Talk:Louis XVI of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Proof
Does anyone have any proof that Louis had to be guilotined twice, because it doesnt have a link, and isn't a hard fact. Ian42 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
This line: Louis himself at this time was very unpopular because of his indecisiveness and conservatism which lead to the social, political, and economic reforms of the Revolution.
That line is actually a matter of opinoin, some condiser Louis to be nothing more then a victim of the circustances. I foudn this article very bias.
An event mentioned in this article is a May 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
I am uncertain what the following sentence is trying to convey:
On June 21, 1791, Louis attempted to flee secretly from Paris to the regions with his family in the hope of forcing a moderate swing in the revolution than was deemed possible in radical Paris but flaws in the escape plan caused sufficient delays to enable them to be recognised and captured at Varennes.
Is the following better?
On June 21, 1791, Louis attempted to flee secretly from Paris to the regions with his family, in the hope of forcing a more moderate swing in the revolution than was deemed possible in radical Paris, but flaws in the escape plan caused sufficient delays to enable them to be recognised and captured at Varennes. --Cfailde 10:23, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
I added a link to the Brunswick Manifesto. How could we explain the fall of Louis XVI without it? David.Monniaux 20:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] What an absurd line...
"Today, historians and Frenchmen in general have a more nuanced view of Louis XVI, who is seen as an honest man with good intentions but who was probably unfit for the Herculean task of reforming the monarchy, and who was used as a scapegoat by the Revolutionaries."
Reforming the monarchy? The feudal order is dead, and no matter how hard you try to ressurect it's corpse, it's still not coming back to life. The French revolution marks the end of the aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeoisie: one of the greatest landmarks in human history. It's not some trifling adventure that a group of revolutionaries decided to cook up for the hell of it, at the expense of an "honest and well-meaning" king.
The Bourgeoisie, the class you belong to, has degenerated to the point where it is totally oblivious and apathetic to its revolutionary triumphs!
But of course, you're thoroughly incapable of seeing any of this objectively, caught up in your misty-eyed adoration of a feudal despot. How telling that you identify with a reactionary and decrepit order at the expense of the progressive; you're in the same position now.
Simgeo: Idiot! I'm left wing in politics, but the fool who wrote the critique above is biased, bigoted and demonstrates everything that puts me off ever aligning myself to a formally socialist party. How can you attack the writer for 'misty eyed adoration of a feudal despot' and then talk without bias of 'the Bourgeoisie...has degenerated to the point where it is totally oblivious'. Bias neither left nor right has no part to play in serious historical discussion. The key to this discipline is absolute objectivity. Therefore though my politics may swing more towards those of Danton, Robespierre and Desmoulins, I wouldn't savage articles on Louis XVI, Necker and Mirabeau just to suit my personal views. Grow up or find another subject.
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 68.39.174.238 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
anon: Speaking of absurd lines... "They were not able to have children for several years due to the fact that Louis XVI was not circumsized and[...]" implies circumsision is related to fertility. seriously.
Actually, I read up on it and there is a condition where the foreskin is unretractable. It talks about it right here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7026/299 Also, the rumor that he had a penis that was too large does not seem to hold as much ground on other places I read. If you look at the link I sent there is a part where they reference Louis as being afflicted by the disorder.
Speaker I thought the reason they couldn't have children was because Louis had a rather large penis and Marie had a rather narrow vagina. It was on some pbs documentary about Marie Antoinette.
[edit] Pre-revolution history
What happened to this man before 1789? At the very least, what were his politics like before the revolution. i feel like this desperately needs to be added. Donbas 18:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article in general could use some serious augmentation. john k 18:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Travac 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)perhaps on these pages a few quotes from various historians about these important historical figures may help the public discern an opinion?
Daniel Chiswick 06:00, 12 December 2006. I just finished writing a small article about his early life, I hope it is helpful. I used Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette and Vincent Cronin's dual biography about Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette as reference.
[edit] Expansion?
I'm honestly surprised by how short this article is, especially in comparison to Marie Antoinette. I know absolutely nothing of the subject so I can't say for sure if it should be expanded, but its length seems lacking. Should it be expanded? -RaCha'ar 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
