Talk:Bourbon-Penthièvre

Unsourced edits
A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to this and other articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored or deleted -- while the wholesale editing continues. I don't automatically object to unsourced edits that seem correct or likely, but I do post a notice when the assertion strikes me as unprecedented, improbable or unverifiable (such as declarations about what a historical personage thought, felt, or was motivated by). Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Please use full, proper format per Cite#FULL when providing sources, since their accuracy cannot be checked otherwise -- and the point of having citations is to enable verification. Also, please don't violate WP:Sock: it's obvious that at least 3 different accounts are being used to edit these French royalty articles, evading WP:3RR warnings.FactStraight (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RE Mme de Montespan
"...and his most famous mistress, the beautiful but scheming Françoise-Athénaïs de Montespan." This phrase pops up in every article touching the children, grandchildren & anyone loosely connected to Mme de Montespan.

(1) "the most famous": Mme de Montespan was not the most famous of Louis XIV's mistresses, but one of the most famous. Mlle de La Vallière who preceded her was as famous, as was Mme de Maintenon whom the king ended marrying.

(2) "beautiful but scheming":  "beautiful" she was, and certainly "scheming". But was she more scheming that the king himself? Mazarin? the d'Orléans? Mme de Maintenon? Anyone who made a name & a place for him/herself at the court had to be scheming. And if she was, she had to be scheming with someone else. It is my opinion that such a term describing her character should be used & developped in the article dedicated to her - in other articles, it turns the attention from the subject at hand - specially when put at the very beginning of the article. Frania W. (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. These Bourbon-related articles are increasingly sounding like fiction -- reflecting the editor's POV instead of encyclopedic neutrality: "Beauty" is not a fact, but someone's opinion. Occasionally characterising people or describing their interior mental state is okay, but going adjectival nearly every time a statement of fact is made is excessive. People who want to know the "fame" of La Montespan compared to other royal mistresses can read about that in her article -- it shouldn't be included in every article on her descendants and acquaintances.FactStraight (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversion of currency
Considering the ups & downs of modern currencies, conversion of 18th century French livres (livres-tournois) into modern British pounds makes no sense as the conversion is valid only at the date the article is written. Within a few years, if not in a few weeks from now, the "equivalent" amounts will have to be recalculated. So, why not leave them in their original form & forget about conversion? Frania W. (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)