Talk:Anti-Sacrilege Act

Older Discussion

Hello Str1977. Thank you for your interest in the article & help in copy-editing. However, please do not remove information (such as the fist cut before the capital punishment, this is one of the main point of the article and one of the reason why this law was qualified as "anachronic" by Jeanneney). Second, the introduction is an introduction, and the article can't be concluded without recalling that the law was repealed in 1830 (lest someone thinks that it is still in force today!!!). Thus, there is no problem if the epithet "anachronic law" is mentionned twice: Jeanneney here makes clear what the problem is: the French Revolution has passed, and, despite the ultras' wish, one can't cancel 30 years of such history. Anachronism, because it revives a punishment from the Ancien Régime applied to parricides; anachronism, because it is voted by reactionaries (which you remplace by the word "Opponent", which is a mistake of you: "Reactionary" here is totally NPOV, as it means what it means in its first and proper sense: people who refuse the heritage of the French Revolution, that is, first of all, Villèle & the ultras). They were not "Opponents" of the law, but the section on them is dedicated to the objections lifted against the government. But they were, globally, on its side! The real opponents are the liberals, something you seem to have missed. Beside, you deleted the crucial information according to which census suffrage was in force at the time, and that about 100,000 Frenchmen had the right to vote. Without this, how can you understand this overwhelming presence of the Ultras? Please do not confuse copy-editing with censorship, and justify any move you make. This article wasn't born out of my head, but out of Jeanneney's head, who is director of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, so please take into account his knowledge. Regards, PS: I don't really get your distinction between "sacrilege" and "blasphemy", maybe you can help me here. Is blasphemy restricted to verbal insults? But the law also included this, so why erase it? Tazmaniacs 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I add that you deleted the statement according to which the parricide sentence (fist & capital punishment) restaured in 1810 under the pretext that it was "non-sense". Can you please provide sources for this, as it contradicts Jeanneney's article, and I'm sorry, but I think he is doubtlessly a WP:RS (a policy which you might be interested in). Best, Tazmaniacs 14:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hall Taz, let me explain and reply:

• I did not remove the "fist cut" - if you read carefully I retained the reference to "fist mutilation"
• I did not object to the term "anachronistic" (as it should be termed, I guess). It is an attributed view and though I don't know the guy and am not sure his reasoning is completely tenable it is okay by Wiki-standards.
• However, we shouldn't write the same stuff twice. We can refer to the repeal in the intro, but not to everything mentioned further down. This is tiresome to the reader.
• I subsumed both views opposing this particular law (and not the government). If that is a misconception then the article's text is wrong, as it talks about arguments against the law.
• The census of the vote is pure POV pushing, as it implies a substantial difference to the preceding government. And your reply make the POV pushing clear: how can one explain the presence of Ultras. Even if in this case it is probably correct, the people do no always vote in Liberals. (As the July Monarchy found out).
• "This article was ... born ... out of Jeanneney's head, who is director of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France" - so the entire article is POV and owned by this guy. Sorry, this is against principles of WP and all encyclopediae.
• The distinction between "blasphemy" and "sacrilege" is quite simple: "blasphemy" is, to say it bluntly, insulting or cursing God or misusing his name - "sacrilege" is the the improper treatment of sacred objects.
• And, yes, to talk about the "Restoration in 1810" is sheer and utter non-sense ... or a typo. The Bourbon were restored in 1814 and 1815, but in 1810 Napoleon was undisputed ruler of Europe. If it's not a typo, then your doesn't seem reliable at all. Maybe you could give a short bio of that Jeanneney guy.
• Finally, it doesn't help that you use inflammatory language, talking about "censorship" etc. Read WP:AGF.

So with all due respect, your blanket revert to a version inferiour language-wise and content-wise is unacceptable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will carefully review your modifications before editing (especially if you modify for the better the part on the mutilation of the hand). I've actually see your changes because you removed this article from the Category:Bourbon Restoration, without any reason. Pardon my inflammatory language, but you've made some massive changes without discussing them at all. Finally, the part on the census is of course relevant, because census suffrage is not universal suffrage. And, last but not least, as I said, I first of all thank you of your attention for this article, but I find your remark against Jeanneney quite light, especially since I made the point to note at the end that he was president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. "Unreliable", you said? Tazmaniacs 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made slight modifications. Thanks for your grammar & language corrections. But I added again the census suffrage & 100,000 Frenchmen, I'm sorry, but this is important and noted by Jeanneney in his article. I removed your "fact template" has Jeanneney's article is cited in the References subsection. Tazmaniacs 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1810 part was a typo mistake of me, refering to the article it says "suplice des parricides, c'est-à-dire le poing coupé avant la décapitation, peine de l'Ancien Régime rétablie en 1810." (parricides' supplice, that is to say the fist cut before decapitation, an Ancien Regime sentence reestablished in 1810). Jeanneney of course never wrote "reestablished by the Restoration". Finally, thanks again for your reviews, I only guess such changes should be explained in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Regards, Tazmaniacs 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Taz,

apologies accepted. I didn't see a need for discussion, as this page was still empty and my changes didn't seem that great to me.

The "unreliable" was based on the condition that he made the 1810 Bourbon blunder. Since that was an oversight on your part, I have no reason to doubt his reliabity, even if I don't agree with the authority he invests in Diderot's book.

I reworded the "Impact/Evaluation" section, straightening it a bit.

I (again) changed the non-existent word "anachronic" to the English "anachronistic". Is there a problem with this?

Finally, again, I had to delete your reference to the census vote - neither the preceding nor the succeeding nor Louis-Philippe's government was better or much better in this. To mention it in this regard is off-topic and POV. It is, to use a comparison, saying: "Lyndon Johnson, who was elected by a universal suffrage, authorized bombings of North Vietnam." - That's all factually correct, but JFK and Nixon were elected by universal suffrage too, so that fact is of no consequence and off-topic - unless one wants to push a certain POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Restaured census suffrage. Jeanneney mentions it, it is an element of the context. It is not POV to state this fact. Tazmaniacs 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is POV as this doesn't distinguish that governement from other governments. It implies that the people didn't approve of that law or of the government, which we cannot tell, since they voiced an opinion in neither direction. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not POV to state that there was census suffrage. Gives me a break! If you disagree, try a request for comment or something like that. Tazmaniacs 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is POV pushing, as there was nothing special about that government. It is not information but desinformation. Not uncommon but still wrong. And before you say Jeanneney uses it - it is not our job to parrot his article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 05:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing a source may be considered vandalism. Tazmaniacs 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It is a content dispute. Why do we need this reference to pamphlets dressing uo as an encyclopedia. Why do we need a large block of French text, that adds nothing of substance to the article. If we want to include Jeanneney's term and argument, then we can do that, but we need not parrot all he says. We report his view but do not endorse it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 05:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your own POV is largely proven when you call l'Encyclopédie a "pamphlet dressing up as an encyclopedia". Please stop removing content. Tazmaniacs 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My POV is proven? Well, you can also ask me about my POV, if you want to know. Last I time I checked, having a POV was not illegal on WP. I could also say that your response demonstrates your POV - nothing wrong with that. As for my take on the Encyclopedia, it is a well not known fact (and not some fringe view) that Diderot included some very opinionated and one-sided articles into this work, using the Encyclopedia as a cover. In WP terms this would be considered POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Census suffrage & edit-warring

Please stop removing the following sentence: "The Ultras had been elected under restricted census suffrage (only 100,000 Frenchmen had the right to vote)." As I've already told you, historian Jeanneney (see references of the article) includes this information, as it helps to understand the context of the event in question: the vote of this law, which was never applied (except on a minor point), something which you seem to miss. If you consider this is POV, please see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and follow the usual process for resolving disputes. If you continue this edit-warring without discussing, it would be considered as vandalism. Tazmaniacs 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And as I have already told you, the fact that Jeanney includes this information is of no consequence. The issue is whether this adds valuable information and, in your words, helps to understand the context of the events. And the answer is that it doesn't as the preceding government (which didn't proposed this law) as well as the succeeding government (which did away with this law) were also "elected under restricted census suffrage". Hence, the inclusion, at least in a form that implies that this was unique to the government that proposed this law, is POV pushing. I will ask for mediation on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done so: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-31 Anti-Sacrilege Act Census Law. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm sure comments from other editors will help us solve this dispute better than any other way else. Tazmaniacs 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs. Context needs to be explained, meaning that readrs have a right to know the structure of the legislature. I personally believe that Charles' ascention played an even more important part in bringing this about, but, either way, it is clear that the context was artificial and the legislators hand-picked. If the oppinion varied among legislators, their representation of French society, in either case, was merely formal. If I say that the Perestroika was carried out by people in tune with Soviet society, it still doesn't make the CPSU "more representative". The question is: would have the law been likely to pass under more democratic circumstances? The answer is: not really. Dahn 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But it needs to be the accurate context. No one doubts that what Taz wrote about the census is accurate in itself. However, the question is how does that pertain to the Act when the preceeding government and the succeeding government, both against this Act, were elected under the same circumstances (and so was the British parliament at that time)?

To use your analogy, would you include in the Gorbachev article that "Gorbachev, the father of perestroika, was the protegé of KGB chief Andropov and was elected by a small oligarchy" - all true but seriosly misleading.

Quite apart from the fact that the elected MPs were not "hand-picked" or there representation not any more formal than in other cases.

As for your question: we will never know what would have happened under different circumstances. But the certainty of the answer given above is exactly the prejudice and the POV that is pushed by including the passage, while nothing is lost by its exclusion, as prejudice is not a real context. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have said: having a narrow oligarchy as the basis for suffrage does not ensure a single oppinion (that is in answer to the relevance of the options of the previous and successor governments). What it does ensure is that a problem of, very likely, zero relevance to the general public will take an undserved spotlight. They were certainly hand-picked as voters (there were laws saying who could vote). To answer to the Gorbachev thing: I would certainly point out how succession came about in the Soviet state - and I do believe that it should be indicated (you hypothetical version of text, however, sounds a bit sordid to be left in the Gorbachev article text). As for the British context: if rotten boroughs rose to prominence in the election of a gvt etc, I would certainly indicate that; in fact, Britain was not the more fortunate example it was "because it was more democratic" (though I'm sure it had a more representative regime than France), but because it was more liberal. It took a new Revolution in France to bring it to British levels. This last phrase ought to answer your views that I was speculating before: between two revolutions, and some time after a violent counterrevolution, when dealing with a matter that was meant to infuriate even the juring clergy that was certainly not sans-cullotist, with a relevant opposition even inside the inner circle of Peers et al, I believe it is beyond speculation to say the vast majority of the common population, at the very least did not give a crap about how to punish sacrilegious acts. Your "we will never know what would have happened under different circumstances" defies common sense, if you'll permit me to say so; who knows, perhaps Louis XVIth wouldn't have convened the estates, the Revolution would not have happened? if Stalin wouldn't have massacred the Polish officers at Katyn, they would have joined the Red Army voluntarily? The 1830 Revolution is a good indicator of why this is not exactly speculation. Not presenting the context will be a sin of omission. Dahn 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dahn,

• "What it does ensure is that a problem of, very likely, zero relevance to the general public will take an undserved spotlight." - That's an assertion at best, not an irrational one, but still. For that we'd need a sources saying that much (otherwise it's OR), then it would need to be dePOV'ed (as a view and not a fact) and there would remain the question of relevance.
• "They were certainly hand-picked as voters (there were laws saying who could vote)." - they were certainly not hand-picked as the laws did not go: and the electors shall be Francis Duke of Anjou, and Jean Cont de Chagny and Le Baron Combertien etc. They granted suffrage according to one's property, income or taxation. Now, lawmakes might have certain people in mind whose inclusion or exclusion influenced the limit, but ... unless we know from sources it remains OR and speculation and is not actually relevant to this particular bill (this article is not about census suffrage)
• As for the 1830 revolution proving your point: no, it doesn't as that revolution was caused by many issues and not primarily by the bill in question (so you cannot say, they didn't like the bill and hence revolted). Also problematic is the implication that the 1830 regime represented somehow the people - you can only deduce (with the above caveat) that the 1830 regime and the voters on which it was based rejected the bill and hence overturned it but a broader suffrage might have brought different results. Or not ... all speculative since we do not know. We should not push a POV or imply it when we do not know. (I also think it interesting that you talk about a "revolution" and "a violent counterrevolution", as if the revolution was not violent as well)
• Finally, let me state that my objections are not in the least about approval or disapproval of the bill in question. We don't have to fight out issues of yesterday. And we don't have to create a bogus mouthpiece of the French people in 1825, when 'we don't know what they thought!

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See also: fr:Restauration#La France sous les Bourbons restaurés for the context. When talking about preceding and succeeding gvt, Str1977, you are forgetting that the Chamber of Deputies (Peers, of course, not being elected), was renewable by 1/5 each year, except in case of a dissolving of the Parliament by the king. So, the Second Restauration first had the Chambre introuvable (1815-1816), dominated by Ultras (see fr:Chambre introuvable). Before the Ultras' excess, Louis XVIII dissolved the Chamber (it is not POV to state "excess": they were so much excess that the king himself dissolved it, fearing another revolution) and came the Orleanists, whom passed several laws (fr:Grandes lois sous la Restauration - loi Lainé, loi Gouvion Saint-Cyr, loi Serre). But after the 1820 assassination of the duc de Berry, the Chamber voted several repressive laws (law of suspension of individual liberties, law on the press and law on double vote). The Chamber was finally dissolved after the success of the Spanish expedition, and the Ultras came back, and passed this Sacrilege Act and the famous law on the "billion of the émigrés". The Chamber then progressively became a bit more liberal, passing a law on press abolishing censorship instaured by the previous law, and it was Charles X's refusal to name liberal ministers, and decision to impose the Ultra Polignac which sparked the 1830 July Revolution. All in all, you see, they were two dissolvings and globally Ultras (Chambre introuvable, 1815-1816; dissolved) — Liberals (1816-1820) and 1820 assassination of the duc de Berry; 1823: new dissolving of the Chamber and return of the Ultras, who dominate the government until 1830. Your previous comparison with Lyndon B. Johnson and a liberal democracy, where there is supposed to be alternance every four years or so, is not really substainable here... Tazmaniacs 13:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Taz, that's all fine and dandy. I still think that my LBJ analogy holds true, as in neither case was there a substantial change in the suffrage while an inclusion would imply that the suffrage was essential and instrumental in bringing about a certain decision, here: the bill, there the war. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to talk page talk

Dear Taz and Dahn, I hope you don't mind that I have read your talk page conversation. I must comment on some things mentioned there:

• Taz, I hope that your classification of my edits as sacrilege are not meant seriosly.
• Also, I do no "mostly contribute(..) on Charlemagne and related feudalism aspect" - in fact I have hardly done any editing on Charlemagne; my presence there is mainly the result of really really stupid edit war caused by one user. Compared to that our dispute is really of great substance. If you wanted to imply that I am not knowledgeable on modern things, I must protest.
• On the "overrepresentation" of the Ultras, I do not disagree with you. Measured on our standards of representation they were overrepresented and I don't object to the inclusion of the census in a way that is not pushing that particular POV.
• On "he explictly stated his POV" I must say that you are jumping conclusions: to criticize the defects of the Encyclopedia and the dishonesty of some of its editors shouldn't be sacrilege either. Nor is that work beyond reproach, is it? If you think it is we seriously do have a problem, as basing ourselves exclusively on one view (Jeanneney's) would be a violaton of NPOV.
• Dahn, you exactly grasped the point when you wrote "on the basis that they single out the Ultra administration" and I think your proposal (with the necessary changes to the confusion of the chambers) might be workable.
• Taz, I do not say that the electoral laws were exactly the same, but that there always (at that time) was a census suffrage. The census changed several times througout all three Kings' reigns.
• "Our editor here seems to think (or want us to believe) that the Ultras just had been elected. Wrong ..." - yes, but that is your own strawman - I never said or implied that. If you are now saying that the important thing was the regnal change, why do you stress something else?
• "that editor claims it is POV talking about that, while I pretend that one can't understand why the Ultras were there in the first place if he doesn't get that they were these restricted electoral laws." - and one cannot understand a lot of thing without a lot of other things. But the problem is that your version implies (and hence pushes) a certain POV (and it is of no further consequence whether Jeanney supports it, whom I never called a leftist atheist - again only products of your fantasy)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Your sense of humor most certainly will take these comments as they are supposed to be taken :) Now, you say that the census suffrage shouldn't be mentioned because it was the same under the three kings. First of all, is that really so? Wasn't the census suffrage less restricted under the July monarchy? Second, if you refer to Wikipedia:Manual of style, you will see that each article is supposed to be independent. Thus, we should imagine the reader as completely foreign to this context. Shouldn't this Wikipedian reader, who stumbled on this article, be aware that the Ultras' overrepresentation was partly explained (and a "part" which is not just some "tiny bits") by a restricted census suffrage, i.e. 100,000 Frenchmen. For once, we can have the precision asked out of encyclopedical articles, and lacking in many Wikipedia articles, but you refuse to instaure it under the pretext of POV. Again, how can it be POV to state a fact? You say that it is so, because it implies that the law was illegitimate under "the people's POV". But you are here jumping to your own conclusions; in fact, from a "modern perspective", that is, the one shared by most people in liberal democracies, the existence of the census suffrage itself makes the Ultras "illegitimate". From a liberal, a republican, or a democratic POV of these times, the issue isn't even on the census suffrage (the main problem was the king, not the electoral laws, not yet), but on the fact that these Ultras are counter-revolutionary émigrés. That, in itself, makes them "illegitimate" according to them. Thus, your apprehension that one may think that this law is illegitimate because I've inserted the statement concerning the use of the census suffrage is a bit strange; for a lot of people (and, without jumping to conclusions, your acts here seems to imply that you do not agree with them), the Ultras themselves were illegitimate, not talking about the law. This law, in fact, and whatever you might personally think of it, is, as historian Jeanneney has demonstrated, an "anachronic" law made by aristocrats whom wanted to rewind history 30 years. Alas, this is quite a difficult feat to do, and it is clear that neither French peasants nor workers' in the cities were concerned about such theological questions. The problem merely concerned liberals & Ultras and the division between temporal & spiritual power, a division upheld by the Revolution, and refused by the Ultras. Tazmaniacs 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what you may find also at Bourbon Restoration, underscoring the various gerrymandering and new electoral laws:

"The Chambre introuvable elected in 1815, dominated by ultraroyalists, or Ultras, was dissolved by Richelieu as being impossible to work with, and electoral gerrymandering resulted in a more liberal chamber in 1816. However, the liberals ultimately proved just as unmanageable, and by 1820 Decazes and the King were looking for ways to revise the electoral laws again, to insure a more tractable conservative majority. However, the assassination of the Duc de Berry, the ultrareactionary son of Louis's ultrareactionary brother (and heir-presumptive) the future Charles X, in February 1820, caused Decazes's fall from power and the triumph of the Ultras. After an interval in which Richelieu returned to power from 1820 to 1821, a new Ultra ministry was formed, headed by the Comte de Villèle, a leading Ultra. "

Tazmaniacs 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation (revisted)

Hello, I’m the volunteer mediator who has agreed to try and help resolve the issue surrounding the census coverage. I have read the article and the discussion and I now have some questions. First it looks like there is no dispute about the factuality of the census suffrage itself, just a dispute about whether or not it belongs in the article and if its inclusion would constitution a POV problem. Does this accurately summarize the problem? Would the sides for and against mind quickly outlining their positions?

My initial assessment as someone who does not know very much about this topic is that the more context you can provide, the better readers will be. I subscribe to the view that Wikipedia is not paper, so it is not limited by space concerns. I also understand from the above that the census suffrage was not unique to this government. Perhaps we can work on a paragraph that everyone would agree to? Here is my own attempt to do that:

• The Anti-Sacriledge Act was first presented in April 1824 before the Chamber of Peers, which had been reestablished by the Restoration. The law was not approved, however, until after the death of Louis XVIII in that same year. Louis was seen as too moderate by the Ultra-royalists, but with the accession of his brother, Charles X, Villèle's ultra-royalist government decided to seize the opportunity to present the law once again, alleging an increase in the stealing of sacred vases. Coincidentally, the Ultra-royalists had been elected under restricted census suffrage, as only 100,000 Frenchmen had the right to vote. The period of restricted suffrage began ten years earlier in 1814 and continued through 1835.

This is just an attempt to get us started. I made up the last sentence, someone with more knowledge could make it right. As you can see, I’ve tried to accommodate all views. What do you all think of this approach? Tsetna 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there no longer a dispute? Tsetna 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems things have been resolved. Thanks! Tazmaniacs 23:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I am willing to help out on this issue but all of the parties need to discuss! Reverting back and forth is a waste of time and no one is going to win a default victory. I made an attempt above to write a compromise. Now I ask for the disputing parties to identify what Wikipedia rules and guidelines support their positions. Can everyone do this? We can also discuss on the mediation page [1] Tsetna 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Five days, no responses. I'll will leave notes on user pages next, then after that, there's not much I can do if the parties do not discuss! Tsetna 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since this posting still has not been replied to, I will repeat it here:

"The difference between the two versions under dispute is best visible in the following diff [2] (never mind the slight changes instituted afterwards).

"I don't think the fact (which is undisputed) that the Ultra government emerged from a political system that involved a census vote is important for understanding this bill. If some scholar argues this it can be included in a NPOV, referenced form. If not, it serves to imply a certain POV (the one Taz explitely stated on the talk page) that a popular government would have acted differently. To that I reply that we do not know what another government would have done under the same circumstances.

"The chief point I am making is that the Ultra government is not essentially different from the preceding and succeding governments in regard to emerging from a census vote.

"Generally, I prefer if the note is dropped alltogether, but as a compromise I could live with the census being mentioned in a way that does not imply its restriction on the Ultra government and this bill. Such a compromise has been mentioned on the Dahn's user talk page. I don't know how such a wording would look like or even that it can be done, but if possible, this would be the way to go.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't understand why Stre1977 wants to remove information, in particular when it is clearly of an encyclopedical nature. He claims I want to include it for ideological purposes; let him believe what he wants. But it is clearly NPOV info, that for some reason he wants to censor. Second, either he hasn't taken the time to look up in a book about the period, or he isn't being honnest. The Bourbon Restoration was characterized by constant gerry-manding. Looking up a history manual, I see several laws modifying the laws concerning the census suffrage (which of course was on going during all of the period, this characterized constitutional monarchy, which lasted until 1848). The Double Vote Act in 1820 (fr:Loi du double vote (1820) changed the legislation laws, making that the most wealthy quarter of the electors allowed to vote voted twice. Thus, 96% of the voters (whom had to pay an annual cens of 300 Francs) voted once, choosing 258 deputies. The remaining 4% (24 000 people) voted twice, choosing an additional 172 deputies (thus the Chamber was composed 430 deputies). Furthermore, another feature favorized rural areas over urban sites, thus favorizing twice the ultras. Thus the ultras' situation was enforced in the November 1820 elections (renewing 224 seats) and the 1821 elections (86 seats). In 1821, Richelieu (who had been called back after the assassination of the duc de Berry) was deported to the left, and replaced by Villèle, whom composed an exclusively ultra cabinet (Corbière in the Interior, Montmorency in Foreign Affairs and the comte de Peyronnet in Justice). The ultras were again renforced in the 1822 and 1823 elections. The manual I have precised that the Villèle government "intervened largely in favor of its candidates through various minor means made easy by the small number of electors (802 in the Finistère, 32 in Corsica) and the authorities' knowledge of whom voted what (despite the theoretical secretness of the vote). It adds that in December 1823, in order to take out completely the opposition, Villèle dissolved the Chamber, leading to the Chambre retrouvée (Chamber found again?): more than 300 seats for the ultras. In order to preserve this absolute majority, Villèle passed the loi de septennalité (7 years Act?) in March 1824, which suppressed the annual renewing of the Chamber by 1/5 and fixed to seven years the legislature. Thus, it is wrong to say that the number of electors remained constant through out the entire period, although of course, since it was a constitutional monarchy until the 1848 revolutions which led to the Second Republic, census suffrage was on all the time. Tazmaniacs 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Taz, so now we are back to "assuming bad faith" again. I have no wish to censor and I have repeatedly stated that I am open for alternative ways to include this without implying what you apperently want it to imply. You clearly stated your POV on the talk page and want to include it as fact. Also, you should know that most information as such is NPOV - it is the presentation of it that creates most POV problems. Hence, your point out of details are futile as no one disputes them and if you want to ammend the article on census suffrage, go ahead. I never said that the census never changed or that there were no irregularities or manipulations. But you want to pick this one piece of information and place it here next to a certain law to create the impression that these two things are necessarily connected. I call this POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What POV do I want to include as fact? Please be explicit. You are making a whole lot of fuss because you want to remove the sentence concerning the census suffrage & the 100 000 Frenchmen vote (which I took from the historical article used as scholarly source). You then accuse me of wanting to bias the article, and claim that the number of electors remained the same. I've just shown that this is wrong. Tazmaniacs 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From this discussion I believe Str1977 has expressed openness to including the material if the right format can be found, and Tazmaniacs is open to this too. These are the facts as I see them, please correct me if I am wrong.

• There was a census vote during this time period.
• There was also a census vote during the periods before and after this.

From here launch concerns over whether or not including this would bias the article, which is what Str1977 argues will happen. His suggestion is that placing it in the article creates a connection between the law and the census vote. The census vote material comes from Jeanneney, who counts as a reliable source on these matters. It does not appear that anyone is challenging this! The challenge for us is to work this in to the article in a way everyone accepts, I think. Any comments on this overview? Suggests on the sentence or where to put it? Tsetna 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct: there was a census vote during this period, before & after. The info concerning 100 000 voters comes from Jean-Noël Jeanneney. Str1977 has argued that the sentence "at that time 100 000 Frenchmen could vote due to census vote" (from memory) was POV and should be removed. He has edit warred on that. Now, if he agrees to include it now, very well! If you think the sentence should be put elsewhere, or formulated in another way, why not? As long as a fact (100 000 Frenchmen had the right to vote), which for once gives numbers which are quoted, is included, so be it! Thanks for your help. Tazmaniacs 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But how shall we include the info?

Tazz, don't try to misinterpret the discussion again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at including the information without pushing a POV. See what you think about it. Comments please on the Mediation page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no reaction came, I consider this case closed and remove the tag. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. AnnH ♫ 10:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen no new arguments from Str1977 which would legitimize the removal of this perfectly legitimate and relevant information. No other user either has argued in favor of his case. Please refrain from such unilateral actions. Tazmaniacs 17:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One could as easily make the point that there have been no new arguments from you. You disappeared for a month (with good reasons, I'm sure), and then you come back and immediately revert to your version! I really only came to this article because someone put a link to it in an article I had created, which was on my watchlist, and have only done copy edits to it, but looking at the talk page, I don't see any attempt at answering the claim that the previous government, which didn't propose the law, and the next government, which abolished it, were elected the same way and so the inclusion of that sentence makes certain implications which are misleading. It really would be better to respond to the arguments rather than coming back from a long break and reverting back to (more or less) what you had before you left. AnnH ♫ 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely d'accord with Ann.

I think it audacious to first request mediation, then essentially boycotting it and then to come back and revert immediately.

Also, your reverting my changes to the names is incredible. It might be acceptable to use only the "surnames" but it is better to use the full name the first time they occur. IMHO it is rude to strip someone of his first name. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being away from Wikipedia, but Str1977 has yet to demonstrate his point that it is right to remove this piece of information he insists to take away. To AnnH, I must say that I've answered to Str1977 quite a few time, giving historical facts as proof of the importance of this piece of information that Str finds "ideological" (although it's a fact). See for example this version. Tazmaniacs 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent): Tazmaniacs, from what I have read on this talk page, Str1977 has demonstrated his point by saying that the previous government and the next government were elected in the same way, and the former did not propose this law and the latter abolished it, so the placing of information about the restricted voting for this particular government, even though the information may be true, implies that it has some special significance, and is therefore POV. You've addressed me by saying that you have answered Str1977 quite a few times, but the diff you supply [3] is in fact one where he says, " But you want to pick this one piece of information and place it here next to a certain law to create the impression that these two things are necessarily connected." I presume you have given the wrong diff, but in any case, I see no attempt to answer him, and I'm now asking you to answer me, in case I have missed something. If you wrote in an article that X's mother "was Norwegian, and brought up the children very strictly", you would be implying that there was a connection, and people would quite rightly object on POV grounds. If someone pointed out that X's maternal aunt was also Norwegian, and was quite easy going as a mother, and that his paternal aunt was British and was extremely strict, people would protest that you had failed to show that there was a connection between Norwegian-ness and strict parenting, and that the juxtaposition of the two statements was making an implication that could not be justified. So please, if you've answered Str1977, I've missed it. Please answer me. Do you claim (a) the previous government was elected in a different way, (b) the next government was elected in a different way, (c) the previous government did propose this law, (d) the next goverenment did not abolish the law, or (e) placing the two statements (restricted voting and proposal of the law) in juxtaposition does not carry the slightest implication that there is a connection? I'm at a loss to explain why you're pushing for this, but I'm not a historian, so I'd appreciate a direct answer to this. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason given, which of course immediately preceded STr1977's remark which I added for the sake of including his response to it, is to be found about two paragraphs up here, in this same sub-section. I may reproduce it for you here:

"First, I don't understand why Stre1977 wants to remove information, in particular when it is clearly of an encyclopedical nature. He claims I want to include it for ideological purposes; let him believe what he wants. But it is clearly NPOV info, that for some reason he wants to censor. Second, either he hasn't taken the time to look up in a book about the period, or he isn't being honnest. The Bourbon Restoration was characterized by constant gerry-manding. Looking up a history manual, I see several laws modifying the laws concerning the census suffrage (which of course was on going during all of the period, this characterized constitutional monarchy, which lasted until 1848). The Double Vote Act in 1820 (fr:Loi du double vote (1820) changed the legislation laws, making that the most wealthy quarter of the electors allowed to vote voted twice. Thus, 96% of the voters (whom had to pay an annual cens of 300 Francs) voted once, choosing 258 deputies. The remaining 4% (24 000 people) voted twice, choosing an additional 172 deputies (thus the Chamber was composed 430 deputies). Furthermore, another feature favorized rural areas over urban sites, thus favorizing twice the ultras. Thus the ultras' situation was enforced in the November 1820 elections (renewing 224 seats) and the 1821 elections (86 seats). In 1821, Richelieu (who had been called back after the assassination of the duc de Berry) was deported to the left, and replaced by Villèle, whom composed an exclusively ultra cabinet (Corbière in the Interior, Montmorency in Foreign Affairs and the comte de Peyronnet in Justice). The ultras were again renforced in the 1822 and 1823 elections. The manual I have precised that the Villèle government "intervened largely in favor of its candidates through various minor means made easy by the small number of electors (802 in the Finistère, 32 in Corsica) and the authorities' knowledge of whom voted what (despite the theoretical secretness of the vote). It adds that in December 1823, in order to take out completely the opposition, Villèle dissolved the Chamber, leading to the Chambre retrouvée (Chamber found again?): more than 300 seats for the ultras. In order to preserve this absolute majority, Villèle passed the loi de septennalité (7 years Act?) in March 1824, which suppressed the annual renewing of the Chamber by 1/5 and fixed to seven years the legislature. Thus, it is wrong to say that the number of electors remained constant through out the entire period, although of course, since it was a constitutional monarchy until the 1848 revolutions which led to the Second Republic, census suffrage was on all the time. Tazmaniacs 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

As you can see here, the context was of constant gerry-manding and changing of the electoral laws. So, as I've said many times here, of course census suffrage was in force during all the constitutional monarchist regimes (this follows from the definition of a constitutional monarchy), but this is not to say that no difference may be found between the conditions of the election of one Chamber from another. Furthermore, this "Chambre retrouvée" which voted the law, and did so after Charles X's access to power, was elected under specific conditions. It's very name relates it to the Chambre introuvable, which was also elected under very specific conditions. One must be aware that we are in the context of the Restauration, and that if the ultras' are dominating the Chamber, they were named "ultras" for a reason (as well as the "Chambre introuvable" & the "Chambre retrouvée"). The one here trying to make a political point by removing the sentence refering to the fact that "100 000 Frenchmen had the right to vote at that time" certainly is not me. I do not see how STr's claims that this information is irrelevant should be taken seriously, and I have repeatedly addressed his ungrounded criticisms. All of this for one sentence! Tazmaniacs 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 09:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To Ideogram — I don't think it's settled yet. The problem is that I'm extremely busy (as you'll see from my user page), and I have a lot on my watchlist, so an edit or revert that I'm unhappy with can easily slip through. While I don't know for sure, I would guess that Str1977 is also busy and has also got a large watchlist. The fact that I left Tazmaniac's latest revert (or at least, have done so so far) does not at all mean that I accept it. The trouble is that he seems to be "winning" by reverting more frequently — which is not the way it's supposed to be at Wikipedia. To Tazmaniacs — I did not at all wish you to repost a lengthy previous post. I had already read it, and you just clogged up the page, making discussion more difficult. I asked five bullet questions. It would have been helpful if you had answered with a yes or no to each one, while expanding on one or two, where necessary, instead of reposting a 695-word essay, from which you may think the answers can be extracted. I did ask for a "direct" answer. I didn't get one. Please answer now. It seems that the problem is that you are trying to

1. Do you claim the previous government was elected in a different way?
2. Do you claim the next government was elected in a different way?
3. Do you claim that the previous government did propose this law?
4. Do you claim that the next goverenment did not abolish the law?
5. Do you claim that placing the two statements (restricted voting and proposal of the law) in juxtaposition does not carry the slightest implication that there is a connection?

I have already given as an example how we could write that someone's mother "was Norwegian, and brought up the children very strictly", and have argued that such juxtaposition would imply that the strict discipline was because she was Norwegian, and that that would be POV, especially if it left out the facts that the person's maternal aunt was Norwegian and was not strict, while her paternal aunt was British and was strict.

Please answer my questions directly, not with a long essay that is about the subject in general but that does not deal directly with the questions I have raised. It's unfair on other users to just keep reverting without dealing DIRECTLY with their reservations. AnnH ♫ 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any discussion here. I'm going to close the case; if it needs to be reopened leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann, all 5 bullet questions were clearly addressed. I don't "claim" anything, I read history textbooks for students, instead of pushing personal POV. So, if you carefully read again the above text, you will see that from there, leads the conclusion that, answering your questions:

1. Yes, the previous gvt was elected in a different way.
2. Yes, the next gvt was elected in a different way.
3. Yes, the previous gvt propose this law, but it was refused by the Peers.
4. Yes, the next gvt did not abolish the law, it was abolished by another gvt after the July 1830 revolution.
5. I don't understand clearly your last question. It is evident for historians and history textbooks that this law was voted in a particular reactionary context (pardon my word, but it is the first sense of the word). The fact is so clear that the law wasn't even applied, and immediately abolished after the 1830 revolution. It also explains why Jean-Noël Jeanneney calls it an "anachronist law" (and Jeanneney is far from being some left-wing radical). Finally, if you report yourself to Wikipedia:Manual of style, you will see that articles need to be put into context. I fail to see how you can ignore census suffrage when you're talking about a law: isn't it relevant? The only one seeing a POV-pushing because one states "census suffrage" when speaking about this law is our friend overthere. Cheers, I hope that answered clearly. My immediate reverts explain themselves because, whereas I've provided various sources for my edits, the same can't be said of my fellow opponent. Tazmaniacs 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Taz: I think you are mistaken about the first two of your bullet points: from 1814 to 1848, the Chamber of Deputies of France was elected by census suffrage. Also, although I am not part of this debate/edit war, I think it is in bad faith to come back to the page after almost 2 months and revert it back to your edit. The wiki goal is consensus; if consensus with Str1977 is impossible, then go to mediation, invite imput from neutral individuals and present your arguments. --NYArtsnWords 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the problem is not between Str1977 and me, but rather about who can provide source for what he is claiming. You jsut said that from census suffrage was on from 1814 to 1848. Of course. But please pardon me if I take the liberty to copy-paste, again, what I wrote a couple of months ago (consensus is not reached by out-tiring the opponent either, or by being more often on Wikipedia):

"The Bourbon Restoration was characterized by constant gerry-manding. Looking up a history manual, I see several laws modifying the laws concerning the census suffrage (which of course was on going during all of the period, this characterized constitutional monarchy, which lasted until 1848). The Double Vote Act in 1820 (fr:Loi du double vote (1820) changed the legislation laws, making that the most wealthy quarter of the electors allowed to vote voted twice. Thus, 96% of the voters (whom had to pay an annual cens of 300 Francs) voted once, choosing 258 deputies. The remaining 4% (24 000 people) voted twice, choosing an additional 172 deputies (thus the Chamber was composed 430 deputies). Furthermore, another feature favorized rural areas over urban sites, thus favorizing twice the ultras. Thus the ultras' situation was enforced in the November 1820 elections (renewing 224 seats) and the 1821 elections (86 seats). In 1821, Richelieu (who had been called back after the assassination of the duc de Berry) was deported to the left, and replaced by Villèle, whom composed an exclusively ultra cabinet (Corbière in the Interior, Montmorency in Foreign Affairs and the comte de Peyronnet in Justice). The ultras were again renforced in the 1822 and 1823 elections. The manual I have precised that the Villèle government "intervened largely in favor of its candidates through various minor means made easy by the small number of electors (802 in the Finistère, 32 in Corsica) and the authorities' knowledge of whom voted what (despite the theoretical secretness of the vote). It adds that in December 1823, in order to take out completely the opposition, Villèle dissolved the Chamber, leading to the Chambre retrouvée (Chamber found again?): more than 300 seats for the ultras. In order to preserve this absolute majority, Villèle passed the loi de septennalité (7 years Act?) in March 1824, which suppressed the annual renewing of the Chamber by 1/5 and fixed to seven years the legislature. Thus, it is wrong to say that the number of electors remained constant through out the entire period, although of course, since it was a constitutional monarchy until the 1848 revolutions which led to the Second Republic, census suffrage was on all the time. Tazmaniacs 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)" Tazmaniacs 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Thus, it is wrong to say that the number of electors remained constant through out the entire period" - which is, of course, not what I am saying. All you write is already covered in the current wording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Census suffrage and Missing Articles

While the debate continues here and mediation commences, I thought I'd mention that the whole question of census suffrage and the nature of French elections in the 19th century is poorly represented in the English Wiki. See the Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board for a whole list of French articles missing (or recently created/translated) to the English wiki that could discuss election issues in greater detail, as (for example):

• fr:Parlement français to French Parliament
• fr:Charte de 1814 to Charter of 1814
• fr:Charte de 1815 to Charter of 1815
• fr:Charte de 1830 to Charter of 1830
• fr:Constitution de 1848 to French Constitution of 1848
• fr:Constitution de 1852 to French Constitution of 1852
• fr:Lois constitutionnelles de 1875 to French Constitutional Laws of 1875
• fr:Loi constitutionnelle de 1940 to French Constitutional Law of 1940
• fr:Constitution de 1946 to French Constitution of 1946
• fr:Constitution de 1958 to French Constitution of 1958
• fr:Chambre des députés to Chamber of Deputies of France

Cheers--NYArtsnWords 01:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Royer quote

I have changed the way the Royer-Collard quote was presented:

"Just like religion which is not of this world, argued the leader of the opposition Royer-Collard, human law is not of the invisible world; both worlds, which touch each others, should never be confused: the tomb is their limit."

It begins like a verbal quote from RC but then the "argue the leader ..." part sticks out. Either someone has forgotten to end and restart the quote or this is a quote from a secondary source. In any case, it is a circumstantial wording we don't need here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor point

Pardon me if I'm dense for missing this, but on what "minor point" was this law applied? —vivacissamamente 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to highlight this question but another edit choses to delete the tag requesting clarification. Why I cannot imagine. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah, what is that about? Jamubee (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Grievances

Apart from the fact that another editor who chose to stone-wall an earlier mediation attempt and then again and again comes back to blanket revert to his cherished version, I have the following grievances with the text, based on this comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Sacrilege_Act&diff=156919286&oldid=156916505

• He still uses not proper full names but mere titles to refer to people and even uses theses as wikilinks. At least once the name should be given, especially if it is a red link. It is the responsibility of the editor introducing these to provide these names.
• The sentence "argued that the law created an interpenetration between human justice and God's judgment, and that the state was only supposed to protect liberty of religions (which is the basics of French laïcité)."
  anachronistically links the argument given back in the day with the more recent term of laicite, which additionally only later came to be associated (and even then not consistently) with liberty of religions. It developed born out of laicism, which had quite different things in mind. In any case it is an unwarranted editorial comment tht should be removed.
• The repeated and constant removal of a tag requesting a clarification.
• I think my version ("... was revoked after the 1830 July Revolution, in the first months of King Louis-Philippe's reign.") flows better than the previous one. Similar reasons led to my change in the intro.
• As for Jeanneney, his article might be one importance source for the article but an article does not have one "the source", as his placement in a special section implies. He belong into a literature/references section along with the rest (which should include the authors full names). His input into the article should be properly indicated by footnotes. References belong in footnotes and not in direct links.
• I think my version better relates the view of Jeanneney as such. Also, I avoided using the ugly and incomplete term "ultras" (I know that specialists know what is meant but were are not writing for specialists, hence we should give the full term every time).
• Also, the quote from the encyclopedia is problematic. Jeanneney quotes it and I referenced as much but the Diderot did not write anything about a law passed long after his death. There is really no justification for such a long French quote.

Str1977 ^(talk) 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no reply, I will proceed to edit the article bit by bit, starting with what I think the most basic and uncontroversial things up to the more controversial and less basic things.

I will not yet touch the French quote but it should either be translated into English, summed up in English and/or relegated into a footnote.

Productive suggestions are of course welcome.

Str1977 ^(talk) 07:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your gradual edits, it makes it easier. I'll try to answer points by points:

• Full names are not necessary, especially when that means having 4 names + an official title. The custom is either to put the title, or to put the first and last name (with the de particle indicating the nobility), and not five names. This also makes it easier to read.
• I disagree concerning your criticisms of the "laicité" sentence. It is not an anachronism: Spinoza already had dealt with this subjects years before, and secularism was a main influence of the French Revolution. The "Sacrilege" entry on the Encyclopedie also makes this clear, as well as its allusion to Montesquieu. The Enlightenment were of course an important influence (attractive or repulsive) on French politicians and intellectuals of the time, and the debate concerning Sacrilege and secularism could not evade this question — as if the 18th century never had occurred... an Ultras' dream, for sure...
• Rm of tag requesting clarification is a mistake, due to reverts. Sorry. I'm afraid, however, that the main source used for this article, Jeanneney's article, does not specify more this "minor point", so perhaps you would be interested in making some research on the matter. An abundant bibliography is provided for further researches.
• Jeanneney is, as of September 2007, the main source for this article. Anyone who checks this article's history, and double-cross it with his article, will fully be aware of that. Simple honesty and respect of WP:Attribution requires to underline this. If, in the future, other sources are used for this article, then the use of WP:Footnotes to separate each source for each passage will become necessary.
• Concerning the French quote, I will put it in footnote, thus following your suggestions.

Thanks for your copy-editing concerning the style, I hope this clears it out! Regards, Tazmaniacs 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do not insist on giving full names here but I insist that articles on these people use their full names - the problem is with the red links. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Did they use the term "laicite"? The issue is not about the actual content of the passage (protection of religions) but with the connection to the word "laicite", which was not around at the time and is only incompletely summed up that way. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• All right. It was a mistake. But still, people are interested in what it is. Either someone provides this from another source or the tag will have to stay. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• WP articles have not a "one source", even if they are (temporarily) predominantly based on one. If so, this should be indicated by footnote references, not by a special section. Even if your usage would be correct, the repetitive pointing out of J's identity is to be avoided as it sounds "endorsing". Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree on the quote. But I cannot accept your using "state secularism", which is definitely not "non-intervention of the state concerning religious matters" - consider France in 1905, consider Turkey. As for referring to other articles - note that WP cannot be used as a reference for WP and a cursory glance on secular state reveals this to be quite badly written and confusing various issues like religious tolerance and liberty, secular state, secularism. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Taz, I cannot look into this whole controversy right now, but I have to point out that an acceptable article is supposed to be cited, with footnotes. This is not a question of honesty: the reader is supposed to know where exactly he or she can find the text that was synthesized or quoted, and the text should be able to reflect where commentaries diverge (an uncited text makes it impossible for an editor to add a source contradicting Jeanneney, if one does exist, because there is no exact way of clarifying where the event stops and the [scholarly] opinion begins in the present text). That said, I think that the present text can be improved (and should be improved), but I disagree that it should be reduced - if anything, you gentlemen should both add to it from compared sources. Dahn 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)