Talk:Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier

Style

Isn't this text slightly too literary to be encyclopedic? I mean, it sounds like it was copied from a history book or a novel. A rewrite is in order. --Steerpike 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Literary"? doubtless it could be rendered more illiterary by additional gems like the following...

...extraordinary event in the annals of medicine!

"Her mother was Marie de Bourbon, heiress of the Duke of Montpensier, who died giving birth to Anne." (gasp Wetman (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't be skilly,. in those times women often died giving birth. 4.249.3.141 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant & trivial content

A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Name in title

Adding surname *d'Orléans* in title of article. Frania W. (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

sentence fragment

Please rewrite this to make it a complete thought. "The elderly lovers (for in 1681, when Lauzun was released, he was nearly fifty, and Anne-Marie Louise was fifty-four)." 4.249.3.141 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

bad grammar

"having left her escort of troops behind and having failed entry through other gates of the city, some boatmen on the banks " the phrase "having left", according to this syntax, refers to "some boatmen." please fix. 4.249.63.90 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance

User:FactStraight decided to revert my HUGE effort to try and bring Mademoiselle into the front line by simply rewriting the page giving a detailed and interesting biography of her! I have reverted it back as that is plain arrogance as well as just ignorant of my feelings as well as others who have the right to rewrite the text as they wish! I am aware I can write very wordy sometimes and I apologise but give me a break! That has p***** me off to the MAX! Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you have a right to edit articles as you wish but if somebody disagrees and reverts your edit, you are not supposed to simply revert it back. You should start a discussion at the talk page. Your effort was not lost by reversion; it remained in the history of the page. FactStraight gave a detailed explanation of his action. In some very important aspects, he was right: the text does contain bad grammar and information which is not really relevant to the subject of the article. I believe he should've tried to fix those issues instead of reverting as you did a great job expanding the article. I doubt, however, that he reverted simply to hurt your feelings or to hurt the article.

But that's all irrelevant compared to the biggest problem here. Your attacks on FactStraight are shocking. I honestly thought that you could never attack another user. But calling someone ignorant and "so arrogant" is simply horrible. That's no way to solve a problem. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shocking, are you serious? Anything I do no matter how small he reverts! All the time! I have put alot of work into this and it should be appreciated not ignored just because it is me writing it! May sound silly but that is how he makes me feel and I have never even met him! I do not see why he can not add in a democratic way rather than autocraticly removing all asourced, referenced and factual information! It is simply not fair :'[ --LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S He gave no proper reason for removing it, it is just because it is me!

Like you, I took considerable time to edit this article, correcting grammar and spelling errors, and deleting unsourced/under-sourced, redundant or excessive info. You edited back in far more than I had trimmed of the same kind of objectionable verbiage, albeit some of it with sources, for which I thank you. But trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, sourced or not. I think that you often add valuable info to articles of this kind, but you almost invariablly surround it with excess and subjective detail. It is untrue that these objections have not been spelled out: please see above my precise concerns on this same page more than two years ago, i.e., "...much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views." Seldom engaging in content discussions (given the amount of editing you do on these types of articles), you continue to unilaterally edit articles and article titles on Bourbons, Savoys, Lorraines, princes etrangers, French nobles and Catholic royalty in ways that you have been repeatedly informed raise concerns or objections. Therefore, you cannot reasonably expect such edits to be left un-reverted, nor that others will take the time to clean up insertions you realized would raise objections before you put them in the article. FactStraight (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)