Talk:Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Contents

[edit] "Great rejoicing"

"there was great rejoicing and celebrations complete with fireworks (memorialized in engravings) in all the major cities of France, and indeed in most European courts. " I added the bit about engravings from personal experience, having looked through the folio album. But the idea that there was "great rejoicing and celebrations in most European courts" is claptrap: London? Vienna? Potsdam? The accredited French ambassador would have given a fête of course. I never "delete factual material". But I do know what's what.

The date 1745, often given for this pastel, formerly posted here without the artist's name, is insecure, as amost Maurice Quentin De la Tour's dates are. It was reverted "doubted" without a moment's thought by Hardouin, who is best left to his own gaffes apparently. No matter... --Wetman 12:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link points out to 1748 for the probable date of the painting, which sounds more credible, as the dauphin would have been 19 at this time.
As for the courts of Europe, I know this fact with certainty, having long ago read records of how both the birth of the dauphin in 1729 and his wedding in 1745 gave rise to public fêtes in many courts of Europe. Remember that most German and Italian states were client states of France, and that the Bourbon ruled in Madrid. I don't know if London organized fêtes on those occasions, but Berlin and Vienna almost certainly did, as it was thought courteous to do so to honor the man (Louis XV) that was seen as the most powerful king of Europe. Remember that all these royal families interbred with each other, and it didn't matter that the countries were at war with each other from times to times, because nonetheless all these kings and princes felt like they were all part of the same European social class. Hardouin 14:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Louis of Bourbon, Dauphin of France → Louis, Dauphin of France — He is not known as "of Bourbon"... It was never his surname ("of France" was). This is to move the page to a correct location following the repeated undiscussed moves of another user. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support As nominator. Charles 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose - far too general a title. Michaelsanders 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - the suggested new page name already exists as a disambiguation page. What would be done with the content of that page? I agree that there is a problem with the current page name (Louis-Ferdinand); this is not how this man was known (even if Ferdinand was one of his baptismal names). It is totally inappropriate to make up names for people in order to have unique Wikipedia page names. Other encyclopedias solve this by including birth and death dates in the title. Noel S McFerran 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the dab page was titled Louis, Dauphin of France (disambiguation) with a note at the top of this article notifying of other possible dauphins named Louis. There has probably been a whole slew of undiscussed moves since. Charles 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The point remains that 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is an unacceptable title for this person's article. What makes him The Dauphin? There were other Dauphin's named Louis - most notably the son of Louis XVI. I think that, if this person is never referred to as Louis-Ferdinand the Dauphin (since he does seem to be referred to as Louis-Ferdinand), the best title would be Louis, Dauphin of France (1732-1765), as User:Mcferran suggested. Michaelsanders 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
He was the Dauphin though, since there is only ever one at a time. This was at a form of Louis, Dauphin of France until you moved it. All other dauphins named Louis are seemingly referred to by ducal titles meaning that this title is open for this dauphin. It's really not to simple to grasp, or so I pray. Charles 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was the Dauphin. So were half a dozen others. And I'd question the titles for several of them. The Duke of Guyenne is as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin, thanks to Shakespeare. The elder son of Louis XVI is always referred to as The Dauphin and never as Duke of Brittany, if indeed, he even held that title. I can find no evidence that he did. And he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as such if he did, because he was always the Dauphin, from birth to death. Calling him 'Duke of Brittany' would be entirely artificial. And then there is the Grand Dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy and his son the Duke of Brittany (the latter two article titles are dubious). There is 'Louis XVII'. There is the 'Duke of Angouleme'. The first lot have as much right to the article title of 'Louis, Dauphin of France' as Louis-Ferdinand. The second lot one might to expect to find if typing in 'Louis, Dauphin of France'. And then there are all the Kings who were known as 'Louis, Dauphin of France' at some point. I don't see why you don't grasp this. Indeed, just because a 'title is open' doesn't make it acceptable if it sows confusion. But since it isn't open (Louis XVI's son definitely has as much right to the article title), you need to stop complaining and insisting that it be returned to the former, inappropriate title, and come up with some constructive suggestions. Michaelsanders 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Micheal. I don't think the Bourbon Louis is established enough as the Primary topic to merit the generic title. I'm not a big fan of the Louis-Ferdinand solution either but it's a start. 205.157.110.11 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I did suggest that if there is no evidence of him being called Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France, we could call the article Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Would anyone have any objection to that? It would still allow a certain amount of confusion and problems (Louis-Ferdinand is easier to write and to remember than Louis, 1729-1765), but it couldn't b objected to, and I don't see how anyone could be markedly dissatisfied with it. Michaelsanders 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

[edit] Louis the Dauphin

French forms of name, title, etc, are discouraged on English wikipedia. 'Louis, Dauphin of France' is a title that would apply to far too many French princes in history. By contrast, 'Louis of Bourbin, Dauphin of France' is more appropriate, since it distinguishes him from the other royals, and gives him the designation of his house (as is commonly used, for example the multitudinous Plantagenets, or Isabella of Valois). Michaelsanders 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that, with the exception of Italian wikipedia, all of the Roman alphabet interwikis use clear article titles - Louis Ferdinand de Bourbon, dauphin de Viennois (German), Luis, Delfín de Francia (1729-1765) (Spanish), Louis de France (1729-1765) (French), Lodewijk van Frankrijk (1729-1765) (Dutch), and Ludwik Ferdynand Burbon (Polish). Michaelsanders 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Moved it to Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France. No risk of confusion, and it's his real name. Michaelsanders 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not, under any circumstances, move a page under discussion for a move. I can't believe you cite other Wikis when only one you've shown uses "Ferdinand". We do NOT use house names to disambiguate. Louis was first "of France" before he was ever "of Bourbon". French forms are not discouraged. Obviously, you have many, many things that you need to absorb. Charles 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
My point was that none - with the exception of Italy - use the under-specific title of 'Louis, dauphin de France'. They make it clear whom they are referring to. We do use house names to disambiguate, as did royalty themselves (Louis XIV once compared himself to one of his Conde cousins by referring to them both being named Louis de Bourbon). He was as much 'of Bourbon' as he was 'of France'. I believe that foreign language forms are discouraged in English wikipedia, since it makes it harder for readers to find and reference the article. I fail to understand why you think 'Louis, dauphin of France' is an appropriate title for one man, when it as easily applies to numerous others. Are you trying to foster confusion. Moreover, since Louis-Ferdinand is his actual name (and he is referred to as such pretty consistently in his own article), it easily distinguishes him from the others, without the need for the house designation to which you object. Michaelsanders 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We do not follow the conventions of non-English Wikipedias. There are English conventions. Louis XIV comparing himself once to his Bourbon-Condé cousin does not set a precedent. That is not a disambiguation, by the way, it is an observation. One was THE KING OF FRANCE AND NAVARRE and the other was a Prince of Condé. No confusion there. Bourbon is only ever used in lieu of a territorial designation or if it is primary usage. It is neither for this dauphin. Under-specificity is a non-issue. There is a disambiguation link. Few of those other men named Louis remained dauphins and if they did they had other titles. That is disambiguation enough. The point of the matter is you fail to address your actions (moving a page under discussion) and you fail to make a point with point with consistency (inserting what he may be called as a common name but defending something he is never called (of Bourbon)). Charles 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you are still arguing about the 'of Bourbon' - I removed it, because it was too troublesome and ambiguous. Nonetheless, it is acceptable in English to refer to a member of a royal family by his/her house designation.

Moving on: WP:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Thus, my original suggestion doesn't work, but the current title (Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France) does. Yours does not, since it follows French format, and is too ambiguous.

"Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

"Be precise when necessary Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term."

I made a mistake by using the title of Louis of Bourbon, Dauphin of France. Fine. I corrected it, because I thought that would solve the dispute. But this title (Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France) is the acceptable title, not Louis, Dauphin of France, and certainly not Louis, dauphin de France. It could just as appropriately apply to several others: Louis, Duke of Guyenne (who despite his title is, thanks to Shakespeare, as frequently known as Louis the Dauphin); Louis, Grand Dauphin; Louis, Duke of Burgundy;Louis, Duke of Brittany; Louis-Ferdinand, Dauphin of France; and Louis-Joseph, Dauphin of France. What makes Louis-Ferdinand different from these others? Why shouldn't the elder son of Louis XVI be Louis, Dauphin of France? Michaelsanders 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Louis Ferdinand" is NOT his name. His name was Louis, period. Please do not invent names. This prince, as all the French royal princes, had several Christian names (at least 4), and perhaps Ferdinand was one of his Chritian names, but only Louis was used, so either you quote all his Chrisian names if you can find them, either you leave only Louis which is the way historians do. As for disambiguation, this is a fake argument. Other dauphins that were called Louis are already disambiguated, either in French or in English (Louis the Grand Dauphin, Louis Duke of Burgundy, or with their dates in parenthesis). I've moved the article to Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765). Godefroy 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this document should settle it. It is the marriage certificate of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette where the name of Louis XVI's father appears undisputably as "Louis dauphin de France". Godefroy 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis-Ferdinand

A search: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

provides numerous results of 'Louis-Ferdinand' for this person, most at trustworthy sites. It is definite Original Research to conjecture from the absence of the name 'Ferdinand' in either the marriage contract or the Almanach that he never bore the name (since you are deciding that because the name is not mentioned, he didn't have it). Accordingly, either find a refutation of his ever having the name, or stop interfering with it. Michael Sanders 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Not a single one of those websites could be cited in an essay for a university course; I know since I'm a faculty member at a major research university. The appropriate sources to check are published biographies of this prince. A week ago I added several to the page; not one of them calls this prince "Louis Ferdinand". I've now added the online version of Proyart. It is also possible to do a search on Europeana. There are dozens of mentions of this particular prince under "Louis dauphin", but not a single one under "Louis Ferdinand". Popular websites are just wrong sometimes. Noel S McFerran 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis or Louis-Ferdinand

Michaelsanders continues to insist that this prince should be referred to throughout the article as "Louis-Ferdinand". In defence of this position he has cited a number of popular websites. I have maintained that he should be referred to throughout the article as "Louis". There are at least six book-length biographies of this prince, all of which call him "Louis". His tombstone calls him "Louis". Engravings of him call him "Louis". In the major French genealogical works he is called "Louis" (although his sons are referred to by their multiple baptismal names). It is possible that he received the name "Ferdinand" as one of his baptismal names (at the age of seven, not actually when he was baptised) - but I have thus far found no evidence whatsover for this. Even if this were the case, it is not our practice in Wikipedia to refer to a person throughout the article by all of their baptismal names (cf. Felipe, Prince of Asturias who is not referred to as "Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso" except in the first line). In the article we should refer to this prince by the name generally used for him. That is "Louis". Six book-length biographies and a bunch of other sources trump a few popular webpages. Noel S McFerran 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Today, once again, Michaelsanders changed Louis' name to Louis-Ferdinand saying in his edit summary, "Antonia Fraser refers to him as Louis-Ferdinand. Proof of usage outweighs proof of lack of usage." The fact that Antonia Fraser uses this name for Louis does not outweigh the fact that Proyart, Rozoir, Achaintre and Dussieux all say that his name is just Louis. There is NO evidence that this man was EVER called Louis Ferdinand during his lifetime. The only usage of Louis Ferdinand is by a few modern authors - and almost all of these are writing in English. The fact that a minority of modern English-language authors have misnamed this man, does not change the fact that he was only ever Louis. The attempt to foist the name Louis Ferdinand upon him is an attempt to change scholarship. There is presently in the article a footnote saying "Several modern popular works, including some websites, call him Louis-Ferdinand". That accurately represents the situation. Noel S McFerran 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

This is an article on a historical personage. However he may be referred to by some historians, his full name is cited as being 'Louis-Ferdinand'. That means that it is represented as such in the heading. Especially since you cannot prove that your own sources are stating 'Louis' as being his full name, rather than simply not using 'Ferdinand'. Michael Sanders 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not normally use the full names of historical people as the title of their articles, nor to refer to them in their text. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the most common name in English. None of the special rules in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for royalty affect this particular case. I notice the other WPs all just use, Louis, except for the German, which uses L-F in the title, but L in the text. Most modern royals have a great tail of names which are of course never used. At the moment you have not demonstrated that LF is the commonest name used by historians in English. Johnbod 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
None of the biographies of Abraham Lincoln say that he did not also have the additional baptismal name "Moonbeam". But it would be ridiculous for me to contend that Moonbeam was one of his baptismal names merely because some modern works in French said that he was actually named "Abraham Moonbeam Lincoln". We look at the most reliable sources. In the case of the Dauphin Louis, ALL the contemporary sources say that his name was "Louis". Please cite any source published in the eighteenth century which suggests that he had an additional baptismal name. Of course, even if he did, Johnbod's comment that this would only be mentioned once is applicable. Noel S McFerran 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)