the article on Mme de Montespan, we find one of her ancestors to be
  • Gaspard de Rochechouart, Marquess of Mortemat, where "de Rochechouart" is kept as a last name, not translated, and where "marquis de..." becomes "Marquess of...",
However, our dear Athénaïs remains "marquise de Montespan" - God forbid she gets turned into a "Marchioness" !
I hate to see the day when Mary of Rabutin-Chantal, Marchioness of Sevigne has replaced Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné, and when, following the fate of all "Marguerite" "Margarita" who slowly but surely are turned into "Margaret", all "Françoise" will have become "Frances".
--Frania W. (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you both; I tend to prefer French forms, certainly when giving the full name. "Francis, Count of Vendôme" is pretty indefensible. (imo, should be "François de Bourbon, comte de Vendôme"). john k (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did he start ruling at such a young age?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I dont see it anywhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.75.49 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly covered on this section Louis_XIV_of_France#Minority_and_the_Fronde. His father died when he was 4 making him king. However it wasnt until 1661 that he took personal control of the government.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The regency officially ended in 1651, when he was 13, though, which was the traditional age of majority for French kings. Regencies officially ended for a number of other monarchs at the same age - Louis XV in 1723, Louis XIII in 1614, Charles IX in 1563. I believe that Charles VIII never had a formal regent, although his sister was effectively the regent for the first eight years of his reign. Similarly, Louis XIII didn't assume personal control of government until 1617, and even then relied on favorites for pretty much his whole reign; Charles IX didn't really take charge until 1570 or so; Louis XV made his first major personal exertion in 1726. Minorities and quasi-minorities were pretty common in old Regime France (much more so than England). john k (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago49 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Louis XIV of France → Louis XIV — "Louis XIV" is completely unambiguous; even if it were not, this ruler is clearly the primary topic for the name. There is no need whatever for "of France." We have removed the country already for some monarchs - e.g. Maria Theresa, Napoleon I, Elizabeth II, Juan Carlos I. There has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) of ceasing to pre-emptively disambiguate by country when it is unnecessary to do so. I thought this would be a good test case to see if there's support for such a notion. john k (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - Will not the move raise the question about the other "Louis" kings of France ?
--Frania W. (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Support "Louis XIV" is universally used by scholars and students. The "of France" is both unnecessary and incorrect (his title, translated into English, was "King of France and of Navarre") Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose and comment, I don't agree with the majority of the mentioned moves and don't think that because some are trying to start a trend that it must go forth. I don't support the removal of the territorial designation in most instances unless there is a cognomen in use. I think that Wikipedia should observe a certain level of consistency in treatment of monarchs, etc. Also, Rjensen, you will find plenty of references for the title "King of France". You should determine if "King of France and of Navarre" means "King of France and King of Navarre". After all, we don't have "Henry VIII of England and Ireland" or "James I and VI of England and Scotland"... Seven Letters 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I just saw the Juan Carlos move request... Did not lean heavily on the move side at all. Elizabeth II was not without controversy and even in many of the given reasons against a territorial designation there was inconsistency... After all, look how much had to be written about something which was supposedly so simple... Seven Letters 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose for the usual reasons: Consistency about where articles are placed is a good thing; we must disambiguate most kings (see Henry VII or Louis III for why); while Louis XIV is not seriously ambiguous, saving two words at the expense of making the reader guess where in the sequence of Louises or Henries we change from one format to the other - assuming she figures out why we are being inconsistent in the first place - is a doubtful economy; we are not paper. We may choose among the terms in common usage if it serves readers and editors to do so. I also dislike the alternate; of France and Navarre is pedantry, not common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Louis XIV is how he is easily most widely known; the BBC, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Palace of Versailles and almost all biographies of him (A, B, C, D, E) refer to the king simply as Louis XIV. In Google Books, which admittedly in not a perfect tool, "Louis XIV" gets 2,780,000 results, compared with the 58,700 results for "Louis XIV of France". That's over 45 times fewer results. I'm sympathetic to those editors who wish to maintain consistency, and I believe that this move will help form new naming conventions, but we cannot simply ignore the overwhelming popular usage of referring to the king simply as Louis XIV. The Celestial City (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The existing convention is uniform and reasonable, and with Louis XIV as a redirect, people who just type that end up in the right place anyway. It looks disorderly to have the territorial designation in some names and not in others. --Coemgenus 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. True naming consistency stems from compliance with the principal naming criteria and conventions that apply to all Wikipedia article titles, which includes "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". It's a good thing that Paris, Texas is disambiguated, but Paris is not, because that tell the reader that the latter is the primary topic for the name Paris. Similarly, Louis XIV clearly conveys the primacy of this subject to that name, while Louis XIV of France incorrectly implies that "of France" is necessary to disambiguate from other approximately equal (in terms of primacy) uses of Louis XIV. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    That's one criterion out of five; consistency is another. When they conflict, as here, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another. Misrepresenting policy, as this post does, is not helpful; I hope that this schematic and over-simplified view will be amended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    First, I clearly stated I was referring to criteria "that apply to all Wikipedia article titles". Consistency applies only to those articles that fall into a category of articles for which there is a specific guideline that indicates consistent titles for those articles. Many if not most articles do not fall into such a category. All of the other criteria apply to all articles, without exception.

    Second, the proposed title meets 4 out of 5 of the criteria: Recognizability, naturalness, precision and conciseness. The current title violates at least conciseness (as compared to the proposed title), and arguably naturalness too.

    Despite the misleading presentation at WP:TITLE, consistency in naming with other similar articles, in practice, is usually given lower priority than the other naming criteria, especially "only as precise as is necessary". That is, in all but an ever-shrinking number of categories of articles, consistency in naming with other similar articles for a given article is usually considered only after it is established that more precision, in addition to simply reflecting the name of the article's topic in the title, is required to disambiguate the name of the topic in question from other uses of that name. If anything, consensus seems to be moving to be more and more clear about consistency being a secondary consideration, including as reflected in recent page moves involving royalty.

    As consistency is the only principal criteria that regularly indicates a title that conflicts with indication from the other criteria (case in point, this one), giving it a lower priority goes a long way towards reducing ambiguity and conflict in article naming. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    If we're going to have supports of this quality, I can only strongly oppose. Born2cycle disagrees with policy; that's fine, but the rest of us don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    Please do not make personal accusations/attacks. Sharing one's opinions about another editor's opinion is inappropriate on an article talk page, especially when it puts the other editor in a bad light, as "So-and-so disagrees with policy" does.

    For the record, I do not disagree with policy, I just find the presentation at WP:TITLE to be misleading because only the first four of the five principal criteria apply to all articles, yet the fifth is presented in the outline as an equal, incorrectly implying it has the same general/universal application to all articles characteristic of the other four criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    What personal attack? The only attack here is B2C's claim. The rest of this could be put briefly: Born2cycle doesn't disagree with policy, he just believes it to be something other than it is. Right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you are being extremely selective in your arguments. This does seem like a personal attack in my view, and I am sure Born2cycle respects policy as much as any other editor. Please see my response to your arguments above, to the effect that Louis XIV is the most common name for the French king, and that reliable sources the are most important factor in determining article titles, as stated in Wikipedia policy. The Celestial City (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Certainly. That is an argument; it also rests on a misunderstanding of policy. We must consult reliable sources, which call the subject of this article many things: Louis XIV, Louis, Louis XIV of France, Louis XIV of France and Navarre, the Sun King, Lewis of France, and so on. Among those we must pick one to title the article. One consideration is which ones are recognizable, which counts against Lewis, probably against the Sun King, possibly against Navarre; there are others (for example, length counts against France and Navarre). But nowhere in policy does it say that we must choose the most common title, although it is often wise to do so; rare ones are often unrecognizable. We are editors; Wikipedia requires both our industry and our judgment. If we outsource our title choices to Google, we are harming the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make is that while the king is known by various titles, "Louis XIV" is most commonly used by reliable sources, not Google, as I have sought to demonstrate. I don't see any reason why we should not use the most common and most recognisable title for this monarch. The Celestial City (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Policy states: "Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice." Louis XIV is clearly better than Louis XIV of France in terms of "Conciseness", "Naturalness", and "Precision" ("only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously"). At worst it's a wash on "Recognizability". As more and more titles of articles on royalty are changed so as to better in terms of these criteria, so the better adherence to Consistency that the current title now enjoys will diminish. So the straightforward choice here, per policy, seems to me to be Louis XIV. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pmanderson, you accused me above of misrepresenting policy, and being in disagreement with policy. This seemed to me to be obviously a personal attack, but it has been suggested that it's not that and that I ask for clarification about this here.[4]  So, for the record, please identify what policy you think I misrepresented and disagree with, and what specific words I posted here that caused you to say this here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Since this course of action has been recommended to you, I will reply - once; otherwise I would regard a spurious accusation of incivility as ending any substantive discussion. You say above I just find the presentation at WP:TITLE to be misleading because only the first four of the five principal criteria apply to all articles, yet the fifth is presented in the outline as an equal, Yes, all five are presented as equals; it is policy that they should all be considered (and consideration may well find one or more of them does not apply); it is practice (which makes policy) that arguments by analogy often prevail, and sometimes yield; the other four also often prevail, and sometimes yield. You disagree with this, on this very page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    I never said or implied anything about prevailing vs. yielding when criteria do apply, much less that the other four don't often prevail, and sometimes yield. Of course they do. Why read my words to mean otherwise? My point is that the other four always apply to all articles. That is, there is no article for which Conciseness, Precision, Naturalness and Recognizability does not apply. Not one. They might not always prevail, but they always apply. For Consistency, on the other hand, there are myriads of articles (for which there are no similar articles, or no conventional patter for the similar articles) to which it does not apply at all. For the articles where it does apply, like this one, it may or not may not prevail, just like the others. How one can decide from someone making this observation that there is a disagreement with, or misrepresentation of, policy is beyond me. Please confirm that you now understand that I did not misrepresent, nor disagree with, policy. An apology would be nice, too. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Apologize? For not attacking you? For observing that a post claims that policy is other than it is - and what the author has attempted to change it to? I have seen equally absurd demands in the news recently, but then this is an election year in my country.
  • As for the claim: This is playing with words. Sometimes (actually quite rarely; this is close to claiming that the subject fits in no category) consistency does not differentiate between the possible titles found in reliable sources because no article is similar enough; true. But the same is true of the other criteria: sometimes the possibilities are equally concise, or no possible title is natural. This argument is itself a misrepresentation of policy - although it may well be unintentional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Have you ever seen two names competing for the same title which are equally concise? I'll grant you that's theoretically possible and I did not consider the possibility, but, even in such a case, it would not be accurate to say that Conciseness did not apply - just that it did not indicate a preference between the two equally concise candidates (it would still apply in terms of preferring either of them over another, less concise, option, which probably exists for almost all articles). But I only have to hit SPECIAL:RANDOM a few times to find articles like Zigzag stitch, Blood Has Been Shed, American Jewish World Service, Wild Heather, North of Scotland Newspapers for which Consistency simply has no application. But the other four criteria apply to all these titles, and to all other titles. Stating this is neither disagreement with, nor a misrepresentation of, policy. It's simple fact. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No, this post is a falsehood - based on a most constrained idea of similarity. Of the titles cited, zigzag stitch is in the same category with blanket stitch, Blood Has Been Shed is a rock group like The Number Twelve Looks Like You, Wild Heather is a film like The Adventures of Mr Pickwick, and so on; I choose those examples because at two of them consistency should have an effect on titles: on whether Blood Has Been Shed should be capitalized and whether Wild Heather should be italicized. (Most articles, as WP:TITLE says, have obvious titles, where all of the principles are easily satisfied; these are some.) But this has nothing to do with Louis any more; anybody inclined to doubt the assertions about policy in this thread already has evidence enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Support as this is how it's done in my F&W encylopedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. john k (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Louis XI to XVIII are all unambiguous as the king of France, why single this one out? Test cases are not always the best way of approaching this sort of issue. There have been a few similar moves recently, but with some of them there were some additional reasons put forward, and they were sometimes controversial. Also, George VI is not unambiguously the UK monarch, although he is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to move the others as well - I can add them if you'd like. john k (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't; this move request is already inconveniencing the reader, not that that unhappy individual seems to be of much concern to the supporters of this move. Don't make the French kings more puzzling still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
How have readers been inconvenienced? Nothing has yet changed in the main namespace, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The idea that there is anything puzzling about article titles like "Louis XIV" or "Louis XVI", or that thinking we should move the articles there shows disdain for readers is also puzzling to me. john k (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest it's too late to add the others to this proposal, but please leave a notification here if a separate proposal is made for them. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Not good enough, you have some responsibility to come up with a coherent move request and stick to it. PatGallacher (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a test case, which means that if this page is moved (which looks highly likely) then other articles will ultimately be moved as well. I think that is perfectly reasonable. The Celestial City (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Perhaps it would have been wiser to propose the other moves at the same time, but it certainly wasn't my intention to suggest that Louis XIV and Louis XIV only should be moved, as I think my proposal made clear. If there is consensus to move this page, it should be a fairly simple matter to get consensus to move the other ones, as well. john k (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Test cases might not always be the best approach, but they are when it's the only practical option. What is being tested here, of course, is consensus. Specifically, it is a test to see if there is consensus support to simplify titles of royalty articles when the simpler name meets four of the five principal naming criteria better or at least as well as the longer title which conforms to the pattern of similar royalty articles per the single Consistency criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
So if this move occurs, you would demand individual move votes for Louis XI-XVIII? Those are the only articles I, at least, would deem similar simply based on the results of this move vote. john k (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Louis XIV is by far the most famous of France's kings. I object to using him as a trojan horse to induce mass support for changes in cases that are unlike his. Applicability in such cases should be demonstrated. Which cases those are was not specified when we were asked to consider this move and cannot fairly be shoehorned in after the !voting has begun. FactStraight (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd propose a mass move of Louis XI-XVIII if this move goes through. john k (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

French monarch article nomenclature

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The above move request is designed as a "test case". Nobody believes that only Louis XIV should be moved. I would suggest that if this move goes through we should both (a) move all French kings with similarly unambiguous names and (b) move all other French kings to titles disambiguated in the standard manner, i.e., by parentheses. While I believe that the current system is fine, that view is apparently not shared by a majority of editors. Changing to a standard method of disambiguation makes the function of the disambiguator more obvious than it is under the current system, resulting, I believe, in a greater consistency: all monarchs are titled the same way, by their most common name, with a disambiguator where necessary (like any other type of article). My proposal would look like this (current titles at left, destinations at right):

Some things would need discussing, like when the Louis's become unambiguous, whether France is the best name for the kingdom of the Carolingians, whether "King" should be capitalised, and whether there are any other monarchs that are best known by nickname (perhaps Philip Augustus). Srnec (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Srnec, thank you for this list which opens our eyes to the difficulties my non-encyclopedic sixth sense tells me we shall soon encounter if we do a move "en masse" of all the kings who reigned over the kingdom of France, since the first kings of the kingdom which was not called France at its beginning, were not "kings of France", but "kings of the Franks".
Maybe we should consider the move beginning with the first king who took the title of "roi de France", i.e. Philippe Auguste.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The ordinals and territorial designations should remain. They should be removed when there is a widely known cognomen. An ordinal is not a cognomen. Seven Letters 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the relevance of that, Seven Letters? 216.8.175.129 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This has the chief effect of substituting Pippin IV (King of France) for Pippin IV of France; I choose a fictitious example to avoid the anachronism issue. This is longer, much less natural, infinitely less common, and harder for editors and readers alike (it also violates our general preference for lower case, but that's fixable.) Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you longer, but not necessarily less concise... one way to look at it is including the parenthesized information, in which case "Pippin IV of France" is more concise, but if you ignore it, then "Pippin IV" is more concise. Further, I contend disambiguation information clearly demarcated from the common name of the topic is not the part that is subject to being "natural" by the naturalness criteria. After all, the point of the criteria is to "convey what English, in an encyclopedic register, actually calls the subject", which "Pippin IV (King of France)" arguably does better (what it correctly conveys is that the subject is called "Pippin IV"; the alternative incorrectly conveys that the subject is called "Pippin IV of France").

I don't think anyone argues that adding film, book or city in parenthesis is "natural", but it's a common practice in Wikipedia to add such information after the most "natural" and "common" name of the subject. In this case what is natural and common is "Pippin IV", not "Pippin IV of France"... the "King of France" part is just disambiguation information added on because, presumably, this "Pippin IV" is either not unique or primary. Further, I think we would make life much easier for readers and editors if we consistently disambiguated with disambiguation information added on after the most common/natural name in parenthesis. If nothing else, this would clearly convey what the most common/natural name of the subject is, regardless of whether it is disambiguated or not.

With "Pippin IV of France" is "of France" part of his name, or not? Who knows? With "Pippin IV (King of France)", it's clear. And this is not a hypothetical issue. I've seen kids doing research in Wikipedia confused by this lack of consistency in how names are disambiguated. The answer they were looking for is just the name of the person; when the title of an article contained just the name, or the name plus disambiguation information in parenthesis, they naturally got the name correctly. But for titles extended with disambiguation information not in parens, they thought the other stuff was part of the name too, and got it wrong. I suggest the extra bytes is a small price to pay for all these benefits: clearly and precisely conveying the concise, natural and most common and recognizable name of the subject. Simply adding "of France" to the end of the name muddles all that, and is less consistent with the criteria listed at WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Another advantage of going with the names in the right column is that each title instantly conveys whether the topic is primary (including unique use), or whether there is another use that makes this use not primary. This is not gleaned from the names in the 1st column at all. For example, you can tell from the list on the right that Louis V is the primary use of the name Louis V, while Louis III (of France) clearly indicates there are other uses of Louis III that make this use not primary. However, going with the list on the left, since the two are named according to the same pattern regardless of whether they are primary uses or not, Louis V of France and Louis III of France, we cannot discern if either, both, or none are primary uses of the names Louis V and Louis III. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Try to force a distinction between (King of France) and "of France" is obfuscation. "Of France" is a standard distinction. Arguing with "With "Pippin IV of France" is "of France" part of his name, or not? Who knows? With "Pippin IV (King of France)", it's clear." serves as a distraction at best. Seven Letters 16:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I wish you were right, but experience at Wikipedia shows that some think the "of France" part is necessary as part of their names! I don't think anybody makes that error with parenthetical disambiguators. The distinction is important, since monarchical titles are among the only ones disambiguated in a fashion other than parenthesis. 216.8.175.129 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Distraction? Per WP:TITLE, "a good title should convey what English, in an encyclopedic register, actually calls the subject". This is an important aspect of what titles are supposed to do, per policy (not to mention the benefit given to readers when titles are named accordingly). Pippin IV of France does not convey what the subject is actually called (disagree? what, then, does it convey that the subject is actually called?); Pippin IV (King of France) does. This is a key element for why it's most helpful and natural to disambiguate with parenthesis (which, by the way, are natural because they are a natural way to add parenthetic remarks in English). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a distraction because the discussion about the use of round brackets or a comma as in Louis III, King of France or to remain with Louis III of France should be decided at guideline level not at article level. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) rather than here (or we will end up with dozens of conversations repeating the same arguments with a danger of dominion specific balkanisation, unless the discussion is centralized). -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rescue from drowning

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This completely omits the very famous historical event in which a young Louis XIV was rescued from drowning by a peasant. Please add it! 76.28.77.142 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This was something mentioned by my tutor and lecturer, however as a layman I don't feel I should add on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.218.165 (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Louis XIV/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 20:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

== Quality of the article ==

There is a lack of citations and primary references. Additionally, the article is unbalance in that some sections, such as those dealing with the War of the League of Augsburg and the Was of the Spanish Succession, are far too detailed for the scope of this article. Additionally, these are not the only wars with which Louis XIV was engaged.

There is a need for a concerted edit to bring cohesion to the article with regard to the sourcing as well as with the style and tone of the rhetoric.

--E. Lighthart (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_XIV/Archive_2&oldid=1136967440"