Talk:Marie Joséphine of Savoy

	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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Women's History C‑class Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
C	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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin enscription

The articles says her tomb is encribed with "Galliarum Regina". This literally means Queen of the Gauls, referring not to a plurality of Celtic people (Galli, -us, therfore Gallorum) but to a plurality of entitis called Gaul (Galliam -ae, therefore Galliarum).

I do not know whether this is a typo her or on the tomb or whether it refers to a plural term "Galliae" referring to France. Therefore, I have fact tagged it, given the literal translation and retained a reference to France.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of a Deposed Queen

Marie Josephine is appropriately styled as the Countess of Provence, but can we not also acknowledge her status as Queen of France, a role in which she served de jure from 16 June 1795 until her death? Maria Clementina Sobieska is another such example of this on the English Wikipedia. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is en encyclopedia. As a royalist, one may consider her to be a queen, because the royalist view is that the Republic was not legitimate and the monarchy still existed. That is, however, just that: a view. Wikipedia, or any correct Encyclopedia, must be neutral. To be neutral is to describe reality as it is, regardless of personal point of views.

In this case, France was a Republic from 1792, not matter what we may think of this. Because of that fact, Marie Joséphine was not a queen, and only consider a queen de jure by the royalists. Maria Clementina Sobieska was not a queen either, but just as Marie Joséphine, she was regarded to be a queen by royalist point of view, and therefore, this is also (or should be) mentioned in their articles.

Neutrality must not be compromised in Wikipedia, as that would destroy its credibility as a serious encyclopedia and deteriorate is value. The policy is called "Neutral Point of View" - or in short, "NPOV." I myself have in fact written the majority of this article over the years, but I respect the principle of neutrality regardless of my personal opinions and sympathies. And the neutrality of this matter was that she was not a queen because France was a republic. She was the legal queen in the eyes of the royalists, but in the eyes of the royalists, France was still legally a monarchy in 1795. This is obviously not a neutral fact, and to call her a queen, would be to take a stand in favor of monarchy, which is not proper for an encyclopedia, which should follow a policy of neutrality. To say that she was a queen in the eyes of the monarchists but not a queen in reality because France was a republic, however, is neutral and not to take a stand in favor of republicanism, simply because that was the reality. Wikipedia must, and I repeat must, be neutral in language, and can not present royalist point of view as facts, more than it can present any other point of view as facts.

I am sorry for writing so much, but I feel that you deserve a proper explanation, and as I have not the energy to participate in a lengthy discussion, it was simply the best to say it all at once, particularly as these kind of discussions can turn in to a heated debate and conflict from time to time, as this is the kind of things which people, I am sorry to say, often feel very strongly about. I a previous debate a couple of years ago, a royalist demanded that a person in a similar case be referred to as king, because the republic in question was not legal and to present royalist point of view should be regarded as proper fact: this is not neutral, this is to push a personal point of view on a neutral encyclopedia. This is just an example to stress the importance of the principle of neutrality, as I am sure that you understand this principle regardless of whether you consider the royalists point of view "the true reality" or not. I do not have the energy to participate in any further discussion, however, so I have just presented the Wikipedia policy as it is. Have a nice day!--Aciram (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]