Talk:François de Vendôme, vidame de Chartres

Introduction Edit and Reversion
I feel the introduction in its present state is not satisfactory, though my attempts to change it have been rejected so I thought I would lay them out here.

Its too full of opinionated language not appropriate for an encyclopedia "brilliant but decadent" "colourful memoirs." Its overloaded with ambiguous language "apparently not a Huguenot" "seems not to have been involved" "probably have lead to his release" Its emphasis on Brantome is out of place for an introductory segment, if there's something to say about how his life has been told to us through Brantome, a lower section would be more appropriate. The long listing of the various court figures who he interacted with is unnecessary, also the doubling of the bracketing after their names with a renewed bracketing in the article body proper. Further given figures such as Aumale scarcely feature in the article body it feels strange to include them in the head

Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree completely. Interest in Vendome centres on his myth rather than his actual career, and Brantome starts that myth. I didn't see your edit at the time or I would have reverted it then. Aumale only needs to be referred to under "the Guises", precisely because he is mentioned and linked in the lead. There is a lot of uncertainty around the historical facts, hence what you call "ambiguous language" is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If you insist. Could the reference to 'decadence' be dropped at least. Sovietblobfish (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Decadence
Hi again ,

That's quite a bold assertion you made in your revert. I can't say I've encountered that language much in the histories of the period I've read. Could you introduce me to your historians, hopefully some a little more recent than the 1850s work the majority of this article is based off. Thanks :) sovietblobfish (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty here Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * More here. I see that bit has been translated exactly into the French wp article: "...la cour française brillante mais décadente des années 1550." Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think these google scholar results tell us much about the appropriateness of the phrase in this article. Ignoring the fact that a lot of them appear to be for other periods (I see the reign of Henri III and Charles VII among them) we also have a lot of specific contextual uses of the phrase, 'decadent ballet' appears a couple of times (I confess I do not know exactly how ballet can be decadent).
 * I would much rather you had come back to me with a specific academic example from something you had read, we could then move on to the matter of whether there is anything about this 'decadence' in the body of the article (I have given it a brief read and do not see much relating to a moral and cultural decline, the phrase 'factional court' jumps more readily to my mind from the work you have done on this article).
 * In regards to what you said but then removed, I have read more than my fair share. Most historians I know are fairly careful with such loaded terms as ones that imply a moral decline. I confess I do not see the relevance of what French Wikipedia has adopted.
 * This may seem a small thing to make such an issue over, but I am cautious around such terminology unless I am sure there is proper cause for it. sovietblobfish (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)