Talk:Monarchism in France

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monarchism in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.narinfo.fr.st/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720204710/http://www.restauration-nationale.asso.fr/ to http://www.restauration-nationale.asso.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Constitutional Royal France.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Large amounts of unreferenced content from botched merge

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French dynastic disputes

This article has a large amount of unreferenced content, in my opinion caused by a botched merge from French dynastic disputes in 2018. According to Who Wrote That?, 84% of Monarchism in France was written by site-banned Flooded with them hundreds (talk · contribs); that is largely a result of Fwth adding 73kb of content in this edit of 11 July 2018 following a MERGE closure in this 2017 Afd.

Someone at the Afd quoted Whaleyland's PROD statement at French dynastic disputes from 26 Jan. 2017 (perma):

The article has been tagged as disputed, original research, and point-of-view since April 2015. Numerous editors have discussed in detail on the Talk page the problems of this article. It is one sided, focusing almost exclusively on the merits of Legitimism over Orléanism and Bonapartism (neither of which are given much space in the article). Furthermore, this article lacks credible sources for the amount of content it contains. Despite well-made arguments on this page, this material is not encyclopedic and does not contribute meaningful, reliable information to the Wikipedia reader base. Ultimately, it reflects almost exclusively the original research of User:Reigen and the content is entirely biased and disputed.

What appears to have happened, is that after the Afd, Fwth "merged" by simply copying all this unsourced OR into Monarchism in France in July 2018. (One day prior to turning French dynastic disputes into a redirect, it was 73,814 bytes long (perma)). No true "merge" was ever carried out; the uncited OR from the Afd article was merely dumped here. I rather agree with K.e.coffmans Afd comment: "Redirect to Monarchism in France as largely uncited OR, per WP:TNT;" but that never happened.

So, now it's 2022, and this article is not better than before the merge; it's worse, and contains all the flaws imported from "French dynastic disputes" that were noted by Whaleyland in 2015. I think rolling back to rev. 827990510 of 22:31, 27 February 2018 must be considered as one option, despite the fact that there have been 87 revisions by 49 users since then (including a dozen of mine). Good edits since then can be restored after a rollback. I'm not sure what other option is available. Pinging participants from that Afd: @Whaleyland, Premeditated Chaos, Chris troutman, Comte0, Peterkingiron, Smmurphy, K.e.coffman, and Sandstein:. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Also courtesy pinging @CSBurksesq:, who has the only substantive, non-bot, non-maint-template edit since the botched merge; a series of edits from Feb. – April 2019 are the only ones that would require restitution (if still valid post-rollback). Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me formalize this a little bit: I propose a rollback to rev. 827990510 of 22:31, 27 February 2018, in order to remove massive amounts of OR imported into this article as a result of the botched merge. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I support Mathglot's proposal but only as a compromise. I think deleting the article entirely would be a better incentive for one of our experienced editors to undertake a rewrite from a blank state to FA-status earning a Four Award in the process. I'm disappointed that the AfD in question was closed as merge simply to placate the same inclusionists who did nothing to improve the article post-merge. My own comments in that AfD indicated that there was no reason to keep the content and I stand by my remarks. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with a rollback. I still think the old French dynastic disputes article was almost completely OR, and merging it here just moved the OR. The small amount of non-OR in the old article more or less already exists here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs changing. I'm not sure about the revert, since the version suggested is incredibly lacking of the rational of the dispute between the supporters of the Orleans and the Bourbon-Anjou. The edits I made in 2019 were to give balance to the article, since it was incredibly biased, in my opinion, and violated NPV. For the decision to revert, I'm not entirely opposed, but I believe a future version of this article should contain the relevant information for the sources of the dispute. CSBurksesq (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The current version is irreparably biased and can only be saved by starting over IMO. The proposed revert looks like a reasonable starting point, though it is rather short on references. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments so far. Added links from WT:FRANCE and WT:HISTORY to solicit additional feedback. Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Rolled back to rev. 827990510 of 22:31, 27 February 2018. More participation would have been nice, but this discussion has been open for a week, and no other comments were forthcoming. Further comments are still welcome, either on reversing it, or on carrying forward from this point with better referencing and improved content, or even for deletion, as one editor favors. Thanks for participating, Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Orleanists vs. Orléanists

In English printed books, an ngrams search for "Legitimists and Orléanists" (spelled with, and without the accent) appears to show that Orleanists (without the accent) is preferred by 10:1 over Orléanists since 1980. (The gap was even wider in the past, and has narrowed to 10:1 since then.) Based on this, we should use the unaccented version.

Similarly, House of Orleans is preferred by about 4:1 over House of Orléans (higher in the past). Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The trend is very clearly heading towards greater use of the accented version, and indeed if you select the British English corpus on ngrams the accented version is actually dominant for House of Orléans and the gap is minimal for Orléanist. Likewise, a Google Scholar search for "House of Orléans" -"House of Orleans" shows a lead for the accented version in recent works. I'd be highly tempted to leave the accents in place. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving it as is, with one caveat: with respect to "trends", Wikipedia follows, it does not lead; that is, we don't get ahead of trends, we stay behind them, until a result is clear among reliable sources, and only then do we follow. As you say, in BE accents are favored (about 5:2), and even slightly in AE, which is pretty confusing, given the 10:1 difference in the other direction when taking the full English corpus (AE/BE/others) into account. I think some of that comes from the fiction corpus which shows strongly in favor of no accents (especially since 2013; a lot of popular historical novels coming out in the last few years?) so perhaps the non-fiction corpus is skewed the other way, which would make a certain amount of sense, and the reliable sources are the non-fiction ones, so those are the ones we should be paying attention to. As far as Orléanist/Orleanist, the latter is ahead (not by a huge amount) in AE, BE, and the fiction corpus in ngrams. But the numbers from ngrams are hard to interpret, some even seem contradictory, and maybe further investigation should be done. As far as more recent sources using accents, whether in Scholar or elsewhere, if substantiated, that would be an argument for keeping accents. One thing to watch out for, is that when I tried at Scholar, a minority of results were titles in French; those would have to be discounted of course in trying to come up with a picture of what's going on in English. I think the picture is fuzzy enough that there's no reason to change at the moment. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

External links

Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 11 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

Some of the current links include ones that are not needed giving no benefit to the article and some that can be included in the article with sources.

Per WP:ELBURDEN I have moved those removed from the article here for any possible future discussion:

• Alliance Royale
• Action Française
• Rassemblement Démocrate
• Nouvelle Action royaliste
• La Restauration Nationale
• Vive le Roy.fr (UCLF)
• Légitimistes of Lorraine
• French Royalist -- Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)