Talk:Philippe II, Duke of Orléans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tbharding (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
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.
France Portal
Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the 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.

New Orleans Portal

Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is within the scope of the WikiProject New Orleans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to New Orleans and the Greater New Orleans area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Looking to help? Check out the New Orleans To-do List:

The family relationships are confused here -- nephew or brother? JHK

DW -- you need to provide some sources for this and try to provide NPOV. This kind of writing does not belong here -- especially if you don't substantiate it. JHK

Philippe was a professed atheist who read the satirical works of Francois Rabelais inside a Bible binding during mass and a man who liked to hold orgies on religious high holidays. He had the artistic temperament of a Renaissance prince and the morals of a tomcat.

That second sentence is part of what I just deleted, as it is both POV and essentially unprovable, unless you've conducted a full psychological profile of every Renaissance prince as well as exhaustive moral tests on tomcats.

The 18th century Kings of France are the most closely documented monarchs in history. (There are even details precisely recorded of going to the toilet!) What I quote from is the most preeminent chronicler of that period, Sanche de Gramont. Suggest you do not remove things or claim NPOV simply because you do not know historical facts. As to debauchery, how much should one put in an encyclopedia? I mentioned orgies, isn't that enough? ...DW

P.S. I sure like people who do little or no work (in certain areas and toooooo much in others) but love to critize!.... DW

Just to point out more of how you make rash and wrong assumptions. POV is not created by me after specifying that he wrote an opera, played in theatre, was a painter and an engraver. Those are facts that qualify him as a Renaissance Prince, and he was Prince Philippe, second in line to the throne of Louis XIII. And, orgies alone, never mind deliberately on religious 'high holidays absoultely qualifies one as having the morals of a tomcat! Plus, if you lived in France or knew the history of their monarchs, you would know of his incest etc. His sex life overshadowed everything. ... DW

  • DW, there are two factors to any Wikipedia contribution: the substance and the style. We ask that the substance be balanced, for which see NPOV, and in accord with current scholarship; if a particular author's view is given, that view should be attributed to the author. We ask that the style follow conventions previously agreed on by the group, such as the naming conventions; and that discussions in talk pages are reasonably polite and avoid personal attacks (see Wikipetiquette). Those who frequently violate one or both policies will tend to find their work reflexively reverted by those who feel that you're not open to reasonable discussion and cooperation; in extreme cases it can lead to an IP ban. I strongly suggests you read through the background articles, and consider your manner of apporach, in order to get the best results on this collaborative endeavor. -- April
DW -- I have not been insulting towards you, I have complied with your insulting request for credentials, and yet, you have done nothing to justify the way you continually address me.
My colleagues here know that I am not a specialist in all areas, and also that I have no problem in saying when I don't know something. None of that addresses the fact that you write in an inflammatory manner that does not correspond with the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. It surprises me that you are so eager to find fault with me personally, when all I have done is ask for you to supply some source of evidence (not even of primary research -- just a couple of secondary sources) to back up statements that, as written, sound irresponsible and ill-founded to a historian. I am not calling you a liar, but working in a position of editor. For example, most of the references I've looked at on Philippe call him a libertine and some mention the licentiousness that prevailed at his court -- this is a far cry from "morals of a tomcat."
As for the documentation on French monarchs -- this may be true. I seem to remember from my own Grad level courses in Early Modern France that the sort of documentation to which you are referring existed as early as the childhood of Louis XIII. That said, I believe the documentation was limited to only a couple of sources. IIRC Philippe Ariés used those sources in his works on childhood and family life -- but admitted that there may have been some bias, as they were written by courtiers. This certainly doesn't make them wrong, but around here we like to be judged capable of understanding and reading sources for ourselves, if the statements based on them seem iffy.
Please try and work with other community members -- the object here is to create good, solid articles, which generally requires cooperation. JHK

By the way, the only Sanche de Gramont I'm familiar with is a French writer also known as Ted Morgan. He wrote for one of the NY papers and won a Pulitzer. He was also botn in the 1930s -- I'm not sure how this makes him a preeminent chronicler of the time, since he didn't live at that time. Perhaps there is another Sanche de Gramont? Or perhaps you mean you are working from Sanche de Gramont's translation of the Duc de Saint-Simon (who was a preeminent diarist of his time)? Just wondering. JHK


Dear Ms. JHK: 1) Preeminent chronicler of the time. 2) No one attacked you personally, but you did not post your credentials so they could be verified and you have bullied others into allowing you to post your views (like Pippin instead of Pepin or the Carolingians not being Kings of France), overriding every major publication on the planet by calling it "new". You have even taken such possession as to post warnings to others not to do anything because you want to do it right. (Lothair) etc....DW

"Chronicler of the time" generally means someone who wrote about things when they were happening. I gather that what you mean is that this person is the main or preeminent modern historian working on this area?
Jules has posted her credentials; you have not offered yours. I suggest you stop worrying about credentials, and work on good, unbiased encyclopedia articles. Vicki Rosenzweig

Thanks, Vicki. If Sanche de Gramont is a current writer, I'd be very surprised if he weren't the journaist. I really do think DW is mistaken, and that he's talking about S d G's translation of Saint-Simon.

DW -- 1) Hofmann -- it's right there, so it shouldn't be hard to spell. Failing that, JHK is fine.
2)So are you saying that there is another Sanche de Gramont?
3)My credentials are posted -- you can verify them anyway you like. I'm not sure what you want -- an uploaded copy of my diploma? as I said, the dissertation is on file with University Microfilms. The information on university and graduation date should be there. You may find my name at the Seattle U online catalog -- I think I'm listed there, although much of the time my classes are listed as "Staff". Your repeated implications that I (or anyone else here) am lying about my background is what is insulting. I have been a member of this site and a sysop for a long time, and no one else seem sto have a problem.
4)I'm sorry you see me as a bully. If I am, no one else has said anything, and there is no shortage of strong personalities to put me in my place. Perhaps people listen to me because they know me and my work? As for my note to Andre (I think that is what you are talking about), it is perfectly normal to let others know if you are in the middle of major revisions. If Andre resented my note or thought I wanted to make changes that made no sense, he could have said something, but AFAIK, he hasn't.
4)FOr your information, one of the reasons many scholars are now using spellings that you find offensive is that they are closer to the Latinized forms of the Frankish names. Documents of the time do not say "Pepinus rex", but "Pippinus rex". This is true for many of the names of the Franks. I've certainly made some exceptions -- for example, for Louis, which is Ludovicus (which sounds much more like the German Ludwig). Louis is what we say in English, and I can't see it changing. The same with Charlemagne -- That's what we call him in English. At present, Pepin and Pippin are both used, but the current (since the 1980s or so) trend is towards Pippin -- it's not "new" by any means. JHK

I note you say but the current (since the 1980s or so) trend is towards Pippin. I don't see that anywhere in an significant publications. I searched the Internet and found all the usual respected sources referring to him as Pepin. Maybe DW has a point that your personal opinion, while valid in its own way, is not that of the historic community at large. Too, I don't think Ms? DW is referring to The Age of Magnificence by Sanche de Gramont, but his acclaimed Epitaph For Kings in which he refers to Pepin. Charlotte A.


Might as well jump in here too. Note from another site the following comment when an edit was made by JHK : (cur) (last) . . 15:51 Feb 25, 2002 . . JHK (removed, because there's a link to the list. Duh.)

Is a duh appropriate? Seems someone might indeed have a double standard. ... Elliot

How does this contribute anything useful to the discussion? -- Zoe
or could it be that the comment was self-referential to a previous edit I'd made? Couldn't say. As for Sanche de Gramont -- which no one seems to verify, so I can only assume it's the Sanche de Gramont who was a professional writer and journalist, but not a historian -- this is of course my point. And please do not imply I'm part of some wacky minority view -- historical community at large includes historians in all subfields -- at worst my view can be said to represent the current trend among the people who study Franks and other Germanic peoples, or early medieval history. There aren't a lot of us compared to the "community at large" -- any more than there are English speakers who specialize in Iberia. But the specialists are the ones who end up changing the view of "historians at large." But since a lot of people teaching history at any level other than tenured professor often teach out of their field, it takes a while for these things to trickle down. JHK

DW and Elliott, I hope you're happy, you've driven JHK away. Don't think that her work at making you toe the line will end. -- Zoe

I agree with Zoe's sentiment -- consistently NOT following our policy is grounds for at least a temporary IP block. I am sick and tired of losing good contributors because some people can't play by our community accepted rules on naming things, NPOV and for God's sake even basic decency. --mav


The purported JHK has avoided the question. What right does he/she have to humiliate and degrade someone else with the offensive reference of duh. And, why are others allowing it to continue. Responsibility is a sign of intellect.... Elliot

You DO know she was making the duh comment about herself, right? What have you given to the Wikipedia? I can't find a single article you've written or contributed to. -- Zoe

What about the Duke of Bourbon? LirQ

What about Naomi? If the question is "Was Philippe II of Orleans the Duke of Bourbon?" the answer is no. During Philippe's lifetime the title duc de Bourbon belonged to the "Conde" line, and didn't fall to the Orleans line until 1830. Bunk

The question is: "For those of you who know what Im talking about...wasn't the Duke of Bourbon sufficiently important that he should be a little more prominently mentioned here (and on other pages) then he currently is?" LirQ

[edit] Merger proposal

Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans should be merged to this article because that article does not assert the subject's notability. Wikipedia is not simply a genealogical repository and I believe that the princess would make a fine addition to her father's page but does not cut it as a standalone article. Charles 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

well i must admit im quite impressed and was surprised with the level of effort you had clearly put into it :) (not to sound patronising!) im going to stay neutral for now and wait to see what other people have to say on the matter.

Tbharding (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose I believe there is enough notable content such as being abbesse de Chelles for her to have her own article. - dwc lr (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As nominator. I suggest that DWC LR start an appropriate article on Abbesses of Chelles rather than pushing to maintain all sorts of frivolities. Charles 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's perfectly reasonable to have an article about a woman with a 324 page published biography. What this article needs is references and expansion, not merger. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Noel excellent words above.--UpDown (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems a significant enough noble and religious figure in her own right. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is highlights why merges should be discussed not carried out unilaterally by one person as I was not aware she had a biography written about her so we could have lost a potentially good little article. Perhaps Charles could look at expanding articles in future instead of judging them on there current status and just redirecting them elsewhere. - dwc lr (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not an advocate of bold changes (such as merging an article without any discussion whatsoever). However, it is allowed by the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. What is extremely distressing is when an editor makes a bold change, it is reverted, but then the bold editor just makes the change again and again without any discussion. It shows an incredible lack of respect for other editors. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but it is something Charles does an awful lot of. I recently had a similar problem with another article on a illegitmate daughter of Louis XIV.--UpDown (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You do a lot of things too, UpDown, but it would be below me to detail. If editors continually show and state that they have no respect for me and treat me with a lack of decency then I will not hide that I have absolutely no time, patience or respect for them. I thought you were going to stop editing royalty article anyway. Too bad. Charles 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
My point Charles is that you frequently redirect articles without discussion, it normally ends up in another editor reverting this, and then eventually a discussion like the above. Would it not be simpler to start the discussion in the first place. I would not say I have no respect for you, you are an excellent editor in many ways, but I do believe that the way you redirect articles without discussion is not ideal.--UpDown (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)