Talk:Adolphe Thiers

Is anyone dedicated to this this page?
A little chore needs to be done with the name "Thiers"... all articles that link to this one, or mention his name, need to be checked to see if all references to Thiers that are not within wikilinks or html links have been marked Thiers. See for exampleBaron Haussmann&mdash; I didn't put the lang over the first mention of his name because it's wikilinked, but the second mention got it.. if there had been other mentions, those should have too... Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, I think I've them all, I used "what links here". Lazulilasher (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Term Dates
I've noticed that the term dates were originally listed correctly and then changed. I've returned them to the original dates. They can be verified on the French Wikipedia, as well as the article on Thiers' successor, Marechel Mac-Mahon, or by using any good French history or constitutional law book covering the period. Stephen Knight (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This page STINKS of personal bias. "Thiers was by far the most gifted and interesting of the group of literary statesmen which formed a unique feature in the French political history of the 19th century. There are only two who are at all comparable to him, Guizot and Lamartine; and as a statesman he stands far above both. Nor is this eminence merely due to his great opportunity in 1870; for Guizot might under Louis Philippe have almost made himself a French Robert Walpole, at least a French Palmerston, and Lamartine's opportunities after 1848 were, for a man of political genius, unlimited."

This is a joke, right? I know Wiki is a user contributed source, but C'MAAAAAAN, personal opinion should never be left out there like it's fact. THIS is why Wiki isn't accepted by professors, too unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.138.221 (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of the text of this article is a direct copy from the Encyclopedia Britannica article (I was just looking at the 9th edition). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those parts which are copied from EncycloBrit can be referenced to that source, if anybody is so inclined to spend the time. Since many EncycloBrit articles also bear the names of their authors; we can use them as well. Unfortunately, this task is not one which I have any interest in doing. Sorry. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Description of Thiers as a historian
Current description says 'all Thiers' historical work is marked by extreme inaccuracy, by prejudice which passes the limits of accidental unfairness, and by an almost complete indifference to the merits as compared with the successes of his heroes.' Tone is not neutral and no sources given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.43 (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That quote is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 article that is used as the foundation of this article. POV the rules apply only to Wikipedia editors, they do not apply to the reliable sources we are using. There is no reason Wikipedia should be neutral toward Thiers--It is neutral toward the scholars who are experts on Thiers. If there is a scholar who rejects that statement and believes that Thiers was an accurate historian, then by all means that information should be added to this article. Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that this part is an opinion and should give a source, mentioning that it's from the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica, and apparently is based on the criticism of Carlyle. I think the article should be balanced by mentioning that the work was praised by Chateaubriand, Stendhal et Sainte-Beuve, and won Thiers a seat in the Academie Française. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone here didn't understand what Wikipedia's NPOV policy at all:
 * "POV the rules apply only to Wikipedia editors" - no, it doesn't apply to WP editors at all. Every WP editor has a POV and that is fine. NPOV applies to the articles these editors write. Because every editor has a POV, NPOV is needed in the first place.
 * "they do not apply to the reliable sources we are using." - that's true. Sources need not be NPOV and actually never are NPOV. But we have to make use of it in a manner that is NPOV.
 * "There is no reason Wikipedia should be neutral toward Thiers" - actually, there is. It is the very NPOV policy you do not understand. WP has to be neutral on any subject. NPOV means that while he necessarily make use of sources, we have to present their contents in such a manner that the article itself doesn't sides. Hence, we shouldn't be relating the judgements of Britannica 1911 (known for being very opinated) as if they were facts. Judgements are never facts and should never be given in WP's own voice. Which is precisely the problem of this basing articles on that opiniated encyclopedia.
 * "If there is a scholar who rejects that statement and believes that Thiers was an accurate historian ..." - and if there is no such scholar, then the unfavourable opinions on Thiers are still only opinions and have to be related as such. Str1977 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is based on a British source [Britannica 1911] and the British tend to be anti-French. The Britannica article, furthermore, adopts the critical opinion of a highly invested rival historian, Thomas Carlyle, an outspoken conservative. Carlyle was Thiers' exact contemporary and had also written a celebrated history of the French Revolution. Thiers is highly regarded in France as a literary figure and I think French critical opinion, past and present, is more authoritative on such matters than that of Carlyle, interesting though it may be. There ought to be a way of getting around this. Otherwise this is a very informative article. Mballen (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

quote
Isn't there any other quotable then the radical protobolshevik Marx ?

Possessive form of Thiers
I think the possessive should be Thiers'

see http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/what-is-the-correct-possessive-for-nouns-ending-in-s

Robert1947 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There are various opinions; as long as the page is consistent, I think that's fine. How would you say it? That's one of the considerations. I would say "Thiers's", with the second 's', so that is how I would spell it.

- User:Tsarnick, 24 March 2016

I would prefer to use Thiers' ; it's simpler and I think it looks less cluttered.. But I agree that whatever is used should be consistent. Respectfully,

, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adolphe Thiers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030219174234/http://europeanhistory.about.com:80/cs/thethirdrepublic/ to http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/thethirdrepublic/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anonymous photograph of Albert, (4th) Duke of Broglie.jpg

Family
a lot is said about adoulph thiers for one it says he had 1 daughter I think she died don't matter fact it's not true when he traveled  around the world he had many wives or ladies he had children with I am a decendant of him and my brother too but I found many other people around us and south America all claim the same thing my mom was a thiers and found some one in Chile sais same thing also looked up thiers people here quite a few say the same we all decendants of him my mom had 2 of his original books he actually wrote. I gave to museum and found few other people had other actual books he wrote but what I am saying we all r related to him but the ladies he got pregnant are not like say he my grandpa it go further then 5hat but just say my he's all our grandpa but out grand mothers might be different 2601:803:4300:55B0:840F:24CD:D790:8CC3 (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)