Talk:Voltaire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Anti-Semitism

The section on Voltaire's anti-Semitism reeks of apologetic. I don't feel like re-writing the entire section myself, so instead I'll post the pertinent info and sources here and let someone else make the revisions:

"An anti-Semite of the most damaging kind is one who asserts that, no matter what Jews might believe, their inherent character is fixed - and nasty. In the book, I cite dozens of passages from the whole corpus of Voltaire to the very end of his life, more than a decade after he had made his brief bow to de Pinto. Two citations will suffice. In his Letter of Memmius to Cicero (1771), Voltaire, in the pose of an ancient Roman reporting on the Jews, wrote: They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race. In the next year, writing the essay One Must Take Sides - introduced as the last word by Voltaire on metaphysics - he ridiculed each of the major religions, but he was meanest to the Jews: You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny. This is hardly the rhetoric of a man who thinks that Jews are just another people waiting to be enlightened. It is the talk of a noble Roman, his favorite self-definition, who has no patience with inferior people such as Jews and, for that matter, blacks.

The defenders of Voltaire have continued to argue that he was not personally an anti-Semite but only guilty of some rhetorical excesses. That is not how those who were arguing for and against the emancipation of the Jews, both in his own time and in the next several generations, read him. Jacobins such as Jean Francois Rewbell in the 1790's and the socialist Pierre Proudhon in the next generation are among the many figures, especially of the left, who justified their arguments against the Jews by quoting Voltaire. Such figures were not quarreling with Judaism; they were attributing innate wickedness to the Jewish character. " http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/30/books/l-voltaire-and-the-jews-590990.html

Also consult the section on Voltaire in The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner by Léon Poliakov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.7.83 (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Name

I'm not sure this guy would've been such hot stuff without his pen name. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.209.193 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lottery

There is nothing about Voltaire beating the Paris state lottery in 1729 which caused him to become very wealthy.

"He was also, luckily, very rich, in no small part because of his participation in a bizarre swindle devised by a mathematician friend, who, back in 1728, realized that the French government had authorized a lottery in which the prize was much greater than the collective cost of the tickets. He and Voltaire formed a syndicate, collected all the money, and became moneylenders to the great houses of Europe. " http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/07/050307crbo_books

P.S. Also read this in my Essentials of Statistics - Third Edition by Mario F. Triola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.29.1.24 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish tag for Volta

Has there been a lot of cases with readers confusing Voltaire and Volta?? It seems a bit superflous to me, and generally would open the gates for a lot of redundant distinguish tags to articles in Wikipedia. In case there is no objections I will remove it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In my life experience, it has happened on a number of occasions. I guess this might come under 'original research' but I have heard such phrases like 'the Volt was named after the physicist Voltaire'. Obviously up for discussion but in my experience it is necessary a_boardley (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

We currently suggest there was a secret burial but no funeral as such. I've come across a reference to a funeral, in the Cornu article in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 5th ed, 1954. It says (my paraphrase) that the cornu was revived as the "tuba curva" during the French Revolution, and the tuba curva was first used in music that André Grétry specially composed for the funeral of Voltaire. What event could this be referring to? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good website on his funeral. Perhaps the tuba curva was composed for the funeral in 1791 when his remains were transferred to the Panthéon? Afasmit (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that must have been it. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Incest

Did this man marry his niece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank520 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See the Wiki article on his niece Marie Louise Mignot - she and Voltaire lived together as a couple but never actually married. And to put this in context: marrying one's niece or nephew was and continues to be legal in France and a number of other countries in Europe and elsewhere - see Avunculate marriage. Muzilon (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Did some cleaning house

The lead paragraph had some amateurish writing in it tacked on to what was already in place so I just fixed that up, and I relocated a couple of pictures slightly further down because their then-current positions interfered with the aesthetics of the article text (e.g. huge gaps between section header and text).

KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

...could whomever wrote this sentence please clarify it in a way that makes sense "He was an outspoken advocate, despite the risk this placed him in under the strict censorship laws of the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.219.43 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC) What did he advocate? From this sentence it could mean anything from cannibalism to the wearing of striped underwear on Wednesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.219.43 (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

2009 Voltaire Film

I removed the reference to the 2009 film about Voltaire staring Liam Neeson. No such film exists. The supposed citation was simply a link to a NY Times review from 1933 about the Voltaire film made that year. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Last words.

"When asked on his deathbed by a priest to renounce the devil and turn to God, he is alleged to have replied, "For God's sake, let me die in peace.""

I was surprised to read the above quoted as the last words of Voltaire. I remember reading in my youth the last words of Voltaire as being "This is no time to be making enemies" or some variation of those words in the same circumstances as above. A cursory search through google seems to support this memory, the link given to support the above quote is from a generalised history of Europe which is not even available online. Is this considered a verifiable source?

Amentet (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he said both. [1] But in all honesty it sounds a bit too Mark Twain for a man's dying words. IsambardBrunel (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

there a another voltaire too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.174.51 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

When no one knows for sure what his last words were, why are we allowing an unverified source to be cited? Shouldn't this be marked as "unverified" or something? Remember: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It really reduces the quality of the article to cite "cracked.com" as a source, especially given that the 'cracked' article cites no sources itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmaz (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong or Non existent source

In a letter to Frederick II, King of Prussia, dated 5 January 1767 he wrote that, “ Le christianisme est la plus ridicule, la religion la plus absurde et sanglante qui ait jamais infecté le monde.[33] (Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that ever infected the world.)

This quote is not present within the source cited for it. Not on that date or any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.134.48 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reading the article and noticed the quote, not because it was not in the source, but because it's not good French (I'm French). So I went to the source, and the sentence is there, but in good French : "La nôtre est sans contredit la plus ridicule, la plus absurde, et la plus sanguinaire qui ait jamais infecté le monde". "nôtre" refers to "nôtre religion" meaning "our religion", so I got bold and edited the article. Aesma (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Attitude toward Jews

Though many books have been written taxing Voltaire with anti-semitism, they do not explain, nor usually even mention, the numerous pamphlets he wrote attacking anti-semitism itself. This apparent contradiction led many to conclude that his remarks were in fact anti-Biblical and not anti-semitic. His "Sermon du rabbin Akib", for example, is a scathing attack on Christian persecution of the Jews, and similar remarks can be found scattered throughout his 200-odd pamphlets and books on religion.

It has been pointed out that thirty of the 118 articles in his Dictionnaire Philosophique described the ancient Jews in consistently negative ways, as barbarous, absurd and deeply superstitious; however, this ignores his qualifiers, in which he points out that "all of antiquity was", as a rule.

Peter Gay, the best known contemporary authority on the Enlightenment, wrote that "Voltaire struck at the Jews to strike at Christianity," a view shared by certain leading Jewish Voltairians—indeed, the point usually is, if the Jews were cruel and absurd, what can be made of other faiths that declare their histories sacred, yet persecute them? "When I see Christians cursing Jews," he wrote in his English Notebook, "methinks I see children beating their fathers." And posing as a freshly minted Spanish priest in Les Questions de Zapata, he asks his superiors how he should go about explaining that the Jews, whom they burn by the hundreds, were the chosen people of God for four thousand years, and why we chant their prayers while burning them. Voltaire grew exceedingly vocal against the Church during the campaign for tolerance of his later years, openly writing that it had been the "consistently implacable enemy of progress, decency, humanity and rationality" and that it had been the Church's interest to "keep people as ignorant and submissive as children".

This material has been deleted repeatedly, most recently with the explanation "removed section because it showed biased views".[2] I suggest that if there is bias it should be fixed instead of deleting the whole section. Based on the sources, it appears to be a noteworthy topic.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I DID A DRASTIC REVERT TO MAY 10, 2010. THESE EDITS ADDED UNSOURCED INSERTED THE WEASELLY LANGUAGE AND HAD LARGE AMOUNTS OF BIAS.[3] MUCH OF THE INFORMATION ADDED IN THOSE EDITS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE SOURCES. Crunk Cup (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Voltaire's Date of Birth

Many sources, such as this one, give his date of birth as November 21, 1694. This is why I have reverted the change, as I consider history.com a reliable source for this information. - SudoGhost™ 22:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That date is based on a baptismal record that would have him baptised the day after he was born. Highly unlikely and disputed even by Voltaire himself. Plenty of sources for this much better than history.com that is for sure. JGIV (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but these "plenty of sources" aren't been given by anyone. If you can provide a source then yes, we can perhaps change the date of birth. Gorlack36 (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Other sources that support November 21, 1694 as his date of birth are: Encyclopedia Britannica, Wolfram Alpha, The Chicago Tribune

These books also list his birthday as November 21, 1694:

Mason, Haydn. Voltaire: A Biography. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.

Carlson, Marvin. Voltaire and the Theatre of the Eighteenth Century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. - SudoGhost™ 23:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica page does mention the February 20 date, but explains that it is a hypothesis, one not supported by any given facts. The November 21 date is based on facts, his birth certificate chief among them. - SudoGhost™ 23:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As the February 20 date is not based on any facts, and the November 21 date is based on facts, I think that it could (with sources) be included in his "Early life" section, explaining this hypothesis, but the listed DOB should not be changed. - SudoGhost™ 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but a baptismal record is not a birth certificate. http://www.memo.fr/article.asp?ID=VOL_VIE_001 http://books.google.com/books?id=kj81AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=voltaire+dictionary&hl=en&ei=Nz8STobQGrOFsALB4OHUDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGIV (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first link says the date is disputed, not that is it factually wrong. Also, if you have a problem with what Encyclopedic Britannica states, take it up with them, they're the one that states it is a birth certificate. I'm only showing what reliable sources show. Your source shows speculation, not fact. This is not reason to change the date. - SudoGhost™ 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC) The first link in French says it is disputed alright, by Voltaire himself! The second link explains both the reason why the 21 November date is used based on the baptismal record of 22nd. They did not have hospital births and records then I think it is fair to say and the custom is not to have newborn infants baptized. JGIV (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm not seeing it, the second link shows (perhaps incorrectly, given the overwhelming sources to the opposite), the DOB as February 20, but does not explain the discrepancy in the dates, which the Britannica source does. The information can be placed in the article as a speculated alternate DOB within the "Early Career" section, but not as the official DOB, as there is no evidence and no sources to support that change, other than speculation not backed up by any factual evidence (your first source even gives November 21 as the DOB, and February 20 as a speculated DOB). - SudoGhost™ 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC) The second link is in English and very clearly explains that the discrepancy was due to ill health. I can understand that you may be confused by the French links, which say the same thing, but this is in very straightforward English. I suggest you read it again. JGIV (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The English link is not based on historically provable facts, and is one that is overshadowed by many other sources, including the other link you provided. Sources are given that explain the difference in the dates, including the French link you gave. The French link most certainly does not say the same thing. Your French link says that the child was christened on November 22, but was born the day before. It then says that the November 22 date is disputed, but that the February 20 date is only speculation. Many other sources agree with your French link, and as such the date should not be changed without reliable sources showing otherwise. - SudoGhost™ 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)I see, "Cette date est contestée par Voltaire lui-même qui, à plusieurs reprises, affirme avoir poussé son premier cri le 20 février 1694." -This date is disputed by Voltaire himself, who repeatedly claims to have uttered his first cry February 20, 1694.- Really means he is merely speculating about when he was born. JGIV (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You left out the sentence right before it, "Baptisé officiellement le 22 novembre 1694, l'enfant, de constitution fragile, serait né la veille, à Paris." - SudoGhost™ 03:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What this Britannica link Encyclopedia Britannica does in fact say is ' but the hypothesis that his birth was kept secret cannot be dismissed, for he stated on several occasions that in fact it took place on February 20.' I don't think 'cannot be dismissed' can be mistaken for 'one not supported by any given facts' in any language. That is a rather large asterisk note on a birthday date when the live person disputes not only his birthdate but also his parentage. It seems to be common knowledge among the French that the official birth date and place is fictional. You certainly won't find any Voltaire birthplace displays, markers or tour stops if you visit Paris. Voltaire is in the opposite position of birth place and date verification vis-a-vis Barack Obama. In Voltaire's case the most famous man in the nation actively maintains his illegitimacy but the rational authorities insist on the fiction.

Which is why I said that it should be included in the article in the "Early career" section, but not as the official date. The official date is one supported by facts, and even your French link shows his DOB as that date. Your assertion of "fiction" is not supported by any facts. If a notable person maintains his date of birth is different than what documented facts state, it could be included in the article explaining his assertion (provided sources document this), but it would not be appropriate to change his DOB based only on his own word. This is true of any article about a person. - SudoGhost™ 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Therefore Monsieur Voltaire is sadly mistaken in what he asserts as his date of birth and who his parents are. Evidently he is not aware of the difference between fiction and reality. If he were not such a 'notable' person perhaps this would be easier to correct but his putative father was indeed a notary of some sort. Perhaps, Monsieur should consult with the French version of Wiki for further fact finding.JGIV (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The French version contains exactly what I mean. The DOB is listed as 21 novembre 1694, but mentions in the actual article that Voltaire asserts his actual DOB as being "19 or 20 February 1694". - SudoGhost™ 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Voltaire would no doubt virtually agree with Ronald Reagan in this case where facts are stupid things.JGIV (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

C'est la vie. - SudoGhost™ 19:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Can somebody please roll this article back to the last intact version, prior to the wave of vandalism? I undid the last change too quickly, before I realised how many edits were vandalism - sorry!

And how about protecting it while you're at it? It gets vandalised all the time. Awien (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does this page get vandalized, anyway? 216.70.3.2 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Because kids are made to study the fellow in school, and some of them don't like the fact. (Or, once they've extracted the information needed for their reports, they want to "spoil" the article so that their fellow students will copy incorrect information into their reports.) Deor (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And then there's just plain immature attention-seeking, neither funny nor clever. Awien (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm serious: shouldn't this page be semi-protected? Awien (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can try making a request at WP:RFPP, and you may hit upon a sympathetic admin; but I don't really see that this article is being vandalized more than any other fairly-high-profile article or that the vandalism is too frequent for reverters to keep up with. The current absence of ClueBot NG is making the onus on meat editors a bit greater all around. Deor (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you're right. Sigh. Awien (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Voltaire works

We don't have such an article? Atrocious. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's Category:Works by Voltaire, plus the article itself looks like it seems to have such a list. - SudoGhost 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sardonic visage

Was he toothless?Lestrade (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Race and Slavery Hedge Dr at work

Race and Slavery | Wow, are we disusing the man that said "And it is a big question whether among them they are descendants of monkeys, or if monkeys come from them. Our wise men have said that man is the image of God: behold a pleasant image of the eternal Being with a flat black nose, with little or no intelligence! A time will come, without a doubt, when these animals will know how to cultivate the earth well, to embellish it with houses and gardens, and to know the routes of the stars. Time is a must, for everything~ Voltaire" Didnt know NPOV meant Wiki was in the White washing laundry service. --Inayity (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please state your problem with the section more clearly? - Cal Engime (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/diafwt_ratsism.htm

This gives references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.190.159 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything, I believe the Race and slavery section needs to be expanded neutrally. Was Voltaire not as enlightened as we believe him to be, accepting the common view of his times that blacks were inferior? Maybe Voltaire was disregarding the Bible in order to justify his views on blacks and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I found some content from a reliable scholar about Voltaire and antisemitism and racism. I cannot add them but maybe someone here can. I've typed it up in full:

Lewis, Bernard. Semites and Anti-Semites, Chapter 4, p.87-88.

One of the most vehement critics of the Jews, in these terms, was the great Voltaire, whose hostility to both Judaism and the Jews--allegedly due to some personal difficulties with individual Jews--find frequent expression in his writings. Indeed, the question has been asked whether Voltaire was anti-Jewish because he was anti-clerical, or anti-Christian because he was anti-Jewish. An acute observer, the Prince de Ligne, after spending eight days as Voltaire's guest at Ferney and hearing his views at length, remarked: "The only reason why M. de Voltaire gave vent to such outbursts against Jesus Christ is that He was born among a nation whom he detested."8

Voltaire himself remarked, in one of his notebooks, in his own English: "When I see Christians cursing Jews, methinks I see children beating their fathers. Jewish religion is the mother of Christianity, and grand mother of the mahometism."9 There are other indications in Voltaire's writings of a cast of thought which can fairly be described as racist, as when he remarks, quite wrongly, that in ancient Rome "the Jews were regarded in the same way as we regard Negroes, as an inferior species of men."10 In another place, ironically, in his Traité de Métaphysique, his philosophical narrator observes that white men "seem to me superior to Negroes, just as Negroes are superior to monkeys and monkeys to oysters."11

Some clue to Voltaire's antiblack racism may be found in a detail from his biography. The philosopher was engaged in a number of financial enterprises, some of them rather questionable. The most relevant was a large-scale investment in a slave trading enterprise out of the French port of Nantes, which according to contemporary witnesses made him "one of the twenty wealthiest (les mieux rentés) persons in the kingdom."12

//end text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.136.29 (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Polished French Drama

'Polished' in this context must mean empty,pompous and slavishly trying to imitate a form of Classical writing that may have had its own merits but was hardly worth imitating. (Pamour (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)).

Biased representation

A quote Voltaire had trouble with the authorities for even mild critiques of the government and religious intolerance. These activities were to result in numerous imprisonments and exiles. One satirical verse about the Régent led to his imprisonment in the Bastille for eleven months
Quite a lot of legends have been invented to represent the Ancien Régime as intolerant. This is one. In reality, Voltaire had written "satirical" - grossly slanderous - verses accusing the Regent of incest with his daughter. He was warned, and exiled out of town. He asked for the Regent's pardon, which was generously granted. And promptly published new accusations.
Such slander cannot be called mild critique, and calumny is punishable by law in most civilised countries. Try it today, you may get up to three years of imprisonment in Switzerland.
The word numerous is to be interpreted as exactly two. Voltaire was taken into the Bastille once for calumny, and a second time preventatively, as he had made clear that he would fight a duel with the chevalier de Rohan. As in many countries, fighting duels is not encouraged. Two weeks in jail and exile. Voltaire was never jailed for critique of the government - that story belongs to the "black legends" of the Ancien Régime.
Riyadi (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Saddhiyama

I am bewildered as to why you have removed the edit on Voltaire's views on Hinduism when i have given not just a secondary source but a primary source i.e. the precise page in Voltaire's 'Philosophical Dictionary' which is available online. The edit in question is:

• Voltaire had a favorable view of Hinduism and Hindu scripture. He claimed that he had studied portions of Hindu scripture personally and had formed a generally favorable impression of what he had read. He was of the opinion that Hindus had made significant contributions in the fields of theology, philosophy, law, art, and mathematics. Voltaire commented that in his opinion the representation of a Hindu Goddess with ten arms is meant to be interpreted allegorically and not literally. He was critical of contemporary missionaries who were claiming that the image of a Hindu Goddess with ten arms, which in Voltaire's view represented the image of Virtue, was the Devil and on this basis were claiming that the Devil was being worshipped in India.

The primary source is: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volbrahm.html My contention is that the edit is based on the primary source. Please point out to me what part of the edit is not based on the primary source in your opinion

Also, i propose that the 'Philosophy' section should be renamed as 'Religion' since all the sub-headings are about his views on different religions. The only exception is the heading 'Race and Slavery'. We can put this in a separate section, perhaps under a Philosophy section. Soham321 (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit is your interpretation of Voltaires views through a primary source. That constitutes WP:OR. You will need to provide some reliable secondary sources for such claims as these that Voltaire "had formed a generally favorable impression of what he had read" and that "he was of the opinion that Hindus had made significant contributions in the fields of theology, philosophy, law, art, and mathematics". --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm puzzled why this page is such a hot target for vandalism. Looking at the history over the last year, a huge majority of edits are vandalism or reverts. Common school subject? I noticed Montesqieu is in a similar state. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Common school subject is what I've always assumed. Much of the vandalism seems to come from educational institutions. Deor (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The little darlings either get directed to Wikipedia specifically by their teachers - or do a generic Google or something and come up with the Wiki article. Obviously most of them have the sense to extract what they need and move on, but there will always be a percentage of class clowns, with the wit to realise they can "edit", but insufficient maturity to realise it is a very bad idea to do so. Roman numerals and Canterbury tales are another pair of articles in the same category - I'm sure there are many others. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Caption error

I believe the caption to the frontispiece image is incorrect, both here and on the page about Emilie du Châtelet. I believe this image was in Voltaire's book, from 1738 (in which Emilie du Châtelet played a significant role, essentially as co-author, according to Passionate Minds). Unless there are other opinions on this, I will change the caption in both places so it reads:

In the frontispiece to Voltaire's book on Newton's philosophy, Émilie du Châtelet appears as Voltaire's muse, reflecting Newton's heavenly insights down to Voltaire.

Sfmammamia (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

He admired religion

He admired Hinduism, and it's texts. It should be mentioned, right? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Got a good source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he regarded Vedas as "The Veda was the most precious gift for which the West had ever been indebted to the East." See [4] Page 442, [5] Page 148 <-- Both big time scholars of Indian and european studies. He admired India and it's history as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal Rights

Why is there no mention of Voltaire's support for animal rights, namely anti-vivisection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.186.136 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

He was a vegetarian? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just found a few sources[6], [7]. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Evolving Views that go from bigotry to bigotry

In the section his views evolved? How? according to the article they went from bigotry to bigotry. In the original edit you see reference.

Evolving views of Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, can be found in Voltaire’s writings. In a letter recommending his play Fanaticism, or Mahomet to Pope Benedict XIV, Voltaire described the founder of Islam as “the founder of a false and barbarous sect” and “a false prophet”,[32] a view he revised upon further research for his Essai sur les Moeurs et l’Esprit des Nations.” [Source]

"His religion is wise, strict, chaste, and human: wise, because it doesn’t fall in the foolishness of associating any idea to God, and because it doesn’t have any “mystery”; strict, because it forbids gambling, wine and alcohol, and commends to pray five times a day, chaste, because it limits to a maximum of four a number of wives that was previously numerous like it is so common in the bed of all princes of the Orient, human, because it commands charity even more strongly than the pilgrimage to Mecca itself. Add to this all the character of truth and tolerance." - [ Il faut prendre un parti » (1772), dans Œuvres complètes de Voltaire, Voltaire, éd. Moland, 1875, t. 28, chap. 23-Discours d’un Turc, p. 547] "In the essay on morals , Voltaire “makes a judgment almost entirely favorable” about Muhammad and “show full of praise for the Muslim civilization and Islam as a rule of life” 3 . It thus compares the “genius of the Arab people” to “genius of the ancient Romans’ four and wrote that “in our centuries of barbarism and ignorance, following the decline and tearing of the Roman Empire, we received almost all of the Arab astronomy, chemistry, medicine, ” 5 and that “in the second century of Muhammad, it was necessary that the Christians of the West among Muslims instruisissent” 6” ref of content from wikipedia--Inayity (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not exactly an uncommon evolution in the history of man for people to evolove from one kind of bigotry to another.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is how the word evolution should be used. Also see the original text which said he spoke very favorable of Islam. And that is why the original text used the word EVOLVE. Someone later deleted the ref i gave above. That is why the "evolves" is out of place. --Inayity (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't pro islamic, he was anti-islamist. He in fact wrote that Islam as “the founder of a false and barbarous sect” and Muhammad as "false prophet". Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Read this section from the top down - that quote has already mentioned a few posts up. Both points of view (in relation to Islam) were common enough at the time, and not very original (certainly not unique to Voltaire, anyway). The bigoted false and barbarous sect point of view was the official Catholic line from the time of Muhammad himself until quite recently - remember the quote is from a (possibly ironically?) fawning letter to the Pope. The second view, is actually much more closely related to the facts of the case - the Islamic Golden Age, was a very advanced civilisation, bringing together Indian and Ancient Greek science and mathematics for instance. Arab philosophy, built on Greek models, was widely read and admired by the 17th and 18th century enlightenment writers. It was far superior to the obscurantist, superstitious and fanatical European Middle ages, although even in Voltaire's time it had already degenerated somewhat. The liberal view of Islam could very well have been what he always really thought, or perhaps what he came to think (hence the "evolving" view) after he had read more widely on the subject of the great debt owed by Western Civilization to Islam (or, if you like, Islamic Civilization). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

this "evolved view" of Islam has been removed. And despite quoting from a book Blademulti is stating things without reviewing the"evolved view"--Inayity (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You really found any results for "show full of praise for the Muslim civilization and Islam as"? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals, I have no idea to who you are referring to. But for real there is no source that supports any of these claimed quotations. Not even a single book. You can search yourself on both google books and Jstor. You won't find any. But in fact he made whole play criticizing islam and muhammad, and the plot was later criticized by Napolean. Which is evident, and sourced by number of sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the ref I added to the article his view seriously changed to one of praise once he realized possible the Islamic Golden Age. I mean he found something amazing about Islam in his later life, long after his play. Also that tag makes no sense there b/c (for one) there is no rationale for why it is there. The ref given are crystal clear that his views evolved. --Inayity (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously myth. And I ask you to don't remove any tags, insert them back, unless you can make some change to the section. He doesn't seems to be praising Islam, if he had done, he wouldn't be facing balant criticism by Napolean for writing that all. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have explained the tags are inappropriate and a blatant misuse, that is one thing. As for your current argument it is OR based upon your logic. The article has in REF which you can challenge, but I will not engage in your opinion vs my opinion. Only RS vs RS. If you feel otherwise I will challenge you to request for comments and see if those tags without rationale make any sense. To clarify why those tags are removed please read WP:DISPUTED, there is a criteria needed. It cannot have an article tag for a section which seems to be randomly picked and thrown on. Where is the rationale that anything is misleading, what is misleading per RS. Is René Pomeau telling lies? What is misleading?--Inayity (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you can simply present multiple sources. These quotes, to me, seems to have been sparked through a facebook comment, as per my search on google, and later backed by some other 2-3 fringed public sites, that refer to the facebook comment. If not, present reliable source. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If true that would be a problem. but I see ref there you can them via the proper channels. I am not in possession of some special info. i am only following the JSTOR article. But I did not use one ref, several ref exist in the section. --Inayity (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jstor didn't included the given quote, which is real matter. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay step by step, the tag is not needed. What exactly in the section are you challenging, the Rene stuff? B/c You cannot challenge anything else. So our discussion needs to now focus on Voltaire en son temps, Fayard, 1995,--Inayity (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Both quotes, and even the claim that his "views revised upon", which is obviously not backed with evidence, nor by reliable sources. It is very obvious that if he had said something positive about Islam, like you are claiming, it would had been relevant among many many minds, for example, this-->"These+and+not+the+sword+carried+everything", how many sources are there? Is that just 1-2? Or more. Now read Just because it's written in book, it's not enough, even if we believe that it is written. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont think the issue is written in a book hence RS. b/c i can use that for argument against every ref. And remember there is not that much content on his view anyway. Per Google Scholar. --Inayity (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you search the non-disputed quotes of Voltaire, you can surely find many sources. You got that it sounds basically abnormal that he would have wrote positive views about Islam and they haven't got even 3 reliable sources today even though Voltaire himself passed like 200-300 years ago. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Regarding the Voltaire#Islam section, the issue has been brought to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#On_Voltaire, all opinions are welcomed. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you should have picked another noticeboard other than Fringe. --Inayity (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am sure these are fringed theories.. The play, to which you are referring to, Voltaire defended the play by telling that "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds", (noted in "Voltaire,Lettres inédites de Voltaire", Didier, 1856, t.1, Lettre à M. César De Missy, 1er septembre 1743, p.450) He wrote to King of Prussia again, he writes that:-

Muhammad is "whatever trickery can invent that most atrocious and whatever fanaticism can accomplish that is most horrifying. Mahomet here is nothing other than Tartuffe with armies at his command", on 20 january 1742. Tells enough that his view for Islam, or Muhammad, never changed. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

When we want to report on his view, let us use secondary sources from scholars (RS) to say it changed or not changed. NOT our own opinion. It is just easier that way. The refs (plural) already states he view changed, and it is very possible to hold onto some old bigorty while admiring a thing. I think that is a human trait. It is not black and white. --Inayity (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the presented quotes are probably misleading, since we have got no reliable sources for them, and not even multiple sources. Other than that, here, Voltaire's whole event was summarized well, as per this page, it include every other theory, although it doesn't include any "changing views", or anything similar. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Also I don't think we have to go far now, we can confirm, from the following para.. I propose this one for Islam :-

In his tragedy Mahomet, Voltaire described Mohammed as an "imposter", a " false prophet", a "fanatic" and a "hypocrite".. He would later face the protests against the play, it included the Turkish ambassador, and religious leaders. Other critics claimed that Voltaire actually attacked Christianity by depicting the alien fanaticism. Indeed, Voltaire was attacking any religion that reaches its goal by inhumane means, a number of lines in the play would offend religious extremists. Voltaire later defended the play by suggesting "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds."

In 1742 later wrote to King of Prussia, he compared Muhammad him with Tartuffe, and added that Muhammad is;

"whatever trickery can invent that most atrocious and whatever fanaticism can accomplish that is most horrifying. Mahomet here is nothing other than Tartuffe with armies at his command."

References

Possibly inappropriate tagging

Please read WP:TAGGING, I have said this before so I am not sure what part I should repeat. While anything can be tagged you need a rationale for the tagging. None exist for the tags placed on a section which are NOT for a section. They have been removed and all inappropriate tags will be removed. Again please read the rules if you want to constructively make the article better, because blind tagging is not allowed. How do you put an OR tag on a section for an article when, for one there is no OR issue? Per WP:DETAG --Inayity (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging is legible here. Other user(itsmejudith) told that he has copy pasted them from French wikipedia, so that he can get opinion on here about it. It is not the last neither agreed version. But highly unbalanced and full of disputes, it is not even in english. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will not waste time repeating what I said above. Please read WP:TAGGINGis pretty clear you seem to be jumping all over the place without understanding how Wikipedia works. You have a problem so you randomly throw tags which do not apply, then you come to the talk page and talk about "unbalanced", what does anything you said above have to do with the misuse of tags? --Inayity (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a case of "editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags." Bladesmulti (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are so sure you are right, here is what to do. Invite ANY senior editor and ask them if my actions are incorrect. Try and Administration Notice board. PLEASE NOW. You are not understanding the rules. Pause and read them.--Inayity (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

But what about the dispute, that the section is depending upon unconfirmed primary sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you pause and look at what you are doing as opposed to protesting so much? There is a dispute about WHAT? As an example. If you and I have a dispute about a ref, there is a tag for that ref dispute. Maybe the ref needs to be checked, (I have added such tags already to problem areas). But what you are doing (as an example to illustrate a point). Is putting a OR or any random tag on a dispute about a Ref quality check on an ENTIRE section. It is an abuse of tagging. The section does not have an ARTICLE Original research issue, how can you put those tags there? WP:LISTEN--Inayity (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Starting from first line "As a Deist, Voltaire was attracted by the apparent rationality of Islam, a religion with no clergy, miracles or mysteries." That's original research, because Islam gives special importance to Miracles, read Islamic view of miracles. Don't have to explain more about that tag. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the article since the French translations were added. I would, If I were you, stick an INLINE on it, or a . That way anyone who sees the tag can fix it, or dispute it. I am no fan of general random tagging because If someone is glancing the article have no idea what the issue is. --Inayity (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost 90% of the section has issues. So tagging is helpful there. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest, since you can see there is a disagreement in progress, to use the talk page to itemize the issues point by point.(in a separate section) Had it not been this back and forth fighting it might not be needed. I am not happy with the messy nature of the section, and I have tagged the ref which I think we need to check. There are issues of WEIGHT, issues of REF check, But I do not see a lot of OR, or need for more ref. Some ref need translations, that is a different issue which does not fit with the rationale you have stated. --Inayity (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the section is obviously misused as well. I think using sandbox is better option for such edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a better soln, b/c it is a mess. I think you should raise that with the French speaking editor who has added the large volume of untranslated French. --Inayity (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where the user got this all french quotes from, Remember, french is very popular language, if there was quote about voltaire, related to any of these quotes, we would had them, but till now(over 240 years) we got nothing to backup in this matter. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a random editor. There've been a lot of edits recently: please, either one of or both of you, point me to a diff or a version that has supposed inappropriate tags, or a diff (or set of diffs) where they were removed. I see this and this. Are these edits at the heart of the dispute, or did I miss any other important ones? Drmies (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, any of those 2 diffs, because the religion don't appear on this template anyway, which has been used.

  Ok let's get to real point. The current section, is obviously, full of unconfirmed primary sources, with no page numbers at all. I have already tried finding reliable sources for them, but there are seriously none, for those claimed quotations. I have already proposed a section for Voltaire#Islam on above section. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, there should be little doubt that he was a deist but that's beside the point. These tags here are little to worry over: it's hardly overtagging or tag bombing. If the tags are to stay, one should explain on the talk page how that particular tag is helpful. I do agree that there are probably too many primary references, so in that sense both tags appear to be warranted: use of primary sources frequently leads to original research. But rather than fight over these tags, it would be much more helpful if you all were to tackle the existing tags, one by one. For instance, if the text is brought in from the French wiki, references and all, why do you doubt them? And if there is discussion over the first sentence (given that there is clergy and there are miracles), why not simply tweak it--did he think it was a religion without those elements? Was that a commonly held opinion? I think you all are spending way too much time on something that is not the issue. Get the secondary books that are cited and see if they help verify other points in the text, that would be a start. Let the other guy win and have his tags, or the lack thereof, and be constructive. Ultimately, there's only one kind of winning here: the production of a better article. Tags don't make something a better article, good references and well-written text do. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies if you take a look at the discussion and the tags added you will see the issue. Blade is not listening to what I am saying nor is he reading about what those tags are for. You CANNOT put article tags on a section, they belong at the top of the article. ALSO, if the body has inline tags there is no need to duplicate with a section tag. Also, if the issue if ref you do not just throw an Original research tag for good measure. Tags must reflect accurately the issue under discussion OR is not one of them.--Inayity (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First time i am hearing that you cant add tags to section, other than ignorance, it also seems like issue of editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you have heard about WP:GOODFAITH, because I really cannot tolerate editors who fail to get it ddue to their own ignorance of Wikipedia. I do not give a damn about the disputes, why would i care? is this something to care about. You so POV driven. This is your problem. Embarrassed about tags? Please learn the rules aand do not address me with nonsense arguments, just address the article as it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. FFirst time? It is explaining iin all the places where you got those tags from. I have explained it to you more than once. DRmies has said "let the other guy and have his tags and be constructive" --Inayity (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"I do not give a damn about the disputes, why would i care?" then "all the places where you got those tags from", what you are trying to tell. Since many of these links are not even working anymore(some are dead primary source for over 3 years). That's why the tags were added, although there will be need of more tags, if it took longer. But for now, these 2 are main points, one OR, and other Verification. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you having hearing problems. Original research has inline tags. Ref problems have inline tags.OR is not discussed on this talk page. FRINGE is not discussed on this talk page. So I see you have a very poor grasp of what you are disputing. You have a pattern of taking any issue anywhere you think you can get an audience. So this first it was fringe, then it was OR. It is a Reference issue, a verification issue, a balance issue. Islam is a section, it is NOT AN ARTICLE. At the top of articles is the only place for ARTICLE TAGS. What can you not understand about that simple argument?--Inayity (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously much of the content for that section is WP:FRINGE, since its over 200 years(almost 300 years) now. And we dont even have 3 reliable sources. Where i denied that these are not Fringed theories later on? You seem to be making up, only for getting rid of the fact that tags are highly embarrassing you, just like it is seen among many other editors who remove tags without adding any improvement. There is no problem in adding "article tags" for the section, if you have problem, replace it with section, instead of removing them, 3 times under 20 mins. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Very obvious:very very obvious to one editor--Inayity (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Drmies)Exactly my point. Well, French wiki is either correct or not, how we can know, since their article cites things like "In his preface to the new edition of the work of Poliakov, The diabolical causality", "Oedipus , Act IV , Scene 1 )", as sources. I mean seriously? Everyone has their own opinion, how they view things like, but they even cite the view as a source. Even there, these copied+pasted facts are remarked as "disputed". Bladesmulti (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Give it a few days. I'll complete the translation then we can see how much of it is supported by good secondary sources. Perhaps less than at first sight, but some definitely is. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

For all experimental edits, you can use WP:Sandbox. When you reverted, multiple sections were changed. Not just one. So again, Sandbox is better, as per advised above. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

These are not experimental edits, although they are work in progress and I shall tag the section as such. Now I have translated all the text, although not all the footnotes yet, I shall examine all the references for reliability. I am quite aware that the majority are primary sources, but it also seems that they are the primary sources used by secondary authors, so may be acceptable. The section is of course also too long. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

They are obviously experimental edits, the way you are copying pasting from other. And such abnormal edits are not meant to be on main page, you can use the sandbox instead of removing the highly reliable sources that you have removed, for these unknown primary sources. Stop messing it up seriously. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that most of your sources are " http://www.voltaire-integral.com ", a domain that is on sale for last 3 years. And has no source. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously acceptable to improve an article on a French philosopher from the article on fr.wiki. I've no idea what on earth you mean by "my" sources. I am, as I said, in the process of examining carefully the sources in the French text I have brought in. It has taken some time and effort, as you will appreciate, to translate that text. You need to give this a few days. I will shortly post here the sources used in the section, with comments on each. I have not looked at any website www.voltaire-integral.com. It does not appear to have any relevance to this discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

fr.wiki is neither a reliable source, or there's any sanction to copy from those pages. No one is going to "wait for days", because the current version is obviously misleading. If you haven't looked on the sources, why you are even using them? What is stopping you to use WP:Sandbox for these experiments and nonconstructive edits, but leading you to mess the section? Just answer that. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We often translate material and copy it from another language Wikipedia, although we do have to meet some simple requirements that are at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects. It is usually seen as a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I had read last time that you cant even add external link(other than english), yet here we are having primary sources in french for refs. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be in English. Much of the high quality scholarship about a French philosopher will be in French. Every scholar of Voltaire reads French fluently - and English too, actually. French language texts are reviewed in English language sources and vice versa. I agree that the text as it is refers to many primary sources, but there are also a number of secondary sources in there. Here is the list, with my comments. Can people please comment if they don't agree with my summations. (unindenting)

• Ahmad Gunny, Images of Islam in Eighteenth-Century Writings (London: Grey Seal, 1996). Scholarly.

• http://www.shamogoloparvaneh.com/debateon%20islam.pdf The Erasure of Islam by Ziauddin Sardar, introduction by Gilad Atzmon. Actually “The erasure of Islam”. The Philosophers' Magazine 42:77-79 (2008) A serious publication but not peer-reviewed. Not the best link for it. The introduction by Atzmon not relevant and must be ignored if this is used. The text seems to be in line with scholarship and a clear summary, but not the best of sources.

• Ziad Elmarsafy. "The Enlightenment Qur'an: The Politics of Translation and the Construction of Islam". Oneworld Publications. 2009. Not an academic publisher, but the author is an academic.

• Sadek Neaimi, L’Islam au siècle des Lumières, Harmattan. Scholarly.

• D. Venturino. “Imposteur ou législateur ? Le Mahomet des Lumières”, in Religions en transition dans la seconde moitié du dix-huitième siècle, Voltaire Foundation, 2000. ISBN 978-0-7294-0711-3. Scholarly.

• Dirk van der Cruysse, “De Bayle à Raynal, le prophète Muhammad à travers le prisme des Lumières”, in De branche en branche : études sur le français, Peeters Publishers, 2005. Scholarly.

• René Pomeau, Voltaire en son temps, Fayard, 1995. Scholarly.

• Pierre Milza, Voltaire, Librairie Académique Perrin, 2007. Scholarly.

• René Pomeau, La religion de Voltaire, A. G Nizet, 1995. Scholarly.

Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It needs to have page numbers, scholarly, many things. Just because it is in french doesn't clear everything. Ziauddin Sardar is reliable, so is Ahmad Gunny, but Ahmad Gunny doesn't refer to the whole letter now, in which Voltaire is critical towards muhammad. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that these texts are scholarly? If they are then of course page numbers will be added, if not present already. Do you not have any qualms about this particular Sardar source? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He is academic, and his writing about voltaire, are not really contradicting the timings of Voltaire's quotes, he is regarding voltaire as "he regarded Islam to be much tolerant faith than Christianity," but that's it, it is obvious too, since he already regarded Christianity to be most intolerant. But Sardar further explained. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

just a note, you cannot delete a ref b/c a pg number is missing, you can, however tag it. and my other note is dialectic approaches serve our mission to make this page better. If ref hold up do not look for holes just to maintain a POV.--Inayity (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Right now, whole section is nonconstructive and incomplete, even itsmejudith agreed. So don't remove the tags, if no one has agreed with you yet. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can't believe how much time and energy you all have spent on this discussion. You might have turned the article into a GA; instead there's this incessant bickering which also makes for really poor reading: who wants to read y'all's pros and cons? Dougweller, thanks for your useful comment. Itsmejudith, if you translated this, thanks for improving the project yet again. I was asked to look into the dispute, but I'm not going to do that any more since the dispute isn't worth the effort. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire and lslam?

Voltaire was attracted by the apparent rationality of Islam, a religion with no clergy, miracles or mysteries. Well, maybe, though I am not that sure about it. But I doubt that Islam had such a big importance in Voltaires live as this section should indicate. Try to keep that section on about 5-7 lines. This is not an important topic and it just takes over the article. By the way, there are plenty of miracles and mysteries in Islam, don't forget that. Hafspajen (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, good point, check the edit history, every time I insert the sourced version, its replaced by the current version(for only this section). Not to forget that Voltaire had given another anti-muslim speech in 1762, where he would not allow muslims to even attend his speech. 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Si Dieu nous a fait à son image, nous le lui avons bien rendu.| Le Sottisier (ca. 1735–ca. 1750)
• Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.|letter to Frederick the Great (6 april 1767).

• Je meurs en adorant Dieu, en aimant mes amis, en ne haïssant pas mes ennemis et en détestant la superstition.
  • I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition.
    • Déclaration de Voltaire, note to his secretary, Jean-Louis Wagnière (28 February 1778).(Voltaire, citation)

Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This is Voltaire about Islam

• Mais qu’un marchand de chameaux excite une sédition dans sa bourgade; qu’associé à quelques malheureux coracites il leur persuade qu’il s’entretient avec l’ange Gabriel; qu’il se vante d’avoir été ravi au ciel, et d’y avoir reçu une partie de ce livre inintelligible qui fait frémir le sens commun à chaque page; que, pour faire respecter ce livre, il porte dans sa patrie le fer et la flamme; qu’il égorge les pères, qu’il ravisse les filles, qu’il donne aux vaincus le choix de sa religion ou de la mort, c’est assurément ce que nul homme ne peut excuser, à moins qu’il ne soit né Turc, et que la superstition n’étouffe en lui toute lumière naturelle.
  • But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.

(And that camel-merchant - that reffers to The Prophet - and any good muslim would hit Voltaire in the head, if reading thid quote - if he had a chance - this is just plain irony.) Hafspajen (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, If you search them, you can easily find multiple reliable sources as well. So if he had said something, it actually became popular, while these quotes, on Islam section, that are claimed, they have 0 reliable sources, for almost 1 week now. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

List and identify what is OR and what is NOT

I have seen OR article tags, but I have not seen OR as the main issue in any section. Can we list the OR in the current Islam section. Now I have identified and I have tagged or deleted some or--but the section has gained great volume since then. removing OR] As opposed to misuse dispute notices, or make wild accusation of Fringe, OR and anything we can get our hands on, BE specific. There is no way anyone can fix and article if the specific violations are not addressed point-by-point. Throwing tags all over the place cannot help. So If i have a cut on my hand I cannot use Flu medicine. We need to know what is what so we can improve the article. Calling a missing Page number, Fringe and OR is bad diagnosis. --Inayity (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Islam has no CLERGY????

Whether or not a published source says islam has no clergy, that is positively WRONG. It is complete gibberish, a helpless warping of the fact that within certain branches of Sunni Islam, you do not have as hierarchical church structure such as the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, the clergy within Islam has traditionally been extremely powerful, for example being that segment of the population providing jurists (in contrast with European history).

What is needed to be referenced here properly is: a) Was Voltaire attracted to Islam? (Answer, yes, to some extent, must be ref'd though!) b) What were the actual reasons he said made him sympathetic (here, ref to a quote by Voltaire is perfectly admissible) c) How does modern scholarship regard the reasons for him being attracted to Islam? (Must have a good modern update)

Can everyone be sensible to agree to these points as worthwhile to pursue?Arildnordby (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby, Also the Miracles have important place in Islam. This version, is probably best version if we go by all standards. We all know that current section is really making voltaire look like some ignorant pro-islamist propaganda writer. More than half of section depends upon the link "www.voltaire-integral.com", which is on sale for like 3 years now. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

We must, however, never forget that if it is attested that Voltaire basically was attracted to Islam due to his perception of Islam as having no clergy, nor important place of miracles, then THAT perception is the one which is relevant to be included in Voltaire article. But, it must be clear in such article that it is Voltaires perception we are talking about.

For example, in the sense: "As a Deist, Voltaire was attracted to what he thought were existing rational features in Islam, such as his idea that there were no clergy or miracles within Islamic teachings and practice". But, such a representation of Voltaire must have good sources (and it would be perfectly OK, I'd say preferable, to have TWO refs on this, say a letter from Voltaire where he makes these ponts, and a modern scholar setting Voltaire's Deist mentality in a broader setting. Remember that primary sources have multiple worths other than being putative facts needed to be sifted through of an expert; primary sources have there own aesthetic/entertaining value, as an exotic glimpse into another person's mind, and THAT value alone may make a primary source not only admissible, but required ref on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should aim, not only for factual correctness (and as far as possible, in consonance with modern research), but also to be accessible for the lay reader who is after something else than just a paper-dry listing of verified facts.Arildnordby (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire was a Deist but since he disliked Christianity and religion, it is not likely that he would have embraced Islam instead. Hafspajen (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Really strange comment. Who are talking about likelihood of conversion to Islam here? Only you. I said that saying such as Because Voltaire was a Deist, he was attracted to Islam since Islam doesn't have any clergy or miracles within it. Note the latter part is a fact claim about Islam (which happens to be totally false), and the first part is claim about Voltaire's Deism, his attractedness to Islam, i.e, of Voltaire's alleged perceptions of Islam, for example. The last edit I saw on that was an utter mess, confusing the issues here.Arildnordby (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Define strange, conversion to Islam and attracted . Hafspajen (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arildnorby, realize that it was original research with no sources at all. That Voltaire ever said anything like Islam has "no clergy", "no miracles", etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: the PRESENT edit (not the one I referred to earlier) is indeed execellent, underlining we are talking Voltaire perception of Islam, and it is a very common view that Voltaire held that particular view. Thus, it certainly cannot be regarded as original research; and the discussion of THIS point should be about finding the "best possible" academic ref to support. This is NOT a controversial point about Voltaire's ideas of Islam, present edit does NOT violate neutral point of view requirements.Arildnordby (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not involved in the present edit conflict or history of that, but posted my comments on a sentence I found problematic, and that I now find improved. Nor do I deny claims that it earlier was original research here, I haven't checked the history, I simply do not know about that. Had I been more interested here, I would have rushed about at Google Books to find published sources on Voltaire's views, and made edits of my own, but I'm not going to do that.Arildnordby (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read some history. At the time when Voltaire lived, 1694 – 1778 - the Turkish (islam) were a serious problem in Europe. Just TRY to se things in a historical context. History of the Ottoman Empire, .. Decline of the Ottoman Empire right. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather say please read Voltaire, in order to find out Voltaire's views on Islam. What threat the Ottoman Empire actually was at this time has no relevance at all to Voltaire, unless you can show how it informed Voltaire's views on Islam. This article is about a philosopher's personal views upon Islam, not an article about European political history or wars.Arildnordby (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I do read Voltaire... :)Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

And Voltaire about Islam:

• Mais qu’un marchand de chameaux excite une sédition dans sa bourgade; qu’associé à quelques malheureux coracites il leur persuade qu’il s’entretient avec l’ange Gabriel; qu’il se vante d’avoir été ravi au ciel, et d’y avoir reçu une partie de ce livre inintelligible qui fait frémir le sens commun à chaque page; que, pour faire respecter ce livre, il porte dans sa patrie le fer et la flamme; qu’il égorge les pères, qu’il ravisse les filles, qu’il donne aux vaincus le choix de sa religion ou de la mort, c’est assurément ce que nul homme ne peut excuser, à moins qu’il ne soit né Turc, et que la superstition n’étouffe en lui toute lumière naturelle.
  • But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.

Hafspajen (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

True. And?? Do you think that is the whole story about Voltaire's views on Islam? It decidedly is not. Bernard Lewis, in his fascinating study of Edward Gibbons views on Muhammad, says the following about Voltaire. "Voltaire-who in some of his writings, condemns Muhammad as the terrible example of fanaticism but in others praises him for his wisdom, rationality, moderation and tolerance" p.90

The point salient to Wikipedia is, of course, that Voltaire's views on Islam can be said to have been in flux, whether you can sort this out in a neat evolvement of his thoughts, or that he held internally contradictory opinions on Muhammad and/or Islam such a sorting out requires expertise handling, while Wikipedia should content itself with noting, relative to Voltaire's views on Islam, the different, well-attested positions he had. Not do so would amount to cherry picking from Voltaire those quotes you like best.Arildnordby (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lewis gives only a sentence. for a much deeper discussion on Voltaire & Islam see Hichem Djaït (1985). Europe and Islam. U of California Press. p. 21ff. Rjensen (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said Lewis should be preferenced source?? I picked that one out to show another editor that Voltaire's Islam view was multi-faceted, and for THAT purpose (to show another editor this), the Lewis quote is entirely sufficient. That does not mean the Lewis quote is the one I want into the article, I'll leave that to editors actually wanting to edit the pageArildnordby (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In the end of the the day he seemed critical. That's the point. Only because he chose Islam over Christianity, doesn't means that he had positive view for it. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That is for expert to judge; Wikipedia should faithfully show the different positions Voltaire had, and, for example, let a citation of a well attested modern expert be the "final" verdict of Voltaire's views.Arildnordby (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Still, it wouldn't require much more than "Although he viewed Islam to be tolerant than christianity." I think. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that when Voltaire writes favourably about Islam, he does so relative to the flaws he perceives within Christianity. If, for example, some quote from Voltaire seems to talk about the blessed freeness within Islam from clergy (a view held by a man like Edward Gibbon, for example), he is talking about his perception of the less powerful role of imams compared to the mighty structure of the Catholic Church. But, again, it really needs an experted to be referred to to elucidate Voltaire's irritatingly obscure, and apparently shifting positions on Islam.Arildnordby (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Be careful and go by your own words, Arildnordby you told me to read Voltaire. , cherry picking from Voltaire those quotes. SHOW ME THOSE QUOTES Voltaire say what YOU SAY HE SAID: Hafspajen (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to do so; I referred to a judgment from a historian as published in a peer-revied source.Arildnordby (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have no reason to do so? Wikipedia:Verifiability -here is the reason! Here we have an other cherry. [8] I TELL you again, ignorant imbeciles, whom other ignoramuses have made believe that the Mohammedan religion is voluptuous and sensual, there is not a word of truth in it; you have been deceived on this point as on so many others. Canons, monks, vicars even, if a law were imposed on you not to eat or drink from four in the morning till ten at night, during the month of July, when Lent came at this period; if you were forbidden to play at any game of chance under pain of damnation; if wine were forbidden you under the same pain; if you had to make a pilgrimage into the burning desert; if it were enjoined on you to give at least two and a half per cent. of your income to the poor; if, accustomed to enjoy possession of eighteen women, the number were cut down suddenly by fourteen; honestly, would you dare call that religion sensual? The Latin Christians have so many advantages over the Mussulmans... That is Voltaire's own words. Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When Bernard Lewis talks, we are talking about one of the most prominent historians of Islam living today. His books are peer-reviewed, and fact-checked, and THAT is what is sufficient for Wikipedia criteria. Furthermore, you are citing just from a 1742 work of Voltaire, not from later works such as Candide, or the following quote from 1764 Philosophical dictionary on the topic.

If his book is bad for our times and for us, it was very good for his contemporaries, and his religion was still better. It must be acknowledged that he reclaimed nearly the whole of Asia from idolatry. He taught the unity of God, and forcibly declaimed against all those who gave him associates. He forbade usury with foreigners, and commanded the giving of alms. With him prayer was a thing of absolute necessity, and resignation to the eternal decrees the primum mobile of all. A religion so simple and so wise, taught by one who was constantly victorious, could hardly fail to subjugate a portion of the earth. Indeed the Mussulmen have made as many proselytes by their creed as by their swords; they have converted the Indians and the Negroes to their religion; even the Turks, who conquered them, submitted to Islamism.. p.73

---

The point is that YOU are not an expert, but claim to be so because you are able to cherry pick quotes from Voltaire that suits your taste; I've never said I am an expert, but has said that it is not all controversial among a variety of experts that Voltaire on many places had a favourable view on much in Islam. In the given text on Alcoran, it certainly seems (to me!) that Voltaire's overall view is negative, but as said, there are positive bits and pieces in his writings as well Arildnordby (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary source, doesn't cite where he said it, nor it is backed by any reliable publisher. It comes from 1824(very old). Over 200 years now, theres's not even 1 reliable source about that statement. What can be the reason. Don't think everyone cherrypick or used the "text that suits the taste", either. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Have education enough to tell that this sounds like a very new and unestablished wiev, sorry. And get of my computer, please.Hafspajen (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, "Philosophical Dictionary" is a well known work by Voltaire from 1764. English translators in 1824 knew FRench. You may also see, in a modern book, a comment noting where you can find favourable views of Islam within Voltaire's writings.

p.248. Both of you are dead wrong on a) That Voltaire did NOT write positive things on Islam, and b) THat such a view is somehow controversial of Voltaire scholars today.Arildnordby (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• My dear friend, really, Voltaire did write both positive and negative things about almost everything on Earth. The point is that he was not attracted - as you put is - to the Islam, he was just commenting. Here and there. Hafspajen (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have no problems retracting that particular point.:-)Arildnordby (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Already agreed that he regarded Islam to be tolerant than Christianity. But again, he had given anti-muslim speech in 1762, where he didn't allowed any muslims to attend his speech either. After that there is no record, if he criticized or even spoke about islam. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical Dictionary was published in 1764.Arildnordby (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that single sentence in the principal post where I attacked an edit for basically saying there wasn't any clergy of Islam. I have read it somewhere in the past that Voltaire had some attraction to Islam, but that was never something important to me to put into the article. That was about how to reference stuff properly, and that his views of Islam were those that had to be referenced, rather than what Islam "actually" is.The now deleted edited did not distinguish on that point.Arildnordby (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What he wrote in Philosophical Dictionary? Related to this conversation. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You write: "But again, he had given anti-muslim speech in 1762, where he didn't allowed any muslims to attend his speech either. After that there is no record, if he criticized or even spoke about islam" I give you an extract from 1764 against that, including a reference to Gilles Veinstein's essay on the manner, one of the more prominent French historians on the Ottoman period. Why is that not related to your statement that after 1762, we cannot find statements from Voltaire on Islam???Arildnordby (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't think he wrote anything about Islam in Candide, or Philosophical Dictionary. It is only 1756 where he regarded it to be tolerant than Christianity. Other 2 books are simply unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Eeh, I have already given you Veinstein's assessment.Plus extractArildnordby (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it can't be verified. Since both of the mentioned books are unrelated with Islam. Now i got sources that says that he criticized Islam in Philosophical Dictionary and Candide. But still it is not really notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is verified by at least by two of the most distinguished Orientilsts of our time, Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein. Plus with the direct extract I gave you from Philosophical Dictionary.Arildnordby (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bernard attributed it to Candide, Philosophical dictionary? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a 2013 published translation too old for you as well? I am starting to get annoyed now. And no, Bernard Lewis, in footnote 22 specifies Bosquet and HadidiPhil Dict.Arildnordby (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Source is unclear. Can you print a link to a source that says he was Praising Islam in Candide, Philosophical Dictionary, and what he wrote there. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

An expert in France? That's me, for sure. What we could do with for extra help is an expert in philosophy. I agree that the section is now too long, and intend to start cutting it back. What we need to do is to use the reliable secondary sources, some of which were already there, some I brought in. "Islam has no clergy" may not be in fact true - the point is, however, that Voltaire may (or may not) have been under that impression. It is also very clear that he said a number of different things about Islam, as he did about Christianity. This has all been worked out by scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It was already posted in philosophy noticeboard too. Anyways, basically the story of these all edits remains same as it was 3-4 days before. Good luck. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Voltaire was not under that impression "Islam has no clergy". Here a tragedy written by Voltaire, Mahomet (play), check this out. That is quite clear reading his works. And a Deist, per definition is someone who doesn't care for religions - at all. Hafspajen (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me just touch on some bad logic by Hafspajen. "per def of Deist", per def? What human being have you seen that lives their life per a def? Per def Christians should turn the other cheek and live like Christ did. --Inayity (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

While it is probably to stretch it too much to say Voltaire was attracted to the religion of Islam as such, he very much expresses sympathy with the unitarian God concept within that religion (in contrast to the mysterious Trinity God concept, for example). This is where I, from what I read Voltaire, finds his strongest praise of Islamic thinking. That God is One and Everywhere, no 2mysteries" attached. And, Voltaire's sympathies here should fruitfully be studied in direct connection to his own deism.Arildnordby (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably to stretch it too much to say Voltaire was attracted to the religion of Islam as such - or any religion. When I am telling you he was a Deist - because he was, AND - this means that if somebody is a Deist - than it is someone not interested in religions. I understand that - human beings have don't live their life per definitions, and it is a very clever remark, - but Voltaire is dead and classified. Not by me, but by the scholar who wrote about him. Hafspajen (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No single scholar has a monopoly on writing THE story of Voltaire's deism? Matter-of-factly, the God concept within Islam (as Voltaire understood it), meets with his approbation several times in his writings. But, your truly IMPORTANT point (in my view!!) stands: Voltaire was an opponent of EVERY organized,dogmatized religion.Arildnordby (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, exactly. You are quite right. Also he did praised the Muslim for tolerance, bigger tolerance than the Christians (when he lived, his times). Actually you are right on both, but since this is Wikipedia - we just have to conform... to what other wise guys came up with. It is something that people need to consider, to concentrate on facts. It is the way it is. We are not supposed to think... I know that this sounds - weird. It is just something people agreed on this encyclopedia, to concentrate on facts, references, books - Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Hafspajen (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

True enough. It is a matter of balancing, for example getting the time lines right within Voltaire's views. Furthermore, obviously, elements of his thinking that seems fairly constant over time, such as his judgment of Muhammed being an impostor, are more noteworthy than transient comments he may have made. But, evidently, being an impostor doesn't preclude from also being, for example, smart, tolerant, or even within your hypocrisy, having found a "deep truth". THat is basically how I think Voltaire thought of Muhammed, but it isn't for me to add such a view on the page itself. That, or its opposite, must be substantiated by other sources.Arildnordby (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote about the Vedas

Source for this? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Voltaire#He_admired_religion. It was made only after notifying here. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Madame Blavatsky! Muller may be relevant, but what did Muller actually say? Meanwhile I've found a recent scholarly discussion of Voltaire and the Vedas. Dorothy M. Figueira. Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority through Myths of Identity. Suggest you use that and note that Voltaire didn't actually have access to the Vedas. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Muller wrote it here[9], page 32. Sydney Smith referred on his book The Edinburgh Review, Volume 78; Volume 112, Page 36 as well. Many in recent though. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What access do you have to the Muller? The Google link you give doesn't even allow snippet view. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how i can access then, can you go through this link, and tell? Here :-

http://books.google.com/books?id=vokOAAAAIAAJ&q=%22gift%22#v=snippet&q=%22gift%22&f=false Bladesmulti (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Voltaire went into ecstasies over a French translation of the Ezour Veda, a Sanskrit poem in the style of the Puranas, quiet an inferior production written in XVIIth century by a native convert of Robert de Nobili. This French translation was published by Voltaire under the title, "L'Ezour-Vedam, traduit du Sanscritam par un Brame," and he stated his belief that original was four centuries older than Alexander, and that it was the most precious gift for which the West had been indebted to the East."[10] Not really Reliable source, but a summary, of events. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, from that snippet, Muller makes it clear that the quote (whichmay have been from Voltaire) wasn't about the Vedas at all but about the Ezour Veda. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ezour Veda means "Yajur Veda". See, definition it is reliable source as well, as seen on archive104 and arcive 107.

Now i doubt when you claimed to be expert in french history. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

transclusions of deleted templates

could someone clean up the transclusions of template:p. and template:chap. and the rest in this article? 108.73.30.247 (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: The templates you linked to are red links - i.e. they don't exist. You probably got the template name slightly wrong. Could you be more specific about what the template names are, or about what the problem is? At the moment there isn't enough information to fix this. Please change |answered=yes to |answered=no in the template above when you reply. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This refers to four non-existent templates, not two: Template:Chap. (3 instances); Template:Éd. (4); Template:P. (5); Template:T. (5). They are used in five references: Voltaire#cite_note-63, Voltaire#cite_note-64, Voltaire#cite_note-65, Voltaire#cite_note-66, Voltaire#cite_note-Fayard_1995-70. These five refs are entirely in French, so I expect that the refs were copied from French Wikipedia without checking that their templates matched up with templates on English Wikipedia. Consequently the templates are redlinked, not because of a typo or a deletion, but because they never existed on English Wikipedia in the intended form. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to add links to the French templates. They are all quite simple templates used to mark up abbreviations, so I've appended the wiki markup, translated into English where appropriate:

• fr:Template:Chap. → {{abbr|chap.|chapter(s)}} - the single parameter is the chapter number
• fr:Template:Éd. → {{abbr|ed.|edition}} - no parameters
• fr:Template:P. → {{abbr|p.|page(s)}} - the single parameter is the page number or range
• fr:Template:T. → {{abbr|vol.|volume}} - the single parameter is the volume number

The three that take a parameter should each have the parameter moved outside the template, i.e. {{p.|123}} should become {{abbr|p.|page(s)}} 123 --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I made an attempt to fix them, but translating the citations as suggested (or using citation templates) would probably be better. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I brought them in and will clean up. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotations section?

Would anyone have any objections to my adding a section devoted to quotations of Voltaire?

I was considering starting with one of his most famous quotes: "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene." (The best is the enemy of the good -- in Italian) from the "Art dramatique" article of Voltaire's Dictionnaire philosophique (Philosophical dictionary) of 1770. (Here is a link to an 1838 edition of the Dictionnaire, where the quote appears on page 162.) Cwkmail (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Wikiquote the appropriate place for that? See Voltaire. Chris55 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikiquote part of Wikipedia? Could a link be posted to Wikiquote's section on Voltaire?Cwkmail (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a link in the box on the right in the "External links" section of the article. Deor (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

On Section, Islam

So we are done? With the mess that can be seen on Voltaire#Islam, it has been like 3 weeks and till now, there are no sources for most of the content that has been copy pasted to the section. We should remember that the page is largely viewed by others, so it is misleading to have so much of unconfirmed information. I was quietly convinced but there was better source brought in, by Rjensen, that described the Voltaire's views. Best or only source that we can find for current edition is either facebook, or tumblr. Both are unreliable, and the maybe actual source of such misleading information. Like we discussed before.

Section I would like to propose, similar to the one, for which we had the consensus, after including the sources that were worthy. It would be like...

---

Mahomet, a five-act tragedy written in 1736 by Voltaire. It made its debut performance in Lille on 25 April 1741. The play is a study of religious fanaticism and self-serving manipulation based on an episode in the traditional biography of Muhammad in which he orders the murder of his critics. He would later face the protests against the play, it included the Turkish ambassador, and religious leaders. Voltaire later defended the play by suggesting "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds." In 1745, he wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XIV, he described the play as "written in opposition to the founder of a false and barbarous sect to whom could I with more propriety inscribe a satire on the cruelty and errors of a false prophet." Pope Benedict applauded Voltaire for it.

Although Voltaire viewed Islam to be tolerant and rational than Christianity. His viewed Jesus to be good, while Christians to be intolerant. He regarded Muhammad to be evil, while muslims to be tolerant.

References

---

Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that would ignore the scholarship that points out other comments he made about Mohammed in different contexts. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We all know he made many, They had been added for last 9 years or more, even until august last year[11], but not any of those that you are pushing without any substance. Facebook and Tumblr are not sources. There are 100s of things that Einstein never said either, still he is blamed by unconfirmed "Scholarship" Or whatever you want to label them as. Bring source or don't. That's it. It has been enough already. IF he had ever said, wouldn't take even 2 minutes, but now it has been over 20 days. You realize it? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2014

In this section:

"The Scottish Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle argued that "Voltaire read history, not with the eye of devout seer or even critic, but through a pair of mere anti-catholic spectacles."[98] Friedrich Nietzsche, however, called Carlyle a muddlehead who had not even understood the Enlightenment values he thought he was promoting.[99]"

The inclusion of a characterization of Carlyle by Nietzsche is argumentative and contributes nothing to the discussion on Voltaire. Its sole purpose is to disparage Carlyle. Please remove it, and the associated footnote.

Jerome ky (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

I would like to add a short paragraph to the "Voltaire" article under the sub-heading Bible. INSERT the following at the send of the section titled Bible: "Voltaire also claimed he discovered The Questions of Zapata, which he alleged were a series of sixty-six detailed questions about the Bible presented to a committee of religious experts at the University of Salamanca in Spain in 1629 by a Brother Zapata, who was being appointed Professor of Theology at the University. In actuality, Voltaire turned out to be the the author of The Questions of Zapata, in which he asked clever questions to challenge the authenticity of the Bible as the word of God."

Reference: The Questons of Zapata, Joseph McCabe (translator, August 16, 2011. Meisterrm (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bible quote

In Section 3.1.3 the article reads:

Voltaire once said of the Bible, "In 100 years this book will be forgotten, eliminated". Ironically, 100 years after his death, his house was used as the headquarters of the Geneva Bible Society.[96][97]

Both parts of this myth have been busted: Voltaire never said this, nor was his house used to print Bibles. The verdict on the wikiquote article was to categorize the statement as "misattributed". The primary source for investigating the issue is:

http://www.reason.org.nz/journal/2004v77n1aut.pdf

The two books used to justify the statement in the article do not cite where they get their information and seem prejudiced against Voltaire (see below). This myth is a popular meme in Christian apologetics. You can find the statement in Josh McDowell's mega-best-seller New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and the original edition of Geisler & Nix's A General Introduction to the Bible. The latter corrected the issue and removed it in later editions... not so much with McDowell, which cites the original edition of Geisler. Geisler's original edition cited Sidney Collett's The Scripture of Truth originally published in the UK in 1905. According to the above-mentioned article "The Scripture of Truth (later published in the USA under the title All About the Bible) remained in print for many years; and if the Voltaire myth did not begin with Collett he was at least responsible for giving it widespread circulation. Although he gives no sources or references for the anecdote, his book continues to be quoted uncritically by latter-day apologists."

Gospel and the City

http://books.google.com/books?id=4qKSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&dq=isbn:9780827212787+voltaire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hPk-U7q-L8Xj2AX2v4HgCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=isbn%3A9780827212787%20voltaire&f=false

Unquenchable Faith

http://books.google.com/books?id=mBY_ryUT-a4C&pg=PA47&dq=isbn:9780899004921+voltaire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ifk-U_mHL-PY2AW6oIGwBQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=isbn%3A9780899004921%20voltaire&f=false

Please remove this anecdote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.96.228 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Accidental tautology?

During the account of the publication of his Letters, the following two sentences occur: After the book was banned, Voltaire was forced again to flee.[13] Later, this book was banned, and Voltaire had to flee to Paris.[14]

Either this is the same fact given twice; or two different facts, but reported with a clumsiness of style that makes the sense unclear. So which is it?

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Deathdate= May 30, 1788(1788-05-30) (aged 93) 37.205.58.110 (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 12:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Deathdate= May 30, 1788(1788-05-30) (aged 93) 37.205.58.110 (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 12:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Was Voltaire wrong about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians?

There is a discussion here about William Penn's 1683 treaty with the Lenape Indians, and specifically whether Voltaire's famous quote ("...a treaty never written, never broken") from his 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique was incorrect. Could someone please take a look at it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)