Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Inclusion/Exclusion of material pertaining to subject

Note: This section was originally a part of the #Lead section discussion above, but was split by 90.62.50.101 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Forced at the age of 14 by a mother filled with ambition to marry a foreigner she had never seen, then be driven to a foreign country and, in a tiny island in the middle of the Rhine have to change into a French princess, just by magic, then thrown into a corrupted court where, within a few days, her own new family (the nice old aunts) scorned her with the demeaning nickname of L'Autrichienne, this to be followed by seven years of being unable to bear a child because of her husband's whatever problem... and survive it to the birth of her first child, at which time libelles (originating from her French family entourage) started the rumor of bastardise... In our modern world, by the age of twenty-five, the girl would have had to seek the help of a psychologist! But she survived... only to be blamed for the French Revolution! That's quite a twist! A deep look into French history previous to her birth in 1755, the powerful ideology current & even the meteorology charts of 1788/1789 might alleviate some of the burden of responsibility put on Marie-Antoinette's shoulders. Her mother's overbearing counseling for one. Anyway, she paid dearly, so why not give her a break & put some of the causes of the French Revolution where they really belong? --90.62.50.101 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Aubmn, could you stop reverting me? --90.62.50.101 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First it is strange to talk about reverting you, actually you are the one who reverted me, I have the right to edit, I kept your major ideas about the king and the aunts trying to work a compromise while trimming informations who belonged to another article, there is a consensus by editors that this article is already a little large and depending on one source.

Second a lot of what you said is true but it seems you want to present MA as an angel in contradiction with even the historians who are in sympathy with her. I already told you there are many causes for the French Revolution and you rightly mentioned some of them, but the Queen actions and her image (I"ll not repeat the arguments...) helped in blocking reforms and specially radicalizing the Revolution. What you are writing belong to ideology and psychology not history.Aubmn (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What I added, with references concerning du Barry's banishment, are facts that do belong to the article, and it is important to mention them because (1) they are historically true, and (2) what Fraser wrote on p. 124, contradicts what you wrote on MA's role in Mme du Barry's exile from court:

The Comtesse du Barry could not expect her reign to outlast that of the former King. For the time being she was instructed to reside in a convent; later she was able to live at her château of Louveciennes where she received the curious, and on occasion the amorous. [...] All this meant that the late King's favourite had been treated without vindictive severity by the standards of the time. Gossips were furthermore wrong in ascribing her exile to the Queen. It was Louis XVI, under the influence of his pious aunts, who had every intention of banishing their old enemy. Marie Antoinette might have demanded the banishment of the Du Barry, but it was not necessary. Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette, The Journey, p. 124.

Now, I suggest you read the notes you refer us to before you revert the work of contributors who happen to have read & understood them. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First I put the aunts and the king, second I did not write this article, since you are quoting Fraser please go to pages 240 , 256 about her weight, here it is written MA might have interfered, in other books, it was said she interfered, you are writing 10 lines about Madame du Barry about one incident in an article about MA.Aubmn (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a compromise on the role of MA in the exile, I hope it will satisfy you.Aubmn (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless writing about a hermit, it is difficult not to mention other persons in someone's biography. The one "incident", as you call it, with Mme du Barry, has its importance in Marie Antoinette's biography, as the comtesse was the one who shocked MA the most upon her arrival to France and who caused her much anguish. So, her exile two days after the death of Louis XV belongs as much in Marie Antoinette's biography than du Barry's. Also, the fact that the comtesse was sent to the abbey run by her aunt & remained there only one year, then allowed to return to her beloved Louveciennes, shows that, if Marie Antoinette had any part of it, as you insist she had, the royal couple who sent her into exile was not a mean pair, after all. And that does belong to MA's biography. What you have done today is blocking information in order to save lines (!) while you added bytes with quite a choice of words - "massively fat" - to describe her gain of weight (she was pregnant at the time). Her brother's quote would be better.

Reverting my work and adding a *perhaps* is not exactly what I call a *compromise per talk page*, after I complained about you reverting my work in the first place! In fact, looking at the history of that page, and what you have done to my contributions, it may down upon readers that you are bent on destroying the work of others in order to impose your view of History, making sure in the meantime that you reach the 3 times revert rule, so that your "adversaries" (because that is what other contributors are to you, not "colleagues") are unable to go on. One is walking on eggs with you and the result might unfortunately be for this article to be blocked. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. As for the ten lines I added about the du Barry's "incident", which supposedly has nothing to do here & only adds weight to the article, how about that 4th paragraph of the lead, which was the reason I began this section? Congress of Vienna? Millions of dead? Mass mobilization? War in the Vendée? Burke?

First what I mention in the lead in a few lines is very important and connected to Marie Antoinette life not Madame du Barry who dominated the paragraph about MA life between 1770-1774 and is much more mentioned already than the king, her husband or the rest of her family but I believe in compromise (please see below).

Second for the editor before you, MA was a devil, he has a total contrary point of view from you, he wanted to remove anything positive about her, I had to find a balanced position with him and with you.

Three for me you are a colleague, to show you this, I added a positive defense of Marie Antoinette in the lead please feel free to add to it if you want a few lines about defending MA but not a lot and please with moderation.

Four if you add 3\4 lines to Du Barry exile not 10, that's okay with me, I'm happy to finally find an editor who know so much about the subject with sources.

Five ok with her brother description I'm adding his and the king of Sweden plus a positive description by a court observer.

Six By the way I 'm a big fan of MA and she is one of my favorites figures in world history but I 'm not an ideologue, if you are positive, I 'll be much more. Thank youAubmn (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because of the two factions for/against Mme du Barry during the reign of Louis XV & the atmosphere in which the 14-year old Marie Antoinette found herself upon her arrival at the French court that it is important to describe the manner in which Louis XVI sent her into exile two days after the death of his grandfather, and the role MA may or may not have had into it. The Fraser's p. 124 reference you left does not fit what your sentence describes. Fraser wrote: Gossips were furthermore wrong in ascribing her exile to the Queen. It was Louis XVI, under the influence of his pious aunts, who had every intention of banishing their old enemy. There is no *perhaps* there. Moreover, after removing my work, there was no reason on your part not to remove the Goncourt's reference I had brought because it is now irrelevant since the text it applied to is gone.

Being a *fan* of a personage may not be the best attribute to have for contribution to an encyclopedic article expected to remain fair & neutral. The same is true for the opposite. In both cases, it is thus better not to participate and, instead, write a book. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

First I 'm sorry for your negative response and attitude after all my opening and positive proposals, so be it.

Second when I said I was a fan, I was speaking in general about history including MA, your writing before "give her a break" show that you don 't have a neutral point of view and as I told you other editors, as an example the one before has totally contrary opinions in contrast with your opinion and I'm trying to keep a balance.

Third I repeat, Mme du Barry already dominated the paragraph about MA life 1770-1774, writing in details about her should be confined to her own article, a lot of materials concerning MA was removed not to be replaced with Du Barry life.

Fourth I 'm replacing "perhaps" with that MA did it based on the book Marie Antoinette correspondence in French by Evelyne Lever, p 173 in a letter to Mercy her ambassador to Paris (18 may 1774), the Empress Marie-Therese complained about the harshness of MA towards Du Barry who was treated as " la creature". Based on this primary source I could even removed the aunts who are not even mentioned but I would keep them with MA for the sake of compromise.Aubmn (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to create a "Legacy and memory" section

Note: This section was originally a part of the #Lead section discussion above, but was split by 90.62.50.101 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your arguments, but you seem to be both concentrating on the Lead section too much. At this point the article has no "Legacy and memory" section. Compare it to the featured article on Elizabeth I of England. Five sourced paragraphs on her reputation, including:

• 17th century nostalgia for Elizabeth, by those disappointed by the reign of the House of Stuart.
• Napoleonic Wars' revival of her memory in the face of a new foreign invasion. The aborted Spanish invasion apparently compared with Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom.
• Victorian era incorporation of her image to British imperial ideology.
• 20th century use as a romantic symbol of national resistance to foreign threat. The aborted Spanish invasion apparently compared with Operation Sea Lion.
• More recent historians criticism of the idealized image.

With Marie Antoinette, we can also cover how has her reputation fared since her death.

• How was her image treated by the French revolutionaries following her death?
• Does she has a presence in works of the Counter-Enlightenment movement, which has produced criticism of the Revolution since the 1790s?
• Has she served as a symbol for the French counter-revolutionary movement, both during the Revolution and afterwards? The Legitimists are an entire political movement of counter-revolutionaries who continue to defend the French monarchy and the rights of the House of Bourbon. How do they view the queen?
• How did 19th-century histories of the Revolution treat the queen? There was no shortage of Historiography of the French Revolution. What does The French Revolution: A History (1837) by Thomas Carlyle say about her?
• In the 20th-century, the Revolution was re-examined by Marxist historiography and interpreted in terms of class conflict. How has this school of historiography treated the role of the Queen?
• Also in the 20th-century, the Annales School re-examined the role of pre-revolutionary French nobility in terms of long-term social history. How did they interpreted the role of the queen and the royal family?
• The Oxford History of the French Revolution was another interpretation of both Louis XVI's reign and the Revolution, this time from the methods of historical revisionism. How did it treat the queen?
• Lynn Hunt has offered another perspective on the Revolution. "The political Revolution as a whole being seen as an enormous dysfunctional family haunted by patricide: Louis as father, Marie-Antoinette as mother, and the revolutionaries as an unruly mob of brothers." How does she view the queen?
• The article should also cover biographies such as Marie Antoinette: The Portrait of an Average Woman (1932) by Stefan Zweig.

Above all, we can not treat Marie Antoinette as an easily interpreted figure or a mere historical footnote. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, specially Zweig view her as an average woman who failed being neither an angel or a bad person. In the past big focus was put specially by the Marxists on socio-economic events, today there is a tendency to return to the biographies. I think she was not a mere historical footnote but a major actor during and before the Revolution, by the way I have Zweig, I 'll use him in a few days after bringing the book.Aubmn (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC) To begin her image was disastrous during the French Revolution, than in the counter Revolution and even among foreigners like Burke , she was seen in a good way. Today like Fraser there is a tendency to rehabilitee her to a certain extent specially by conservative people without denying her major mistakes. There was a poll in France recently about her, most Frenchmen who participated in that poll said she was guilty but opposed her condemnation to death and opted for exile or prison. It is true she is more popular outside France.Aubmn (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Article's poor quality

I can see there's an editing war between one person and a great number of others. I made edits mostly for grammar and redundancy, and that person reverted those. As a major historical figure, shouldn't a little more concern about this article make a permanent ban applicable?--Trebligoniqua (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A major overhaul is needed: most of the time, content of sections does not correspond to their title. The example in Motherhood: pregnancies & births are mixed with Fersen's return to Versailles, Joseph's claim to the throne of Bavaria, changes in the customs at court, repayment of the French debt, the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson, nomination of ministers, the death of Maria Theresa, the Franco-Austrian Alliance and, the queen's double chin & bust size... the last two possibly acceptable in Motherhood section (!) --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Poor quality will remain as long as one editor hogs the article to the point of rejecting every change made by others, and add only trivia. Then, to top it all off, pushes other editors into an edit war when they put back their contribution. This is the first instance in my time at contributing to Wikipedia that I am personally driven into such a situation.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I talked to you on your talk page proposing collaboration, you did not even responded, you talk about edit war and you are the one who reverted me more than 3 times in less than 24 hours while until today I did not revert you once.

Second, I dealt until today in a very positive manner with your edits never reverting you or doing any major changes or even no changes.

Third, you always changed and even reverted my edits without even communicating with me or discussing it on the Talk Page.

Four, yesterday, I told you I agree to your overhaul proposal in organization without even getting a response.

Five, you are removing sources without even replacing them with the result that this article will always depend on Fraser.

Six, I think the negativity of a certain intervention pushed you in that position which is something regrettable because you have all the talent for us to work together.Aubmn (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn, the disruption you bring by accepting only your contributions as worth keeping, and automatically wiping out the contributions of others does not put fellow contributors in the mood to answer your posts on their talk page.

By the way, isn't what you are doing reverting? because if I supposedly reverted you 3 times, you reverted my reverts as many times.

What does your proposal for the two of us to collaborate mean? Collaboration in Wikipedia is for all contributors working together, period, which is not exactly what your attitude encourages. Your behavior has made contributors stay away from the article. Once in a while one (myself right now) tries to bring some amelioration to it, but soon stops because your constant removing or reconstructing their contribution turns into a duel.

You seem to want every edit brought first to the talk page for discussion with you. Is that a wiki rule? Unless in case of important controversy, isn't the edit summary the place to explain the edit? Or should I bring to this page whether or not I should name the island & its position on the Rhine where Marie-Antoinette was handed to the French, and incorporate this detail into article only after getting your permission? Who has put you in charge of article?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm happy that you are talking for the first time.

Second, the facts speak for themselves until today, I left all your edits, I did remove nothing of them (the aunts, baptism ), on baptism you reverted me although it was the work of another editor.

Three, all my edits (Noailles, Duchesse de Gramont, Paris, looking at Marie Antoinette as future queen, the riots, the pouf, social life, etc... ) were reverted or changed with no communication or collaboration, I respected your works and left your edits, you did not with mines: see my edits in the last few days, you always changed them reverting me more than 3 times.

Four, you proposed to overhaul the organization of the article which I supported, this is not like the Rhine edit, a small issue but a major one, I did not received any answer from you worse when I added social life to the new title you created about MA with Mme Du Barry you removed it on the spot, while I accepted your new organization on the spot.

Five, take today as an example, you removed my entire edit about Marie Antoinette entry to Paris and her importance as a future queen twice.

Six, if only you make your own contributions while accepting some of mine without trying always to change them, it would be much better.

Seven, if you want to give a new direction or major changes in your edits, it is best to communicate to find common grounds and lets reach compromises.

Eight, you did not communicate from the start, I see on your talk page, someone told you to behave in a much better manner.

Nine, please stop removing sources as you did with Castelot, a major French historian without replacing it, today the priority is to give new sources to complete Fraser so the article don't depend on one source.

Finally, ok to work through the edits but stop changing mines or reverting them constantly, respect my work as I respect yours and all would be positive. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn, If you never touched my work, meaning never removed or reverted something I did, how come I constantly have to put it back? Was it removed by the Holy Ghost?

As for my having to behave, I wish you'd go to the Paris talk page & see what the incident was about before using it as an example of what is going on here. In a case where contributors were shouting at each other, instead of anger, I had chosen "wit", which quite a few applauded... Please also note that I never removed that conversation & am leaving it there for everyone to see.

If you check my contributions - and please feel free to go outside en.wiki - I doubt that you will find any revert done to me or by me (unless in cases of vandalism), or even the adding or removing of a single comma to my work in any of the other language(s) wiki articles to which I contribute.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the Holy Gost, are you saracastic with me because another editor told you not only to behave in a much better way but also not to be sarcastic towards other editors.

Second I 'm happy to see that you are not defending your behaviour recognizing implicitely what I said, this is courageous and positive on your part.

Third, you did not respond technically to any of the edits I mentioned speaking only of generalities.

Four, I repeat without mentioning all the edits again since you are not responding to each case I quote as an example: your edit about the baptism, you revert me while I was working on another editor than I kept it like you wanted; on the aunts same stuff, I kept until today when after 4 days of keeping changing my edits and reverting me more than 3 times, I change some of yours and only once.

Five, on organization I kept the Du Barry relation with MA and add social relations, you immediately removed it.I approved your overhaul suggestion that you proposed in the Talk Page without any response from you, only to see you removing my edit about social life.

Six, thing happens like that, I write an edit on the riots, you changed it immediately and if I add something, you remove it. More telling MA going to Paris in 1772, you removed it yesterday, rewrite and removed more than twice today; you call that reverting you, is that a bad joke, you rewrite and remove many of my contributions on the spot. I even did not remove your rewritting of my edits until today, yet you even removed what I added.

Seven, you removed a major source about Castelot a major French Historian three times without even replacing the source, noting that the biggest problem of this article is that it depend on one source and I 'm working day and night to find new sources slowly but surely.

Finally, I will not return on the fact that you did not communicate from the start, please make your edits but be positive and respect the edits of other people and I repeat everything would be positive.Aubmn (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

1. - The Holy Ghost is no sarcasm on my part, just a very innocent remark because, since you & I are the only two right now on the article, if you didn't remove what I had put in, who did? If not you, then it has to be the Holy Ghost.

2. - I am not defending my behavior because I do not believe that I have to justify myself to you & am certainly not recognizing implicitly what you say - on the contrary.

3. - Every edit of mine is given the reason(s) in the edit summary space, that should be sufficient. After you remove my work several times, I do not believe that I should give additional long-winded explanation. I also noted very quickly that you stand guard on the article & keep anyone from working on it. Every addition brought, every change made is either removed or reworded by you to the point of being unrecognizable.

4. - The baptism: when I first edited it, the names of the godparents were nowhere to be seen, only those of the proxies. The godparents are the most important individuals in a baptism ceremony because, should the parents of the child being baptized die, the godparents will take the responsibility of raising the child. The proxies are second fiddles. Imagine mentioning Marie-Antoinette's proxy wedding taking place in Vienna while her husband-to-be is in Versailles, and giving only the name of the proxy, not that of Louis-Auguste. We are working on an encyclopedia: do not take it for granted that all readers know who is who: names & links have to be given at first mention of individual. Same with the aunts, they must be introduced with names & a link to their respective article when first mentioned, which is at the time when they meet MA at Compiègne. These are not the places one should decide to shorten the article. If I added these details, with notification in edit summary, when you remove the details & I put them back, I do not believe that I owe you an explanation.

5. - When I began editing the article, you were complaining that too much space was given Mme du Barry; then you changed course & began adding details on her. Since these details do concern her & Marie-Antoinette & were important in the life of MA up to & shortly after L.XV's death, it seemed logical to gather all these details in one section; hence the creation of that section. Then you come along and, because of a couple of sentences on Lamballe, add "social life". This is mixing oranges & apples. Lamballe, and Polignac which I added, belong in another section, they became part of her household after she had become queen. Same as mention of Gluck who came to France in 1774: he belongs in the arts section, which has everything in the world, except "arts", filled as it is with pregnancies & miscarriages, and some unreferenced comment on Fersen. I made similar type of comment above for the Motherhood section, where very little is written about motherhood, while the whole of European politics & the Revolutionary War in America are discussed.

6. - Your reporting on MA wanting to go to Paris & not being allowed to do so is not correct. First, Marie-Antoinette was not a modern teenager who can take her car & go to the movies with her boyfriend: she was the Dauphine of France who lived at the royal court where following a strict étiquette was the way to do things. Every minute, every gesture were to be done according to étiquette. Mme de Noailles was not a monster, she was only doing the job she was being paid to do. Second, MA could not openly go to Paris before she had been officially received in the city by all its dignitaries. That was an important ceremony to organize. When MA asked to go to Paris, she was thus turned down. Then in 1772, when she asked again, authorization was given by L.XV, and she was to make her entrance in the capital on horseback, but Mme de Noailles got in an étiquette argument with Mesdames the aunts on who should go before whom, and the whole event flopped. Next came time of carnival in 1773: Louis XV gave his authorization to the Dauphin & his wife, to Provence & his wife, to 16-year old Artois & some Bourbon cousins to go attend the carnival ball at the Opera, on condition they go incognito, which they did, and where they were shortly recognized. They had fun. This sortie, which took place some three months before MA's official entrance in Paris was not hindered in any way by Mme du Barry or Mme de Noailles or Mmes Aunts. Details are given in Fraser's & other books. To find them, simply look in book's index, which Castelot does not give - something reproached him, by the way.

7. - Removing sentence & Castelot's reference: After 1773 the attention to turn to the Dauphine with the exception that she might soon be queenCastelot 1957, pp. 70–85: There is absolutely nothing within pp.70-85 pertaining to what you wrote, giving Castelot as reference. There have been more instances of you giving a reference that does not pertain to what is written. If I catch it, I certainly am not going to come to the discussion page to either ask your permission to remove it, or give a long explanation in edit summary, the space of which I usually fill up. So much time is being wasted.

Finally - In my few interventions in this article, I have not been able to go past the death of L.XV & du Barry's exile, this one being another example of you giving references that do not match what you write, Fraser in particular who, on the contrary, writes that the aunts were the ones who pushed L.XVI to exile her. Then the exile itself was not what was written; however, that belongs to du Barry's article. Since the time I began working on this, I have been caught in a battle in the first two sections, unable to go any further, while most work done that remains loses its meaning because of what you remove "to make article shorter", and the trivia you add making it longer with unnecessary 'peacocky' words, something similar to adding feathers to Marie-Antoinette's already over-decorated & imposing panache.

This is my last intervention on this talk page on the subject, and probably soon the last on the article itself, as I have no intention of being "ambushed" into edit warring, then "exiled": Wikipedia can be an interesting pastime & there are other articles to contribute to where one can work in peace and, once done, feel that something has been accomplished.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, here you go again with your sarcistic attitude as the other editor warned you on your talk page and told you to behave in a much better way, okay no problems I can live with it if that make you feel better.

Second about baptism, I respected your reasons for change but you did revert my work with another editor and when I made the proxies change, you removed it also and I left it with no changes until yesterday when I was fed up with you changing my recent edits the whole time without communication.

Third, about her entry into Paris which I added in the last two days, you rewrote it and remove my contributions four times while I simply added that MA wanted to go, I did not say Noailles was a monster or that the king prevented her from going. You also removed her importance as future queen which I wrote in the last 3 days many times in addition to Mercy and the Dauphin visit to Du Barry.

Four, about Castelot, a lot of this concerned him (Grammont exile, the power of the Dauphine versus Mme du Barry plus Mercy visit to the Dauphine which you also removed many times,etc...), you simply remove it without putting a new source with the result that the article would always depend on Fraser.

Fouth, about Du Barry, I did not write this article or its reference about Fraser on the contrary, I quote two primary source letters between Marie Antoinette and her mother who complained about her daughter vehemence in treating Du Barry, I add this information to the Aunts which you put and which I did not touch until today, you immediately remove it like all my recent edits. I added one line about Du Barry fate after her exile, you immediately remove it and replace it with four lines rewritting and removing an edit I wrote 2 days ago immediately.

Five, I approved your overhaul about organisation without any response from you, actually on the first day you changed in the nominations of minister organization with no change from my part, also you opened a section Du Barry with again no change from my part and when I added Social Life, you immediately removed many times, actually she met Lambelle while Dauphine and Polignac as a queen, I put this you remove it on the spot, if you wanted to open a new section about social life how I was supposed to know it if you don't communicate and you don 't even mention explicately it in your edit.

Six, when I talked about the Riots, you left the section where you were working, come to that part of the article and immediately after a few hours of my edit, rewrote it and removed it many times.

Seven, in short, I left you work, tried to communicate on your talk page and respected your work, not removing anything until yesterday; you on the other hand always changed my recent edits , I'm talking of the last few days, changing them and removing them many times; in addition not to communicate with me without even trying to work even on a minumum collaboration on important subjects.

Nine, many editors before you, take the last two one as an example, made many changes in this article, the first one was strongly against MA and his ideas were largely taken in many edits. The second one defended her and also made many changes for ex (her supposed corronation, The fate of Du Barry between MA and her mother in the letters, etc.., he added them in details not me, an editor named krobi added hundred of edits specially in english, organisation and other contributions). Yourself you added the rhine, the aunts, you insisted on keeping the baptism althought it was between me and another editor, you created a Du Barry section, you added many lines about her exile, you organize the nomination of the ministers, I accepted all of that, I only removed part of them yesterday when for 4 days, you always changed my recent edits sometime removing them more than 3 times, and when on my edits not yours I tried to add one sentence, you removed immediately more than 3 times with no communication from you and you don't respond to mine, I'm talking about these edits which I added in the last few days (Choiseul sister exile, Noailles, MA entry into Paris, the visit of Mercy and the Dauphin to Du Barry, the Dauphine position at court, the riots, the exile of Mme du Barry, Removing social life from Du Barry section, etc... )

Finally, I repeat I would be happy to work with you if you respect my works as I respected yours, you don't want to communicate, no problems but believe in compromise, moderation, mutual respect and everything would be positive. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

With all the above accusations, you've got enough to have me decapitated. Too bad the guillotine on Place de la Révolution has been dismantled.

Re the note on my talk page: would it be possible for you to go beyond its title & read the intervention of second fellow contributor, as well as rest of conversation?

As to your last post above: I have answered in a rather long manner, stand by my answer & am through responding to you on this talk page or mine.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverts used as calculated strategy

For the umpteenth time, Aubmn has reverted [1] my edit on Marie-Antoinette replacing it by his repeated comment that MA had influenced Louis XVI in his decision to exile Mme du Barry - and, to boot, insisting on giving as reference Fraser's p. 124, where, on lines 19-21, the author says exactly the opposite! In spite of NebY's intervention [2], and as it stands now, Aubmn reinserted his erroneous statement.

What is behind Aubmn's strategy when he manœuvers other contributors to engage in an edit war they cannot avoid, as it is impossible to knowingly leave errors behind when working on an encyclopedia. So you work for hours on the article & end up with nothing accomplished & unable to continue. And, isn't it strange that after having reverted a couple of times, Aubmn writes down in edit summary the number of reverts done, making it obvious what his game is.

Aubmn stands guard over the article & *occupies* it in such a way that after the first edit, one finds him/herself faced with an edit conflict & when able to return to editing, is treated to his first revert of the day! This is an obvious calculated manœuver - a manœuver planned to keep others out.

I cannot speak for any other but myself, but after having been reverted so many times by Aubmn, I feel that I may have earned the right to be critical & question his style of writing & the meaning it brings to the text. Just picking one at random:

"On the third day, she was declared guilty of treason and condemned to death to her great surprise and sadeness, though she had expected life imprisonment."

After having gone thru one of the most cruel trials ever, one accused of some of the worst crimes on earth - treason & incest - hears the death verdict with "great surprise and sadeness" (sic)? If my cat gets run over by a car & lies dead in the street, I will surely be filled with "sadness", but if I get condemned to death, another word & other feelings will come upon me.

Aubmn is single-handedly making it impossible for other contributors to work on this article. He cannot leave any edit alone without adding a few words that are unnecessary or change the meaning of the sentence. To say that he is disruptive [3] is a kind way of putting it.

It is really too bad that an article that could be a jewel is being turned into a battlefield and, if no one intervenes, will end up being nothing but a piece of trash for a cheap gossip magazine.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Major progress done, any improvement is welcome and the priority is new sources to complete Fraser so article don 't depend on one source which is the worst scenario to any major article

First, I think a few basic facts needed to be addressed and remembered.

Second, I did not write this article, it was left largely incomplete since 2012 with a lot of copyrights violations and depending on one source "Fraser".

Third, beginning last year, I largely completed this article.

Fourth, one editor organize the article specially in English, organization and some content, also others demanded major modifications which were done sometimes with a strong debate but compromises were found.

Five, a major problem is that from time to time, some editors see Marie Antoinette from a radical perspective from both sides overlooking the fact that the truth is somewhat in the middle.

Six, I removed the copyrights violations.

Seven, I reduced the size of this article from 16,000 words to around 10,000 words noting that an article around 10,000 words is acceptable (Elizabeth Tudor 9,000, Mary Queen of Scots 9000 words, Joan of Arc 10,000 words, Napoleon much more I tried to reduce it but two editors there refused and we agreed to include more subjects not only his military career, frankly the editors there were professional and we agreed on most of the stuff), know the article of MA is around 12,000 words partly due to new editors and partly to me adding new sources.

Eight, I don 't mind a major overhaul of the organization of the article, taking into consideration that it was written on chronological events not subjects since 2011 like most Wikipedia articles; or any attempt to improve the content as long as the major information's are covered and I wish we discuss change here before making it.

Nine, I think the priority should be to give new sources to this article in order to complete Fraser and I'm doing this every week. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the #Tone and appropriate content section, and various other sections on this talk page, you wrote a great deal of this article, with a lot of WP:Copyright violations to boot, and the reason this article never significantly improves is because you revert the sound changes. You've been blocked by Drmies and Euryalus for matters relating to this article, and the only way I see this article improving in major ways is if you are WP:Topic banned from editing it, and kept from editing it after that topic ban, or if you voluntarily stop editing it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

An indefinite WP:Block would also help (well, as long as we stopped your WP:Socks), but that goes without saying. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

First, my block by Drmies was about article T-80 and I was still a novice editor for 36 hours showing that you don't know what you are talking about.

Second, when I first edited in 2014, I was not aware of the Copyrights issue, then I removed those put by me directly from Fraser.

Third, I removed thousands of Copyright Violations and Paraphrasing in 2015 who were there since 2011 before my contributions.

Fourth, this article whom I understand was on your watchlist, you left him unfinished and lacking essential informations since 2012, you should thank me for doing your job and massively completing the informations.

Five, I'm a positive person, in Napoleon another major article (see the talk page I made major changes with the full cooperation of other professional editors).

Six, I have more than one hundred sources about MA and I 'll continue putting new sources because this is the only way to make this article not depending on one source "Fraser" and I 'm sorry that you don 't see the big picture but I think I have to edit with that.Aubmn (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what I'm talking about; this talk page is my evidence. I could get you WP:Banned from this article if I wanted to. And I will likely seek to do just that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do it and don 't communicate with me anymore, I have more important stuff to do like finishing putting and giving new sources to this major article so it don't depend on one source "Fraser" which is something very difficult and involve spending a lot of money and efforts in addition to my previous works in completing the information and removing the Copyrights Violations and Paraphrasing before my contributions.Aubmn (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake, informations is not a word. The plural of information is information!--Trebligoniqua (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Negativity and Harassment continue while priority should be given to new sources to complete Fraser so article don 't depend on one source which would be the worst scenario and the major weakness of this article

First, you continue your sarcastic bad behavior with me not taking into account what the other editor told you on your talk page to respect others by stopping your sarcastic bad manners, no problems if that make you feel better and you enjoy it.

Second, don 't put your mistakes on others, today like two days ago when you removed my edit (the king entourage mainly MA) to put the aunts, I put my other edit with 3 sources which you removed on the spot today pushed by certain negative interventions, you reverted me 3 times on a edit I put "to get her revenge" based on 3 sources: Levron a biographer of Mme du Barry and a major French Historian (P 81, quote:" MA did not disarm and her own mother blamed the queen for her lack of Christian generosity in the treatment of Du Barry ), Evelyne Lever one of the best authority about MA , p 124: "MA will was to insist on the punishment of her enemies [Sa volonte se limitait a exiger le chatiment de ses ennemis], "MA was satisfied, she got the impression of getting a beautiful revenge on the Favorite, what remains to her was to get rid of her other major enemy the duc d 'Aiguillon" [MA a l impression de prendre une belle revanche sur la favorite honnie, restait maintenant a se debarasser de son autre bête noire le duc d'Aiguillon ) and finally a primary source in the article in which MA mother spoke about the vehemence of her daughter in treating the" poor Barry", it is not the first time that you revert me trying to impose your point of view, you reverted me on the riots, MA entry to Paris, her importance as future queen, Social life, baptism, Noailles, etc...I will not name them all, I described them before with no response from you. Today I was trying to have a compromise between Fraser and the 3 other sources, we cannot make this article to depend on Fraser alone which your actions are leading too and this is the worst scenario and the major weakness of this article; in addition you removed Castelot as a source one not seeing how important that other sources than Fraser should be used because simply it did not suited your edit, that's the most irrational editing decision I have seen in this article. It seems you are not at all understanding that while it is fine to edit and to make better this article, putting new sources should be the highest priority because no major article should depend on one source.

Third, I did not revert not one of your major edits, you changed the place of a major portion of the lead without going to the talk page which no other editor before you did and I did not interfere, you added baptism, the Aunts, Section about du Barry, organization of ministers, palaces in Vienna, Governess, Education etc.., today more than 10 lines who where between me and another editor; I thanked you three times never reverting you except when you always change and revert my edits.

Fourth, from the beginning there was no communications from you, I proposed twice on your talk page to collaborate, until know there was no response from you.

Five, you don't believe in compromise, that's the problem, I left you work, you did not leave me work the whole time, reverting my edits many times, it is natural that I restore some of them (For details see the section above to which you did not responded in details because you can't).

Six, all the reverts are on edits I created meaning you are the one making the problems, the edit today about the revenge of MA on the favorite, I wrote it, you removed it 3 times. All your major edits are still there, many of mine have been changed or reverted by you.

Seven, I completed this article left since 2012, removed thousands of copyrights violations and paraphrasing; and finally putting other sources than Fraser which is the highest priority today so leave me to work and do whatever you want to do, I ' m done with you, you don't want to communicate, collaborate or make compromises fine, me neither after your actions. Aubmn (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

Your reverts of the day, for which you do not seem to have had any prior discussion with contributor either here or on his talk page (one of your main reproaches to me):

[4]

[5]

May I also point out that whatever information this contributor has added to article has been automatically removed by you.

[6]

[7]

[8]

As for my including in article such details (your quote: ...and I did not interfere, you added baptism, the Aunts, Section about du Barry, organization of ministers, palaces in Vienna, Governess, Education etc..,) as to where she was born in Vienna, a detail given for every prince, princess, king or queen, or jazz player, as well as full name, education etc. - aren't these details as important as her double chin (not shown in David's drawing of her hardly one hour before her execution), her gain of weight (when her brother made the remark, she happened to be four months pregnant) or the size of her breasts. Whether she had a double chin, was overweight or had large breasts, what is the importance of these details in an article from which you keep removing more important information because you want to keep its size down?

High priority of article is not only the adding of sources other than Fraser, which is great to do, but also improvement of the style of its redaction, which in quite a few sections seems to come out of the pen of a thirteen-year old. Improvement will never be achieved as long as you add trivia & keep others away by leading them into an edit war.

Finally, you keep on bringing up a discussion on my talk page [9], which was rather friendly in spite of its title. May I bring out to your attention that I never removed it, while you dare not leave anything on yours that could attest to your disruptive behavior:

[10]

Four (4) minutes later:

[11]

And within twenty (20) minutes, you had reverted this contributor's edits to go back to the only acceptable one... namely yours:

[12]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm happy that you are saying having other sources than Fraser is important, actually it is by far the most important priority because it is the major weakness of this article.

Second, I see that you continue your sarcastic bad manners and behaviour in treating other people (13 years really..no comment); I don 't need to quote the other editor who warned you about this kind of comment, you did it with me many times, in spite that I respected you all along and tried to communicate, collaborate and made compromises with you, you did not even responded from the start. As for the editor you quote, he should have warned you because you reverted 3 times the same edit in one day following another 3 reverts the day before, that editor has a negative behavior based on harassment here and in due time his behavior will be reported.

Three, this article was not written by me, actually most of my contributions has been rewritten using my information, with your talking about 13 years old, you are insulting hundred of editors who have contributed to this article.

Four, my relations with other editors doesn't concern you, the last one accepted my changes because his good faith edits covered a lot of materials making the article reach almost 11,000 words, for example is it possible to mention 10 lines for Mozart meeting with MA or her baptism or every incident in her life when she was young. You mentioned La princesse de Lamballe ok, should you mention also her family in details yet it was kept. All the weight, beauty and health of MA which played such an important part of her life is mentioned in less than 10 lines (court, beauty, health, fashions, Versailles, etc,, ) and that concerned her whole life, it was suggested by another editor by the way.

Five, as usual you are not telling the truth, the last editor added the reasons of the marriage, education, her sister etc...and also many pictures perhaps more than ten. Of course something like Louis fourteen marriage place is not here. You seem to forget there was not an edit war, the other editor until know accepted the changes because he seems a descent person.

Six, I see like usual (more than twice until know) you cannot answer me in details about your reverts, you go to other editors relations with me. All of this is none of your concerns and since you refused to communicate, collaborate or made compromises with me not even answering me on your talk page, do whatever you want, don't communicate with me (I will not respond to you because of your sarcasm and bad manners out of principle not because it bother me) and leave me alone to work in peace.Aubmn (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn

Equal to the concern of 99 percent use of Fraser as reference is the writing style which, I do insist, at times has more to do with the style found in a teenagers' forum than with that of an encyclopedia. By the way, I love teenagers, but I don't think that their style of writing is the one Wikipedia wants to adopt.

In order to obtain decent articles without undue weight one way or the other, consensus has to be reached between contributors, which does not mean that compromises have to be done between two of them in the style: "If you accept my wrong, I will leave your right alone", which is exactly what you are proposing to me & want to discuss on my talk page. Backroom deals are not the way to go at Wikipedia.

RE the 3-revert rule: 3 reverts are accepted, it is only with & after the 4th one that the culprit is exiled for a few hours or days.

I have as much right to bring up the discussions & removals on your talk page as you are bringing up a discussion on mine.

As for the editor whose edits you go after with a machete, if I was you, I would not bet on his never rebelling against your removal of most of his contributions... Should he do so, in my eyes, he would remain in the "descent person" category. By the way, why don't you go to his talk page or here before removing his work, as you are claiming should be done in my case?

Whether brought up by another editor or not, MA's double chin, overweight & size of breasts are in the article, which you claim being busy re-writing since some time in 2014, which should have given you plenty of time to remove negligible details... although, since you are the one who added it on 17 May 2015[13], *weight* of article must not be your major worry. Talk about details of importance when we are trying to reduce the size of the article!

Responding to your last sentence: I have not touched your article since yesterday & have no intention to do so[14] since you are making it impossible for others to participate. So, it's all yours to work "alone and in peace", unless/until others contest your reverts as being a calculated strategy to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason a higher-up hasn't been called in on this?Trebligoniqua (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time & space above answering Aubmn and, for some reason, did not mention the terms that person has been using toward me.

However, I think I should get this off my chest, especially in a section which begins with the words "Negativity" and "Harassment".

Aubmn went to my talk page & saw a discussion, which I left because it is an interesting piece and, moreover, I have nothing to reproach myself: in that instance, I stood my ground as to the reason of my discussing certain things on the Paris talk page, which, by the way, has nothing to do here, but Aubmn brought it up & has been using it to insult me on this page with the following:

• sarcasm
• bad manners
• bad behaviour (negative behavior was also addressed to another contributor)
• not telling the truth, meaning that I am a liar
• implying that I am not a decent person, by comparing a certain editor's attitude, who never complains at having his work reverted, thus qualifying him as a *decent person*.

On another subject:

With his tactic of using reverts as a weapon, Aubmn has succeeded in chasing all contributors away from the Marie-Antoinette article. The time he begins contributing is right after someone has begun working on it - then he finds a reason to revert the work of that person until, having put back his/her edit 3 times, the contributor leaves for the day, usually after having been warned by Aubmn that he/she has used his ration of reverts for the day, with the threat of reporting him/her to higher wiki authorities (my sarcasm!).

If that is not obvious of the tactic used by Aubmn, I don't know what is.

This article needs a major overhaul, section by section, line by line, word by word. References must be checked because so much edit warring has taken place, they often do not correspond to the facts they are attached to: for instance, the reader being sent to a 10-15 page reading session, only to find that the subject is not touched by the author. I spent all day yesterday going thru most of the article taking notes, then stopped in despair, but retained four main problems, which are not new to those who have been participating in this discussion before I invited myself in:

(1) the article is filled with junk;

(2) its style is horrendous;

(3) the titles of the sections do not make sense as they are over-burdened with subjects that have nothing to do with one another; two examples:

• Motherhood and Foreign Policy
• Declining popularity, Friends, Fersen and support of Arts and Sciences

(4) the large sections prior & during the Revolution are practically unreadable. C'est un ramassis de verbiage qui n'a ni queue ni tête!. That is where the weight of the article is.

What does Her primary concern in late 1787 and 1788 was the improved health of the Dauphin, who suffered from tuberculosis and his condition continued to deteriorate.[121] mean? Is it saying that the Dauphin's health was improving, while his condition was deteriorating?

As is, this article cannot be corrected, especially with its editor of the past 12 months standing guard over it, keeping everyone away. It needs to be completely blanked & redone.

So far, it has taken me over two weeks to manage to rewrite a few sentences & put details that should be there - something that could be done in a few minutes; yet, I have been unable to make it into Queenship: every sentence, every word has been contested, removed, put back, removed etc.

My contribution is not important as there are Wikipedians right on this page who can do a better job than I can. There is also a great choice of articles to work on.

I had previously written that I would not come back to this page, but I believe that, in this case, it is important to spell out the reasons of one's decision not to contribute to an article. It is quite disturbing that in en.wiki, an article on such a person as Marie-Antoinette is being held hostage to the whims of one contributor.

Because that is exactly what's happening: this article is being held hostage.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue Indigo (talk · contribs), whenever you are ready to report Aubmn to WP:ANI, let me know. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you for your offer; however, situation seems to have quieted down since 18 June...

To quote Napoléon's mother: Pourvou qu'ça doure!. If it doesn't, I'll call on you.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 3 days

If edit warring resumes after protection has expired then I will look at blocks. If the editors involved cannot reach an agreement, please look at WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC

Thank you, I totally support this, I ' m ready to reach compromises with Blue Indigo if he wants, from the beginning I proposed collaboration on his talk page with no response from his part. As an example the necklace incident his contribution was not removed by me although it doesn't focus on MA, mine focused on the queen role in it specially the bosquet incident; he removed it like he was doing in the last few months with my edits (see per talk page I kept 90% of his edits , he removed 90% of mine in addition to his sarcasism and describing me leading a panzer division with all its implications and reference to nazism on flyer22 talk page ), I don't mind Blue Indigo writing it as long as it is mentioned.Aubmn (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

NeilN - After my last edit on Marie Antoinette early today,[15] and before touching the article again, I was going to come to this talk page & ask for someone to step in.

As you can see if you have time to read this very talk page, maybe you will be able to help solve the problem that has been going on for quite a few months now.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn, Blue Indigo had the last revert. Are there major changes required or just a few minor ones? If major changes are required can you please concisely outline one or two of them? If minor changes are required, please list them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User talk:NeilN, actually in my contribution, the role of the queen in the necklace scandal should be the focus not 5 lines about her and the rest about aristocracy and titles, concretely the affair of the bosquet when a young person tricked the Cardinal into believing she was the queen and the reaction of the public to that incident should be mentioned in addition to the exile of the Cardinal and finally the queen role in his arrest and his trial, the contribution of Blue indigo could remained as long as these basic events should be mentioned, it is odd that MA is the least mentioned in this incident. Second about subtitles I agree to use them but in that case, we should use them in the whole article not only in this section. I"m ready to discuss any major change on this talk page and I accept your arbitration because for the first time, I feel that a neutral and honest person is trying to achieve a good result.Aubmn (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Indigo, are you happy with the article as it is now or would you like changes made? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

NeilN,

No,I am not happy with the article as it is now and, yes, I would like changes made by contributors knowledgeable in the subject, and given the opportunity to work in conditions other than those of the past few months, as it is obvious no one wants to touch it with a ten foot pole. Like I wrote somewhere above: this article is being held hostage.

It is revolting to me to have arrived at the point of being blocked from editing at en.wiki because I refuse to have my work undone by someone who has a history of creating havoc at other articles.

Examples:

Edits at the Babington Plot article [16] and the reaction from other contributors at article's talk page (September 2014 to January 2015) [17] give an idea, on a much smaller scale, of what was in store for the article on Marie Antoinette - overweight and double chin included. There are similar instances at the Napoleon article & talk page, where, in order to shorten article, Aubmn was removing whole paragraphs of important historical significance.

As for my experience at Marie Antoinette, the last two edits before you intervened are perfect examples of what has been going on for over six months[18]

Aubmn not only (1) removed my edit where - other than the half dozen historians used - I had brought an interesting source, which I had found at the Bibliothèque nationale de France: the Memoirs of the cousin of the king who had gone into emigration immediately after 14th July 1789; (2) put back his statement that the Minister of Finances was in charge of... finances; (3) reinstated several mistakes, which had been corrected, but that he insisted should be kept in article.

I find it also extremely strange that Aubmn comes into article only after someone has begun editing it: (1) making it impossible to work without interference because of constant edit conflict(s), (2) immediately reverting other editor's work, which (3) leads the way to an edit war - a very calculated tactic, and very frustrating to someone who wants to work seriously.

I would like to add that I appreciate your stepping in, which I hope will put an end to this circus; however, if any thought is given to block me from working on this article, which I have done my best to save from inaccuracy & incorrect or poor English, then I will altogether stop working on en.wiki.

Please, forgive the length of my answer.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the WP:ANI thread. I wish Flyer22 hadn't put words in my mouth but probably the best course of action is to see what is the outcome there and then proceed accordingly here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

NeilN: This if any thought is given to block me from working on this article is my own, certainly not provoked by anyone. I simply meant that, if because of a situation created by a disruptive editor, I was put in the same "bag" as that editor, I would leave en.wiki, ending up with more time for my professional endeavor(s).

I again want to thank you and Flyer22 for taking the time to address this problem.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Neil, sorry for the "words in your mouth" thing. The reason I considered myself accurate in describing you at WP:ANI, by stating "NeilN has been clear that he will block either of them for WP:Edit warring" is because you stated "If edit warring resumes after protection has expired then I will look at blocks." above and Blue Indigo stated on my talk page, "I put myself at risk of being blocked or kicked out of Wikipedia, which would be quite ironic!". Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 & NeilN, So that there is no misunderstanding on this, I want to repeat what I wrote above:

"...This if any thought is given to block me from working on this article is my own, certainly not provoked by anyone".

When I began editing this article after being acquainted to its history of reverts, I knew that I was going head first into trouble, but I wanted to try fixing it anyway, hoping to succeed where others before me had failed (How optimistic can one get!) Aware of the rules of Wikipedia, I also knew that I was at constant risk of falling into the trap of the 3-revert rule leading to edit war, and eventual blocking; but I kept on going because, little by little, I was getting some changes accomplished & thought we'd eventually get there, at least to the point others would take over, polish up the article, remove the excesses in order to get it to an acceptable size.

This should explain what I wrote at Flyer22's talk page: in other words, "for the good of the cause", I took a chance in full knowledge of the risks... and I stated so, thus, no one is putting words into anybody else's mouth :)

Thanks to the two of you for trying to sort this out. --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Morning Report on article

At its highest *weight*, article was 115 756 bytes. It now stands at 108 525, with total weight loss of 7 231 bytes. More can be done, if judged necessary.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Down to 106,536 bytes: total weight loss 9 220 bytes. Moved some pictures around, added Fersen & necklace. A couple of pictures could go, they are too much of the same & make it boring. But that's a personal taste.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Article down to 102,766 bytes: total *weight loss* of 12 990 bytes.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article down to 101 065 bytes: total *weight loss* of 14 691 bytes.

Probably can do better, but need a break...

--Blue Indigo (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Article down to 99 591 bytes: total *weight loss* of 16 165 bytes.

Leaving it at that.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection requested

In view of the 18 edits removing entire parts & some illustrations from the article [19] by Nbnnbnl, an obvious sock & one of many of Aubmn - same language, same tactics -, I am requesting full protection of the article.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Poorly Written

Take this paragraph as an example:

"Marie Antoinette's relationship with Madame du Barry was politically important to improve, at least on the surface. The favourite had been instrumental in ousting the duc de Choiseul, who had helped orchestrate the Franco-Austrian alliance and Marie Antoinette's marriage.[34] and, in spite of Marie-Antoinette's strong objection, in sending into exile, in 1770, one of her ladies-in-waiting, the duchesse de Gramont, sister of Choiseul. Under continued pressure from her mother and the comte de Mercy-Argenteau, the Austrian ambassador to France, who was sending Maria-Theresa secret reports on Marie-Antoinette's behavior, and in order to stop any French protest about the partition of Poland, the Dauphine grudgingly agreed to speak to Madame du Barry on New Year's Day 1772.[35][36] Although the limit of the conversation was Marie Antoinette's banal comment to the royal mistress: "There are a lot of people at Versailles today", Madame du Barry was satisfied by her victory, and the crisis, for the most part, dissipated.[37] Marie Antoinette never addressed a word to the comtesse again; however, in order to please the king, Mercy and the Dauphin occasionally visited Madame du Barry."

What does the first sentence mean? In the second sentence, who is the "favourite?" Why is there a period after "marriage" in that sentence — result of a careless emendation to add more information about exile? How did the protest about the partition of Poland figure in the discussion with du Barry? In the next-to-last sentence, what is the "victory" of Madame du Barry? The paragraph is a word salad, or mélange des mots. I don't know the subject matter; otherwise I'd fix it. MaxwellPerkins (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@MaxwellPerkins: this article is still in recovery! For a long time it was very difficult to edit it constructively. The problematic editor is now blocked and banned, a few editors have made repairs and Blue Indigo in particular has done a lot of good work, but it's a large article and we can't expect anyone to inspect - let alone correct - everything. So thanks for picking this up; I'll try to copy-edit this paragraph a bit (though maybe not today) but there'll still be plenty of opportunities to work on making this a decent Wikipedia article that serves the readers well. NebY (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@MaxwellPerkins:. As NebY stated above, "this article is still in recovery", to which I would add some of its editors also...

Writing and/or contributing to Wikipedia articles is 'open to the public', meaning that readers who find faults are welcome to edit.

On your comment "who is the favourite?", it should be clear to anyone who has read the last sentence of the previous paragraph:

"On the other hand, those opposed to the alliance with Austria, and others on personal grounds, such as the comtesse du Barry, Louis XV's mistress who had considerable political influence over the king, had a tenuous relationship with the Dauphine.[33]"

As for the dot after marriage: it is a typo, probably something left over after rewriting the sentence, and which anyone can remove.

To give you an idea of the difficulties encountered in getting where we are now, and if you have a month of Sundays to spare, I invite you to go thru the editing history of this article, maybe starting here [20]and also to this archived talk page[21]. But, mostly, I invite you to edit this article in whichever manner you judge will improve it.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Henry vs Henri

The French name Henri is spelled with an I, not a Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.134.154 (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)