Talk:Louis Joseph, Dauphin of France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Estates

I think the "Estates" mentioned at the end of the second paragraph refers to this particular section of this entry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm#Kingdom_of_France -- but I don't know how to add the link to just that part of the entry. Could someone else do it? Or tell me how? Thank you. Risssa (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

The birth of the Dauphin has an impact on his parents life; first the Queen influence in politics increased, the family get closer and finally like all pregnancies physical transformation occurred; what's wrong with that and new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc dolphin (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The birth of the Dauphin has an impact on his parents life; first the Queen influence in politics increased, the family get closer and finally like all pregnancies physical transformation occurred; what's wrong with that and new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc dolphin (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Marc dolphin

In agreement with the fact that the birth of the Dauphin of France, since the newborn is going to become the new king of France at the death of his father, has an impact. However, since this is the case with the birth of any Dauphin, it is not necessary to open a new section named "Impact"[[1]], in the sense that whether the case of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette, Louis XV and Marie Leszczyńska, or any kingdom where the Salic Law prevailed , the impact on the birth of a boy or a girl was the same: great rejoicement at the birth of a boy, disappointment at the birth of a girl, especially at the birth of the first child. In the case of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette, the impact was greater because of the length of time the couple & the country had to wait for the birth of the first child, who happened to be a girl, followed by the birth of a second child, the long-awaited Dauphin, whose birth killed any hope of ever reigning for the Count of Provence, woutd-be-next-in-line to succeed his brother Louis XVI.

The problem with your contribution is that, instead of mentioning, within the "Biography", the impact (already mentioned) the birth of the Dauphin had, you opened a new section with the title Impact, then went on developing arguments on his mother nominating ministers after his birth (no source given), her brother's mention of her being “fat” (this when he saw her as she was a few months pregnant), her height, her coiffure, she as towering over everyone not only in France but in Europe... (as the French would say: Faut l'faire ! :)

Another contributor & myself reverted you, pointing out to you that your addition to the young Dauphin's was “off topic”.[2] [3]

Since you seem to be rather new at Wikipedia and may not yet know all its rules & regulations, I would like to – in a very friendly way - point out to you that reversal is not “vandalism”, and that someone reverting you twice has nothing to do with "stalking" you[4]. The contributors who reverted you, I being one of them, have nothing against you, but are simply trying to set the record straight, mostly aiming at sticking to the subject.

This article being on Louis Joseph, Dauphin of France, mentions of his mother's gaining weight during pregnancy, or gaining any political power after his birth, or being the fashion model of France during her reign, whether true or not, have nothing to do in the article on her son who died at the age of seven, and whose thoughts had probably nothing to do with his mother's weight, height or power.

I hope this is enough of a -very simple- explanation for you to understand the way Wikipedia works.

In addition, since after three reverts, the next one is considered to be the beginning of an “edit war” between contributors, you must understand that the other editor involved & myself are not going to revert your last contribution, which does not mean that we accept it; however, others might want to step in, with the result that if you refuse to understand the rules of Wikipedia, and abide by them, in the end, faced with arguments proving you to be wrong, you will lose. So, please, accept our contributions, and do not get yourself in an edit war you will probably lose. Please, understand that if I and other contributors do not revert you input after reaching third revert, it is not that we agree with you, but because we are not going to get into a worthless edit war. We have better things to do.

When working on an article at Wikipedia, among the rules you must respect, two important ones are that (1) you must stick to the subject; (2) you must provide sources. In this particular case, you added a section that has to do mostly on Marie Antoinette & gave no source on your assertion that she named ministers – which would have had no place in article anyway.

Bottom line: neither I nor contributor Mezigue are “vandals” (please check our contributions), nor stalking[5] you. Like hundreds of others, we are simply contributing to Wikipedia in order to make it a believable encyclopedia, not a hodgepodge of gossip. Also reverting is not something we enjoy, but do when necessity arises: for instance, in the case that what you added about Marie Antoinette was exact & properly sourced, it does not belong in the article on her son.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all this. Marc Dolphin seems oddly obsessed with adding the same small remarks to a number of articles, and it does not make a lot of sense. History articles are some of the hardest to keep in a good shape because they rely on a keen balance between all the points of interest, so just any editor adding a point that is of interest to them results in very odd-looking articles. Mezigue (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_ Thank you Blue Indigo for your contribution for this discussion, Mezigue has an history of reverting people. But also thanks to you. As I said I think it is important to emphasize how much the birth of the Dauphin had an important effect on the kingdom of France and his parents life. First it is after his birth in 1781 that Marie Antoinette began to exercise slowly but surely an important influence in politics. Second the birth affected the life of the royal couple by bringing them closer and the Queen began to concentrate on her family. Third physical transformation like any pregnancy; like we mentioned his uncle lost his title; this should be mentioned in my humble opinion. Finally I agree let's wait the opinion of the community; I stopped adding any contributions to these articles until the discussion ends ; also I already reduced my test in order to have consensus. Best and High Regards.Marc dolphin (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Marc dolphin

Reducing your text in order to have consensus is not the acceptable solution if the text is off topic, in which case the text should not be reduced, but removed.

The "impact" the birth of the dauphin had was the normal impact any such birth had over the kingdom of France since the various dynasties of Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, Valois & Bourbons. Added to the impact at the birth of this particular dauphin was the fact that his birth was long awaited, but so had been that of Louis XIV, whose parents, Louis XIII & Anne of Austria, had to wait 23 years before their son the dauphin came to the world - hence the child's name Louis-Dieudonné.

Welcomed by his parents & the country, the birth of the dauphin Louis-Joseph had a negative impact on the comte de Provence whose greatest desire was to become king at the death of his brother Louis XVI. The birth of his nephew in 1781 (d. 1789), then that of another boy in 1785 (d. 1795) put an end to his dream for the time being.

To summarize: the impact of the birth of Louis-Joseph was positive for everyone except for his uncle the comte de Provence. That was made clear in the text before your intervention, and in its right place, which has me put to you the question:

What have the height, weight, poofs, high heels shoes, Queen of Fashion title of the mother of the dauphin have to do here???

Lastly: Please stop referring to change of your text by other contributors, done either by reverting or correcting, as "vandalism" or "stalking". Again, reverting is neither vandalism nor stalking. So far, no one has accused you of being a "vandal" or a "stalker" for reverting their contribution. You have been a contributor of en.wiki for just one month & already are setting yourself as judge to the work of others, such as Mezigue, accusing him/her of having "an history of reverting people". Let's say that such judgment on your part can be blamed on ignorance of what Wikipedians choose to work on. Mezigue, who has been contributing to Wikipedia for ten years, spends hours proofreading & editing, removing unnecessary details, such as gossip & trivial stuff, which have no place in articles that deal on historical facts. Checking articles for mistakes, typos, off-topic details, is not stalking, it is a part of editing. It takes real talent: some contributors are excellent at it, and I would put Mezigue in that category. If he was not doing a good & necessary job, Wikipedia would have thrown him out a long time ago. Period.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have your respected point of view and I have mine which I will not repeat daily . I have added a major source about the influence of the Queen on politics. I wanted to expand the text but I did not go in that direction since this discussion is opened to the community to decide about this subject . Regards. Marc dolphin (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The debatable opinion of the importance of Marie Antoinette's influence on international (Franco-Austrian) matters and her supposed responsibility of the outbreak of the French Revolution, in addition to hair & heels stuff, have nothing to do in the article on the dauphin. On the political scene, a lot was going on behind her back, that she had absolutely no power over; and, as far as the French Revolution was concerned, whether there had been a Marie Antoinette or not, it would have happened anyway because it was long in the making from before the Age of Enlightenment, which had begun at least forty years before she was born, and the United States' War of Independence. Marie Antoinette just happened to be the queen of France at the time, an Austrian to boot, thus the easiest prey for the revolutionaries. And none of that has anything to do in the biography of any of her children - no more than the size of her heels or the height of her poofs.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have nothing to add, I respect your opinion as I simply have another opinion. I will simply point out that Thomas Jefferson the third American President who was ambassador in Paris disagrees with you on the subject of the Queen influence on the French Revolution: " No Queen No Revolution " and this opinion is shared by many if not most historians. Again I stopped adding to the text and I will respect the verdict of the community. I think you should also respect the community by simply waiting and allowing a debate to begin; I will simply point out that you already worked on this subject and that nobody owns any article. Regards my friend.

Marc dolphin (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is not whether Marie Antoinette was responsible or not for the French Revolution -(and I happen to disagree with womanizer & slave owner Jefferson who brought the little 14 to 16-year old female black slave he was sleeping with to France)-, the point is that Marie Antoinette's qualities, defects, influence, height, weight, poofs & high heels have nothing to do with the article on her son or any of her other children. If you want to discuss Marie Antoinette, do so at her article, where such discussion has already taken place... ad nauseam...

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, I stated mine and I have nothing to add awaiting those of the community. Regards my friend . Marc dolphin (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc dolphin

The source you are giving here [6] with comment "(Adding source about how the birth of the Dauphin increased the Queen participation in politics, the source is Lever one of the best biographers of Marie Antoinette)" seems to prove the opposite of what you are trying to persuade us of MA's important participation in politics developed since the birth of her son. In other words, it was more of a flop than success. Besides, and again, this has nothing to do with her son, thus nothing to do in this article.

If you want to discuss Marie Antoinette, go to her talk page.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First hello, bonjour my friend. I told you I have nothing more to add ; I wish you respect the community and wait as I'm doing . Regards . Marc dolphin (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I stopped by to fix a typo and discovered a section that contained info on the Queen's figure, fashion leadership, and appointment of ministers. As this type of info is not germane to a description of the Dauphin's life, I deleted it. Now, checking the page history, I see that I am not the first to do so. If this biographical 'information' really is important, then I suggest that it be placed on Marie Antoinette's page if an argument can be made to keep any of it. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If all agree to place it in the Queen section why not but the impact of the Dauphin birth was a turning point in the life of the royal family. But there is the matter of an unknown editor who removed the information in may 30 when Blue Indigo was no longer online; I don't want to judge but probably there is a sock of Blue Indigo ; it seems this is a pattern with Blue Indigo ( see the article of Louis Phillipe King of France where an editor was driven out by Blue Indigo). Regards Marc dolphin (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30: & @Marc dolphin:,

The added Impact section is not necessary. As already discussed, the impact was on the Louis XVI's brother, the comte de Provence, whose hopes of ever becoming king of France went into smoke at the birth of his nephew, already mentioned in the biography section of the article. Details on Marie Antoinette's physical appearance, relationship with her husband & so-called newly acquired political powers with the naming of ministers etc. have no place in any article on her children. The only place her political powers should be mentioned is at her own article, as for her physical description, it is nothing but trivia & has no place in an encyclopedia. It was discussed at length at the talk page of her article and rejected.

Now it would be nice if Marc dolphin would stop his blockage & admit that editors such as Loopy30 and Mezigue are correct.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

［[Blue Indigo]]before anything did you use a sock in may 30 to remove this material, you seem obsessed with the subject,I think the gentlemen there might have changed their opinions after your actions. Second do you accept as a compromise to move this to Marie Antoinette article as proposed by Loopy30. But first the matter of your sock action should be cleared, you seem obsessed and possessive with this subject like your actions in the Louis Phillipe section where you pushed out an editor who decided to stop editing because of you .Marc dolphin (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Joseph,_Dauphin_of_France&diff=782960720&oldid=781197090 What is your relation Blue Indigo with that unknown editor, did you use him as a sock like I suspect from your behavior in the Louis Phillipe Section.[reply]

Marc dolphin, this is the talk page to discuss the content of the article. If you suspect sock-puppeting (keeping in mind the principle of WP:AGF), then you can discuss it at WP:SPI. Also, please re-read my comment above carefully. I did not propose that the information be moved to the Marie Antoinette article, as first an argument demonstrating its relevance and importance must be made and agreed upon. That proposal should be made on the talk page of that article and with a wider group of editors involved. Loopy30 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Marc dolphin has taken up residence in a well-stuffed sock drawer and will no longer be editing Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent news and omigod the cheek of trying to report someone else. Mezigue (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25th or 26th Dauphin?

The article says he was the 26th Dauphin of France but the WP “Dauphin of France” page says he was the 25th. Which is correct? Solri89 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]