Talk:Marie Antoinette/Archive 4

Completing the information and any help is welcome
Thank you for all the comments, First I excepted a small word of thanks for completing a major article who was left unchanged since 2012.Second I only completed the article, the reliance on Fraser was before my contribution and I simply didn't want to have two parts in the article, the first who relied on Fraser and another part who relied on other sources. Having said that I have many books on Marie Antoinette in English and French and I 'm ready to work with any editor to make this article better. I was completely neutral and objective, I'm on a personnel level a big sympathizer of Marie Antoinette and I didn t change anything in the period before 1789.But after 1789,the Queen was in conflict with the majority of her people and she used foreign powers, etc. Also this article was largely incomplete, a lot of people complained that they were shocked on the lack of information on the period after 1789.Is it possible to write an article about Marie Antoinette on Wikipedia without mentioning Antoine Barnave or Mirabeau, the leaders of the French Revolution between 1789-1792 and with whom the Queen negotiated important deals? Finally I welcome any help to make this article better from beginning till the end, nobody is perfect, this article is not mine, it belongs to the whole community and let's all work together. Thank you.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , regarding this, I made this section a subsection of the section above because it is a continuation of that section. There was no need for you to create a new section for your "08:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, first I only wanted to be positive about the article, I acknowledged my mistake and I totally rectified myself by removing the material.Second please let us be positive, let's see the big picture, is my work perfect? of course not; could it be better ? of course. Does the article relies too much on Fraser? yes, but I did not create this fact, I only completed a major article with essential informations which were missing since 2012. Please let us work hand in hand to make it better.Thank you very much.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , your reply is not on point with my "09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)" comment above. The point of that comment is what I stated there. See WP:Section; I simply stated that I had a valid reason for making this section a subsection of the #Copyright violation section above. That is not me not being positive. There is a language barrier between us. That, and your inexperience with how Wikipedia is supposed to work, makes communication with you challenging. What I think of your work to the article is noted in the section immediately above this one. I reiterate that a lot of the content you added needs to be cut down and tweaked. That will eventually happen. And if I get a WP:Copyeditor on this article to do just that, I hope that you do not start reverting that WP:Copyeditor and/or restoring the content in some other way. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again any comments made here did not refer to any person, I was talking in general, I repeat we should all work together. I finished and completed important information's in an important article, all I received was negative comments from some people but most people were supportive including a lot of readers of Marie Antoinette article on Wikipedia who were grateful for information they saw for the first time in this article. This article is not perfect, cut or additions or any type of contribution are welcome as long as they make the article better. I said any help is welcome, we must all work together, my work is not perfect, we need to work together; "That the Wikipedia spirit not negativity and insult". I send a message to all editors who know about this subject,let's work together to make it better. But let us work on the whole article; I have the book of Fraser, there is a lot of old copyright violations in the first part of the article before my contributions. First discovery, source 78 and the first lines around it is a direct quote from Fraser, everything between brackets when Marie Antoinette talked to her brother in a letter about her political influence. This was present before my contributions and I'm ready to help to even make the first part better and without any copyright violations. Thank you.Aubmn(talk}Aubmn (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Eyeguy 72 for his contributions in making this article better and I hope also for others contributions to be made. Thank you very much.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Feedback
This article requires significant proofreading and correction, folks. Good luck! 50.121.194.192 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Any help is welcome to work together on this Article to make it better after completing the information, so please if any editor know anything about this subject, all help is welcome. Thank you.(talk)Aubmn (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on MA; I came here to try to learn a bit more & found reading the article very difficult, particularly on a mobile device due to multiple overlong & complex paragraphs. I admit my first attempt was a bit too drastic, but I've tried to edit the section on the French Revolution with several aims. First, there were numerous typos and grammar errors; I am fixing them as I find them. Second, I've added links to the WP articles on several of personages that were previously missing. Third, I've tried to break up the very long paragraphs into multiple smaller paragraphs that are each focused on a specific topic. There are definitely a bunch of neutrality issues I've skirted, and I think the single source issue should be particularly addressed on the more explosive topics (e.g. whether any of children were fathered by other than the King, whether she actually transmitted key secrets to foreign powers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobison13 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, I have a PHD in History and I have read a lot about the Queen ,I find this article incomplete specially the period of the French Revolution ,I completed the information but I need the help of editors like you, thank you very much for your wonderful work in correcting and relying this article to others.(talk) AubmnAubmn (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The section on the Revolution could use some structural changes as well as significant amount of editing for neutrality. I feel that if the information is organized well, sticking close to the timeline and with minimal repetition, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions, which will generally be in line with the opinions currently in the article. I've tried to start organizing this, but mostly by leaving hidden comments to start establishing a stronger timeline. It might also make sense to break up this section into further sections -- perhaps one with her political dealings and one with the imprisonment (I'm not sure this would work well, but should be considered). I also think the inclusion of very specific details should be rethought; the constant focus on the size of her bosom or the height of her husband is quite distracting; simply saying she was still fat (or plump) is really sufficient. This is, after all, an encyclopedia entry which should provide a strong skeleton for further research, not a detailed biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobison13 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Struggling to make progress
has recently been doing sterling work cleaning up the article. Among other things, they have been removing many breaches of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK, tightening up the narrative and removing dramatic flourishes which may suit the only source for much of this article, Antonia Fraser's biography, but are not suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. has reverted many, claiming that such text is sourced "information" and their removal vandalism and that Aubmn has superior expertise; I have restored some of Krobison13's edits. Aubmn has posted comments on both Krobison's talk page and mine; I have responded on Aubmn's raising concerns about ownership. The two most recent reverts by Aubmn illustrate our differences.

In the first case, Krobison13 removed text originally written by Aubmn, Aubmn reverted Krobison, I restored Krobison's version and Aubmn reverted me to retain "Unfortunately the double dealings of the Queen turned the majority against her with disastrous consequences for her, her country, and even the whole European continent", restored for the second time here.

In the second, Krobison13 had inserted comments into the text that would be visible only when editing the article: "paragraph needs to be made neutral & perhaps the factual parts distributed to other paragraphs" and "this paragraph has many problems; much of it is argumentative & opinionated. The factual pieces should be moved to more appropriate places -- i.e. with better chronological order". These too have been reverted by Aubmn, restored by myself and reverted again by Aubmn.

I argue that the first text is non-factual opinion, couched in overly dramatic language and inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. The comments that Krobison13 inserted describe those paragraphs well and are a reasonable attempt to make progress. Their removal with the comment "Remove vandalism by editor who acknowledge he know so little about subject ,negative attitude no communication after NepY negative involvement ,to be reported to administrator" seems unjustified. NebY (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that Aubmn has been completely unreasonable and seems to think that he has ownership of this article due to being a implicit but nevertheless self-proclaimed expert. The fact that Aubmn is calling edits made by Krobison vandalism is utterly wrong as they have both been made in good faith and are, as you said, "good progress". The use of words such as "Unfortunately" show judgement of a historical event. These are not neutral and are one of the words to avoid when writing an article. If a consensus on this issue cannot be brought to by other editors/watchers of this page then I suggest we request for comments. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Krobison began to make change, some of these changes were concerned with corrections and better organization, all of them were accepted without any discussion because first some of them were good also because this article is not mine but when essential informations were removed without discussion on the talk page, I revert Krobison but latter I changed the article taking most of his ideas into account, Krobison acknowledge on this page the limitations of his informations on the subject, also he twice acknowledge here and on his talk page that he went to far, all of this because everytime I reach an agreement with Krobison NebY INTERFERE, totally reverting me without any Discussion after my deal with Krobison, he did it twice, please see Marie Antoinette talk page and Krobison talk page, I 'm not a final authority on Marie Antoinette,that is sure but I completed an article with essential missing informations on the Revolution Period and I said any help is welcome and I was always nice and positive only to receive negative comments from NebY from the start,I completed in an imperfect way an essential article, why all this negativity, I'm ready to work with all.Let's open a new page.(Aubmn)Aubmn (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aubmn, judgements are being made in your additions to the article that are simply not neutral at all. They need to be neutral before they can be added. Krobison and NebY were simply helping you reach that aim. You also can not say that because Krobison is not an expert he can not edit the article. You are not required to be an expert to make any changes, especially when they are in good faith and are improving the article, which I believe Krobison was doing. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok fine I agreed lets all work together, I trust Krobison and I 'm ready to work with NebY.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you be opposed to me reverting your most recent edits back to the last revision by NebY then, that include improvements and comments made by Krobison? SamWilson989 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No do it as a sign of good faith


 * I have reverted the edits. I acknowledge your edits were in good faith, but before you edit this article again, can I recommend you read WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:PEACOCK? Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok Thanks ,from know on let's work together


 * Certainly. Message me on my talk page if you ever need a hand with anything. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NebY. And I noted in the section above that the language barrier between Aubmn and other editors, and the lack of understanding that Aubmn has when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, makes it challenging to work with Aubmn. I'd already pointed Aubmn to the WP:Vandalism policy, and noted an edit that was not vandalism after he called that edit vandalism; so to see him still calling a non-vandalism edit "vandalism" does not speak well of his understanding of the WP:Copyright violation policy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit War
There appears to be an edit war right now, between User:Krobison and User:Aubmn. Please stop. Krobison is attempting to fix the comment tag, whilst Aubmn, you appear to be reverting his edits for no reason. If this carries on we will have to get an administrator involved. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to talk ,the other is not responding .we worked together for many hours, I proposed we stop and continue tomorrow ,he is there always changing everything ,every 5 min — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not possible ,everything is removed ,Barnave first ,he was the key man and the other editor while having good intentions is removing without totally knowing the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the editor's knowledge of the subject but the fact that you keep reverting his edits without discussion. Stop reverting edits made in good faith without good reason. That will only lead to being reported or something similar. I would take a break for a day or two and return then. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:SamWilson989 is right., today you completely reverted 's edit and by doing so restored text which has many problems. The opening of the main paragraph "To be fair to Marie Antoinette" is a clear indication that WP:NPOV is being breached, and it is followed by ascription of blame accompanied by tendentious rhetorical flourishes such as "yet according to the simple facts and description of events", "the facts speak for themselves". The English is at best clumsy, in part because it is too full of peripheral detail, in part due to a lack of understanding of English idiom and phrasing ("the simple facts and description of events") and sometimes simply full of errors: "The Jacobin party himself was slip into two factions". When I undid the restitution of this text, Aubmn undid my edit in turn, complaining bitterly of negativity.
 * Aubmn complains above that Krobison "is there always changing everything ,every 5 min". In fact, Krobison's work is being made much harder because of Aubmn's constant interventions and repeated reversions - they can barely press save without their work being undone - and it becomes much harder for any other editors to follow and engage with the process. The use of commented-out text within the article to conduct arguments does not help. This talk page is the place for such discussions.
 * Aubmn, please accept the advice of other editors here, back off, allow Krobison and others to proceed and then, when the outcome is clearer (which will take days, not hours), discuss here what you think has been lost. Even if you think every editor around you is wrong, negative and unappreciative, accept still that consensus is currently against you and that your recent editing pattern is not helping you persuade anyone. Please, read Disruptive editing and think about how easy it would be for other editors to see your editing as fitting that description. NebY (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to concur with User:NebY. Aumbn, take some time off. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments on solutions to ongoing edit war
After witnessing what I think is easily described as a one-sided edit war, I have felt I cannot resolve this dispute alone and request comments to help move this page forward without further reverts, hidden comments, and odd edit summaries. For those who are not aware, since 1st May 2014, Aubmn has been an editor of this page. However, in December, Aubmn started having his edits (though in good faith) reverted for various reasons. Some reverts were for unsourced material, some for copyright violations. It was that third revert where NebY became involved in this dispute. Aubmn apologised for his violation of the rules and said "didn t know all the rules, my future contributions would respect them fully".

It was then at the end of last month, between 28 December, and 6 January, that Aubmn added over 21,000 bytes of text to the article (This is shown in the revision history). Then, on 17 January, Krobison became involved. He began to edit what Aubmn had created; he called one of the paragraphs a "royal mess". Around 4,000 bytes was deleted from the article at this time. Aubmn then made another few edits after Krobison, reverting one of Krobison's edits and Aubmn said Krobison had "Removed essential informations about the political and constitutional periods of the French Revolution without replacing them" whilst reverting his edit. NebY then became involved again, reverting all of Aubmn's edits that had occurred on 17 January, stating Aubmn had violated WP:NPOV and that Aubmn's additions "did not constitute encyclopedic information". Aubmn then reverted NebY's revert (again, see revision history), and said in his edit summaries that "Some of the informations considered judgmental could be removed or changed after consultations but removing informations about the leaders of the revolutions ,religion, constitutional process and political activity totally destroy the balance of the art" and Aubmn was "Removing a lot of the informations considered judgmental for consensus while keeping the main political, religious, constitutional events which were totally missed from this article before".

It was then on 19 January that I became involved and witnessed the dispute occurring between Aubmn and Krobison. Krobison's edits varied in purpose in this period but can be seen in the revision history, between 01:35 to 16:50 on 19 January, with some edits by Aubmn intermittently. Aubmn, after Krobison stopped editing, reverted one of his edits and commented in his edit summary "Please don 't remove essential informations, a lot of your ideas were taken into consideration, the conflict between Lafayette and Mirabeau and its relation to the queen situation is very important". The next three hours were an indescribable mess of edits and reverts between Aubmn, Krobison, and NebY. If I had to put it into words I think the nearest term on Wikipedia is an edit war, though I am reluctant to use such a term.

After seeing the events unfold, I discussed them with the editors on this talk page, Krobison's talk page, Aubmn's talk page, and NebY's talk page. Because Krobison had admitted to not being an expert on Marie Antoinette, Aubmn appeared to me to disregard many edits made by Krobison because of that, stating in one edit summary "Remove vandalism by editor who acknowledge he know so little about subject ,negative attitude no communication after NepY negative involvement ,to be reported to administrator". NebY at this point had made about 2 or 3 reverts of Aubmn's work so I could understand, though not condone, Aubmn's statements. I commented that I didn't think Aubmn's edits were neutral, and included weasel and peacock vocabulary. I asked if he would be okay with me reverting his edits, which I then did with his agreement on that same day.

However, then for the next few hours, until the early hours of 20 January, both editors began to edit the article in the same areas, and I cannot even comment on how many edit conflicts they must have encountered in this period. I ask that you take a look at the revision history to see this. Then, at 00:17 and 00:18, Aubmn reverted two of Krobison's edits. These were now Aubmn's 4th and 5th reverts of Krobison's work, a clear violation of the 3 revert rule. I then again became involved, asking on this talk page and on Aubmn's talk page, for Aubmn to take a day or two off editing and return with a clear head. NebY later agreed with me that he should take a break. Aubmn was justifying his reverts by stating that Krobison had admitted his lack of knowledge on the article's topic. NebY and I reminded him that the problem was not the content of the article in any way at this point, but that he was reverting edits without discussion or consensus. There was an argument ongoing within hidden text in the article, which can be seen in the revision history. Further discussions between the two editors were had on Krobison's talk page, with Krobison stating "The quality of the article would go up if you would edit my changes, rather than simply reverting them complete with prior errors." I believe this is one of the most sensible comments of the past few days on this issue.

Further edits have been made today, NebY made his third revert of Aubmn's work, for the same reason of violation of WP:NPOV and the use of peacock and weasel words. I won't even comment on the rest of the edits, I ask that any other editors simply look at the revision history for themselves. I have tried here to compile what has happened, and ask for the assistance of other editors in solving this dispute. Thank you, SamWilson989 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have always gave reasons for my edits ,I was the one who accepted many changes every time ,I have not reverted hundred of edits from Krobison who asked my help in the last two days, I collaborated giving him major informations but everytime I find common ground with Krobison NebY interfered reverting me, if this didn 't happen I would be today working with Krobison .I have the book of Fraser,I know a lot of the paraphrases in the article and I accepted today to collaborate with Krobison in order to fix them, I told him I'm giving you the information but again NebY interfered. Anyway lets get away from this negativity and go to the main point, First I added the information about the revolution, I said they were not mine, Krobison who acknowledged that his knoweledge of the subject is limited asked my help I HELPED HIM, I DID NOT REVERT HUNDRED OF HIS EDITS, MORE THAN THAT I HELPED HIM WITH MASSIVE INFORMATIONS, MINE WERE ALWAYS REVERTED BY NebY WITH NO VALID REASONS, TODAY THEY WANTED TO REMOVE THE CELEBRATION OF THE 14 OF JULY THE MOST IMPORTANT DATE AND EVENT OF THE WHOLE ARTICLE,MY GOD ALL I DID WAS TO MASSIVELY COMPLETE A SECTION OF THE ARTICLE CONCERNING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WHO WAS LEFT MAINLY UNTOUNCHED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME,NOT EVEN ONE THANK YOU FROM SOME PEOPLE WHILE I WAS ALWAYS NICE AND POLITE AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, I WAS SHOCKED ON THE DECISION TO DELETE THE 14 JULY DAY OF CELEBRATION, Krobison out of good faith removed the name of Robespierre, Brissot, Necker in an article on Marie Antoinette, he wanted also to remove Barnave but I persuaded him to change his mind, are we serious, can any person who know anything about this subject accept that. I know this is not A BIOGRAPHY and I 'm removing paraphrases and non essential information's from the article. Imagine an article without the Austrian connection of the Queen, her Family. Even her relation with her brother Joseph the emperor of Austria was on the point to be removed. Cooperation should be from all sides not one side. Please can anyone imagine an article about Marie Antoinette without Mirabeau, Necker, Barnave, religion,her brother Joseph, the Constitution, I added all this during the Revolution period and I collaborated only to be asked today to accept the removal of the 14 July, the constituional role of the King and Queen, Robespierre, Austria, My God she was Antoinette of Austria,  I don t know what to say or think, anyway I 'm ready to work with experts on this matter or any person of good faith and I believe Krobison is such a person and many times I reached deals with him and I 'll work with him.Thank you.(Talk)Aubmn (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have not said you reverted hundred of his edits, above I have specifically mentioned you reverted his edits five times. That is why I am asking for assistance, I think it has gone too far. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam, I think this RfC needs to be either discontinued or completely reframed. I can appreciate that it is not always easy to know what to do when editing gets fractious, but RfCs are not supposed to be about user conduct. There should instead be a concise, neutrally-worded question related to content (which could feasibly be along the lines of "were these reverts appropriate"). Posting at WP:AN or seeking WP:MEDIATION might be the way to go. Formerip (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * YES PLEASE EXPERTS AND MEDIATION,I COMPLETELY AGREE. Thank you, can you please take care of this. (talk)Aubmn (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. I'll remove the RfC tag and try some other form of mediation. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam, thank you for trying to step in here; this is the biggest set of edits I have ever attempted & I have certainly not been a paragon of good WP editing behavior. I did go a bit overboard on an early round (deleting the religious information was a mistake), but some of what Aubmn is referring to is mistaking my moving a large section of the text (on the relationship to the Austrian relatives) for deleting it; I was trying to make a more coherent narrative. This was also the case with some of the personages mentioned by Aubmn; I had replaced a long-winded description of them with in line mentions in the text, and one person dropped out because I couldn't find him in the text again. I suspect there was a better way for me to telegraph moving information, but Aubmn not carefully reviewing my edits has been a recurrent problem.  For example, the article in its current form in one case (the Bastille commemoration) both Aubmn's and my versions of the events, which is certainly redundant.
 * Being a novice editor, I'm unfamiliar with the process now -- I assume I should abstain from further edits until some sort of resolution is declared -- is that correct? I do see more opportunities to (IMHO) improve the article, starting with the lede, which would be very confusing to someone who hasn't already read the article.  Krobison13 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , please continue. Much does remain to be done. As FormerIP has pointed out, we are not in a formal mediation process. Still, Aubmn has been clearly warned about consensus, edit-warring and disruptive editing and it's reasonable to hope they will now be prepared to let you work.
 * , I appreciate that you worked on adding content concerning the end of Marie Antoinette's life and that you've removed copyright violations. But this is a time for different skills. Please back off and allow Krobison13 to work. There is a very good chance that any remaining copyright violations will disappear in copy-editing. The outcome can be re-examined for copyvios later.
 * , while this might not be precisely an RFC, you've still given a carefully balanced and fair summary that I hope has helped to clear the air and helped us to make progress. Thank you. NebY (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Trial and death
We currently make several statements, some of which I removed and restored, about MA's trial and death that may go beyond the verifiable facts and be too reliant on Fraser's opinion alone.

1. Is there documentary evidence (e.g. in letters or minutes) that "the outcome of the trial had been decided in advance by the Committee of Public Safety", or is this the opinion of most modern historians based on indirect evidence, or is Fraser comparatively isolated in this opinion?

2. Likewise, what evidence is there that she expected (not "excepted") a life sentence? Is that taken from her letter to Élisabeth, the view of most modern historians, or Fraser's view?

3. Likewise, what evidence is there that she was stunned, as opposed to (as one writer puts it) accepting the sentence with calm resignation? In any case, it does not need repeating.

Two other points:

4. It is banal and superfluous to say that she wished to live. Had she wished to die, that would have been worthy of mention.

5. When her treatment has just been described in the previous sentence, we have no need to point out to the reader that it was humiliating, let alone to over-egg it by calling it "the greatest humiliation of her life". At one point Aubmn fought to keep the phrase "the facts speak from themselves". We need to let them. NebY (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

All major historians insisted on her deep humiliation, you have only to compare to the manner in which the King her husband was put to death(his hands were not bound from his prison, he was not put on leash and he did have a priest from Rome etc..).(Evelyne Lever, Castelot p510, Chalon p 469, Fraser...).Yes she didn 't say anything(dignity, disdain and shock ) when her sentence was read, she was stunned as she excepted to live even as a life prisoner, as she told her lawyer Chaveau Lagarde as we know from his own letters(Fraser p 436,castelot p395,lenotre p348).(talk[[User:Aubmn|Aubmn (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)]])


 * Sorry for the delay in responding due to RL. Aubmn, your references to historians other than Fraser are most welcome. I wish this article used them and more; its extraordinary reliance on Fraser has been disturbing editors for many years.
 * You've answered my second question and partly addressed my third, but still not said why we should repeatedly describe her as stunned. That emphasis deprives her of the dignity you mention above and removes any sense that she might rise to disdain. Indeed, the repetition reminds us of the treatment of cows in an abattoir. Why harp on "stunned"?
 * You've pointed out that her treatment was harsher and more humiliating than that of Louis. That's far more interesting. Let's have that insead of the emo "greatest humiliatin of her life".
 * My first question - about verifiable history - still stands, as does my fourth. NebY (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok,I 'll help with working on new sources, I have all the books. No problem.(talk)Aubmn (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For your first question it is the opinion of most historians due to the nature of Robespierre regime, it is also a fact that Fraser was more symphatic to her subject than many historians.(Aubmn)Aubmn (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification please...
The early life section currently says: "Her childhood was somewhat complex." This could mean a wide variety of things. Does it mean she had many tutors? This could mean someone suspected her of being an incest victim. If the sentence is not clarified it should be excised. Someone with a copy of the Fraser book is going to have to go to those pages and try to figure out if the cited pages justify this comment. Geo Swan (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that in just the previous few sentences, it says "Maria Antonia had a simple childhood" which in itself, I think should also be elaborated upon. The contradiction is a bit humorous, especially since the wording almost parallels one another. Sol Pacificus (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Size
please explain why you think it necessary that this article comment so often on the subject's size and are even edit-warring from multiple IPs to reinsert text that includes "very plump", "verge of obesity", "very ample", "double chin", "very large bosom", "very tall", "a head taller", "grossly overweight", "double chin" (again), "very big corpulent","double chinned". Remember, there is more to justifying inclusion than sourcing and that this article is itself very large. NebY (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I 'm not an expert on MA, I only consult Wikipedia from time to time without editing, I have only read two books on MA in my life but from what I know she was a large woman and this was mentionned extensively in the books I consulted; as for her tall and majestic figure she was a queen. I don 't know all your rules and will wait for this issue to be debated here before undoing again.178.135.229.55 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, first I agree that this article was very large, it is why I reduced it from 12000\13000 words to around 10,000 words removing paraphrasing and direct quotes from Fraser on the way with Copyrights violations and slowly I'm trying to use other sources because I have all the majors books on Marie Antoinette life. Even today I still try to trim it, although the articles of the two major figures of French History on Wikipedia are 10,000 words for Joan of Arc and 17,000 words for Napoleon. Second about size, first this subject is very important in Marie Antoinette life for many reasons, she was a Queen  famous for her looks and charisma, a lot of people from her own time even travelers commented on this subject specially on her majestic presence, tall figure and beauty and that she was the Queen of fashion. Sp An important fact in her history is when she became very large due to her pregnancies, she changed the models of fashions in France and even Europe to conceal her weight as much as possible. I did not invent the names that you mentioned above, her physical characteristics and her weight is mentioned 34 times in Lever book, 41 times in Castelot and more than 20 times in Fraser book. This was simply a very important subject in her life, first in her time as the Queen of glamour in Versailles and Paris, it was a period which Talleyrand characterize :"those who did not live in that period don't know what is the pleasure of living". Second during the Revolution this was connected with her health problems and her charisma which made the most important leaders of the revolution like Mirabeau and Barnave to succumb to her spell. I used a few words among thousands of words, I mentioned it first in her life in Versailles, another time during the Revolution and a last time around her death; a few words in a an article of thousands of work.Lets takes some articles in Wikipedia as examples: first Mary Queen of Scots who is by the way a wonderful article rated A, there is a detailed description of the Queen, in details even the colors of her eyes....Napoleon another good rated article, I talked about the Queen as a tall person, in the article Napoleon his height is mentioned [1,68 cm] at least three times in details as well as all his physical characteristic's, about Marie Antoinette I talked in a general sense. Third no problem I"ll rewrite it without using all of the above characterizations, although most of these characterizations are present in the books of the most eminent historians about Marie Antoinette like Lever(p=54,67 84,96,124,156,184 etc...),Castelot (28,45,54,67,78,97,134 etc...), Fraser(20-24,31,37-8,65,69,100-1,121-22,240,256,279-280,353-353408,409).Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a massive difference between repetition in a long book and repetition in a single encyclopedia article. Here, it is not merely WP:UNDUE, it serves to denigrate the subject in a manner which would not be acceptable in an article about a living person and is no more acceptable here. Indeed, in a modern encyclopedia, repeatedly attacking a woman over her appearance reflects badly on the encyclopedia and worse on the article's contributors. It's good that you won't reinsert that.
 * Your removal of copyright violations is commendable and was sorely needed. The article still needs greater clarity and concision; it often moves at a snail's pace and dwells at extraordinary length on many matters. For example, we now have a long paragraph with two illustrations just recounting in a dramatic and emotional manner the fine details of only the last day of her life. NebY (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First I respect Marie Antoinette when I describe her majestic presence and other subjects... although she was dead 200 years ago, she is one of my favorites figures in history ...Second I talked very little about her size, les than 20 words in an article of 10,000 words. Third I'll rewrite it without these characteristics for consensus, one during her life and one during the revolution, I 'll only say she was a large woman with a majestic and tall presence and that her pregnancies affected her health and weight, very simple facts who are much more mentioned in other articles in Wikipedia that I mentioned above.Aubmn (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Aubm just added some more on her size in this edit, but no extra citation was given for the information. I am not familiar with either Fraser or Cronin (which was the two citations present as source for that section), but I am beginning to suspect these additions are not supported by the given citations. Also the "clarifications" regarding the statements about her childhood (alternately "complex" and "relaxed" are not really sufficient for the removal of the clarification templates, as "her relationship with her mother" and "simple natural way which she was raised") doesn't explain anything and is not expanded upon at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Her suffering inspired Napoleon and the Restoration
I removed the unsourced claims that "her plots and suffering inspired a lot of royalists and conservative religious groups who were able slowly but surely able to regain the confidence of the majority of the French People and to impose most of their ideas in France and Europe after 1799 when the Revolution was ended" (this is not mentioned in Fraser, so it is yet another example of Aubmn trying to sneak in personal POV via existing citations. As Wikipedia is not reliable source so do not use another article article page as source for the claim as you did in your edit. The fact that she suffered and plotted has very little to do with either Napoleon or the Restoration and I doubt very much you will find any reliable source claiming any connection between the two. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aubmns IP has now reinserted the statements twice, claiming consensus is needed to remove them, but that is a false claim, since the statements are not supported by citations. As such it is perfectly fine to remove them as WP:Verifiability and WP:RS states. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not Napoleon and the Restoration but some Events and Conservative Ideas
First Saddiyama said that WIKEPEDIA IS NOT RELIABLE, strange statement from a person who spent so much time on Wikipedia,second the people who fighted for religious and conservative ideas in Vendee considered Louis 17 the son of Marie Antoinette as their King, this conflict will cause hundred of thousands of persons to lose their life with the result that Napoleon did return France to religion by signing the concordat to restore social and religious stability. Second Royalist fervor returned in France and they won many elections, republicans were obliged to use force to impose their rule. Finally about inspiration, have you heard about EDMUND BURKE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL THINKER IN MODERN HISTORY, please see his book "Reflections on the French Revolution" or the article about him in Wikipedia and what he say about Marie Antoinette and the Revolution.Aubmn (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have put as references two Wikipedia articles and a major reference the book of EDMUND BURKE himself, thank you.Aubmn (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Aubmn has been temporarily blocked for sockpuppetry but I feel it is my duty to respond to these claims, as they seem to stem from an insufficient knowledge of the principles of Wikipedia and especially concerning reliable sources that really needs to be seen to.
 * I recommend Aubmn reads the short essay Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the links provided at the bottom of it. Secondly Edmund Burke is indeed a fine source for a lot of claims, but his work Reflections on the Revolution in France most certainly cannot be used as a source regarding the claim that MAs plots and sufferings caused a majority of French to support Napoleon and the Restoration. Primarily because it was published in 1790, more than a decade before any of those events, furthermore the work is not usable as a source regarding the thoughts of the French (in 1790 or later), although it is an excellent source regarding Burkes views on the revolution. You will need a secondary source, preferably of recent publication, that covers the events and sentiments in France in the first half of the 19th century.
 * It seems to me that besides the sockpuppetry, editwarring and article ownership, Aubmns issues are much more fundamental, since they show ignorance of even the most basic Wikipedia policies regarding sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

New Sources
While working on editing any article is important and the right of any editor, the priority for this article right know is to find new sources not in order to totally replace Fraser who did write a very good book, both popular and academic but to supplement it with many new books and articles which I have, and I also demand from all editors who has importants books and sources about Marie Antoinette to make their own contributions so we all work together because that is the spirit of Wikipedia not exclusion.Aubmn (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tone and appropriate content
When was blocked, they were also admonished by  "Mildly, when you return please also heed advice from other editors about using a less dramatic tone in content editing." Sadly, on returning they have made a rapid series of edits, undoing much of my copy-editing and inserting or reinserting, among other things:
 * was treated badly by her jailors who smoked in her face and insulted her.
 * with no privacy, she was allowed to see her family on a very limited basis.
 * and forced restrain
 * because of her very big size failed due to the massive presence of guards, to the great desperation and sadness of the Queen as we know from her letters
 * taken restrained with her hands behind her back out of the tower under a lot of insults, she was pushed and her head was injured.
 * This period of time was the most difficult period of her captivity, Marie Antoinette was always attended by guards who did not allow her any privacy and treated her very badly
 * very big [of her size]
 * to her great sadness and surprise because she excepted life imprisonment
 * Marie Antoinette was forced to undress before her guards and clothed in a plain white dress,
 * Her hands bound painfully behind her back causing her a lot of pains and tears and leashed on a rope
 * calling her "chienne"(meaning dog in that language) ... Despite this humiliation, the people of Paris saw on that day a very large bounded woman who was leashed,who looked very sad and under great pains but also a person who was able to maintain partially her composure. While many described her as arrogant, others granted her their respects

For months, editor after editor has tried to reason with Aubmn but Aubmn has persisted in forcing such material back into the article and reverting our edits, all the while insisting that this is essential information and that s/he is co-operating and compromising. The result is that the article remains turgid, laboured, excessively detailed, obsessive about the subject's size, and repetitive to the point of unreadability, while editors are driven away.

please end your WP:OWN behaviour, respect WP:CONSENSUS, stop reverting our edits, and stop inserting and re-inserting material. We need you to take a rest from editing this article while the slow work - and it will have to be slow, there is much to do - of trimming, compacting and copy-editing proceeds, which it cannot do while subject to this interference. NebY (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC) First, it is strange to talk about revert, I did not revert any of your edits or removed any of your materials, I completed missing informations. Second, she was treated badly by her jailers, that's an historical fact. Third, most of what you considered dramatic I accepted that it should be removed for consensus. Fourth, on size we made a compromise which I respected but you did only for a period of time, same thing about manner of death; yet you wanted me out of the article from the first, is that not ownership. Five, I have good relations with Sam, also with Krobison I was working with him, completing each other work but NebY always interfered on the spot, a fact deplored by Samwilson,it was harassment. Six, Wikipedia allow all editors to participate and Wikipedia is for consensus; on both size and the manner of death, I was positive with NebY and reached compromises and he even demanded my help with sources which I did, today I'm no longer adding but removing copyrights violations, adding missing information's but specially adding new sources which you insisted that I do (see Talk Page: Trial And Death) and know you want me out, I speak about cooperation and you want me out, is that not the worst kind of ownership and badfaith. Seven, what did I do with this article: it was left unchanged for three years, depending on one source and full of thousands of copyrights violations. I completed the article, I removed most of the copyrights violations, trimmed it and finally I'm know putting many new sources other than Fraser, can you do it to make this article better...as for your last contributions you showed the revolution as a picnic, sorry it was a tragic revolution, I agree not everything should be mentioned, it was why I trimmed this article from 13000 words to around 9000 words, I did not revert any of your works, I only filled some void. As for content go for Napoleon, Joan of Arc, Mary Queen of Scots execution, w'll see much more tragic descriptions. Finally in the past essential information's was removed, the most illustrious example was when the fourteen of July 1790 was completely removed, it was the most important event in Marie Antoinette life and the Revolution, also key events were removed almost completely; in addition Marie Antoinette relations with her family and the most important leaders of the Revolution was also removed. Eight it is my right to edit as it is yours, I know on this subject and I have much more sources than you yet I 'm ready to work with you and help you with my sources; I'll continue making this article better by mainly using new sources which is the priority know. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: NebY, it seems that the solution is to keep reverting and reporting Aubmn, and to keep the article WP:Semi-protected to avoid his WP:Sockpuppeting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Negativity behavior and harassment continue rather than cooperation together which I always offered to see my proposal rejected, Flyer say some content removed, first she was saying with NebY that this article was too large and that new sources were needed other than Fraser and that copyright violations should be removed, I have the book of Fraser, I removed paraphrasing, copyrights violations and sometimes nonessential information's, that mission is almost done; know I 'm putting new sources to replace Fraser in some cases so the article don 't depend on one source. That article was left unchanged since 2012, there was major omissions in Marie Antoinette life, I added them (more than 4000 words) than I removed non essential informations, paraphrasing and quotations from Fraser (around 3000 words); finally today I 'm massively using new sources in order to make this article not depending on one source while keeping most of Fraser sources because Fraser book is a good reference both academic and popular at the same time. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight issue in the introduction
The removal of the "However other historians and scholars defended her either because of their dislike of the Revolution or because of sympathy with her terrible fate." sentence is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the appropriate academic field. If the number of historians who hold views critical of Marie Antoinette's opposition to liberal reform in her time were roughly equal to the number of historians who are sympathetic, then Wikipedia should give those views "equal time". Historians sympathetic towards Antoinette's reactionary behavior are, by user Aubmn's own admission, a minority view. NPOV stipulates that Wikipedia should favor mainstream views throughout its articles in order to avoid issues of undue weight, and allow these minority views little, if any, coverage.

The current prose within the introduction is a textbook example of undue weight, and therefore constitutes a NPOV violation. This policy states that the views of tiny minorities should generally not be included at all. Unless the prose is rewritten as to reflect its very low importance relative to mainstream historical views, and/or is moved from the introduction to a more appropriate section of the article, it will be removed per WP:UNDUE. Esnertofidel (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok at least a commonsense proposal, I 'll rewrite it noting that you broke the 3 revert rule.Aubmn (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Observation about the ongoing edit wars being instigated within this article
In response to user Aubmn's repeated violations of Wikipedia policies in this article (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:OWN), my initial reflex was to call for mediation to resolve the issue. This talk page reveals such steps have already been taken by several other editors in the recent past, but to little avail. In light of this irregular situation, it is worth recalling how the historical figure of Marie Antoinette is the quintessential representative of both class conflict and white privilege to mainstream historians, as well as of the European aristocracy that instigated colonialism and human slavery.

Consequently, editors should take note that articles such as these are regularly targeted by adherents of white supremacy and far-right politics, with the intent of introducing revisionist or negationist edits and marginalize the historic consequences of white privilege and class conflicts. The nature of this user's edits bears this out, as they consistently give undue weight to revisionist views that miscast Marie Antoinette as a heroine or victim. I have noted previously that the arguments this user employs bear similarities to arguments also advanced by the proponents of creationism in articles pertaining to evolutionary biology.

In both these instances, Wikipedia appears confronted by vocal, committed and highly disruptive advocates, advancing political or religious agendas at the expense of encyclopedic integrity. Since this issue appears to grow in frequency and severity, an appropriate response by administrators is called for. Esnertofidel (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First, you are the person reverting 3 times and breaking Wikipedia rule; I did not revert you once today but only trying to fill the void and trying to reach a compromise with no response from you.

Second, the points you brings are beyond the scope of this article and it seems you have a certain opinion which should be respected but that concerns the whole of Wikipedia community; as for my edits many persons blamed me on being to harsh on MA by showing that she betrayed her people, spent their money on herself and even called foreign armies to destroy the French Revolution so what you are talking about is totally false but I'm not an ideologue like you. Also I'm very good in Social Sciences, I have a PHD but very weak in biology; Your informations about MA are totally false, she has something to do with aristocracy and class conflict, she played the greatest role in arguably the most important social and political revolution of all times but colonialism and slavery happened in all continents many centuries before her. In fact her husband will sign a decree abolishing slavery without using his right of veto which he used under MA influence to protect the Church. Finally for your information MA accepted to double the representation of the tiers etats or the Middle Classes in 1789 to break the power of the Aristocracy, she was not doing this for the people but for the supremacy of royal power(Castelot pp=290-295,Fraser pp=260-265). History is not white and black only it is grey also.

Third, there is an important numbers of historians, a very strong minority who defended MA, even Fraser her most important modern biographer sympathize to a certain degree with her subject, even her critics who are a majority in the scholar community respected certain aspects of her life like her motherhood, her courage in dying, her charisma etc...

Fourth, a number of elite people were inspired by her, they saw her as the inventor of the glamorous, aristocratic, star system; that's a fact which I might not like.

Five, I repeat you are talking out of scope, neutrality requires all opinions to be presented, Second the majority opinion should be given the direction of the article and this is present in the introduction, it agree 98% with the majority opinion but you cannot eliminate the remaining 2%, we can give them a line or two. MA was certainly not an angel but you wants to present her in a total negative picture which is not neutral, false and even dictatorial..Aubmn (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I proposed many times a compromise and proposed and changed many texts, you always rejected it reverting me 3 times breaking Wikipedia 3 revert rule, I propose this "MA was defended by a minority of historians" or "The great majority view her role as negative but not all". With no positive respond from you if you continue your disruptive negative attitude, I 'm making the change or else please give sources for your information like I used Fraser and other sources or stop taking ideological positions who are out of scope of this article. Thank you, I still hope from a positive response from you.Aubmn (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section
"Long after her death, Marie Antoinette remains a major historical figure linked with conservative and the Catholic Church positions; and a major cultural icon associated with high glamour, wealth and a certain style of life based on luxury and celebrity appealing today to the social and cultural elites; frequently referenced in popular culture,[4] being the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Most academics and scholars but not all, have deemed her the quintessential representative of class conflict, western aristocracy and absolutism government in addition to being frivolous, superficial; and have attributed the start of the French Revolution to her in addition to the beginning of the French Revolutionary Wars of 1792 which ended with the Congress of Vienna with their millions of victims and the introduction of nationalistic and modern ideas in addition to the concept of mass mobilization.[5][6][7][8][9] On the other hand Marie Antoinette supported the American Revolution in 1776, and helped inspired a conservative reaction in France after 1791 which saw its greatest manifestation in the War in the Vendee which led in the long run long after the death of the queen to the end of the Revolution and to the return of conservative and religious ideas in France and in Europe.[10] That tendency saw its first manifestation in the writing of Edmund Burke the most important theorist of modern conservative thought; who criticized the Revolution as early as 1790 and defended Marie Antoinette in his various books."

What does the above over-sized & opinionated last paragraph have to do in the lead, which should logically end with mention of her execution? --90.62.50.101 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What end with her execution was the mention of the main events in her life, here like articles about major figures in Wikipedia like Napoleon or Lincoln or Elizabeth Tudor, her legacy and impact is mentioned in one paragraph, the opinions she defended, the accusations of her adversaries and specially what most scholars and historians think about her in addition to the public perception, this was written by many editors through a long period of times and it is only describe facts, events and perceptions in Marie Antoinette life which are developed in the article below with their sources. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Should you plan on extending Marie-Antoinette's biographic article to the analysis "most academics and scholars but not all" have deemed her to be, you are undertaking quite a mission and will have to extend your reading beyond Burke & Fraser, starting with the writings of the pre-Burke Philosophes, and the impact of the success of the American Revolution on the French. Also reading about who, beside Louis XVI or Marie-Antoinette, was responsible for the French Revolutionary Wars of 1792: Who wanted to go to war? Only Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette? It may also be interesting to note that there had been revolutionary episodes in Europe as early as 1770, in Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands... One good book to get started with would be that of Jacques Godechot: Les Révolutions (1770-1799), PUF 1965. Good luck with this project - a handful. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info, about the war of 1792 in the main section, it is said that the Girondins and the assembly also wanted to go to war. You are right about early revolutions,,,,this article depended to much on Fraser it is why I'm using new sources not to replace Fraser who is a great writer both academic and popular but to complete it, I have more than 50 books but this will take some time...Thank youAubmn (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Going back to my first comment: I do maintain what I wrote on the lead being over-sized and opinionated. On 6 May, you began editing it, turning an acceptable text into a long diatribe more in the style of a gossip magazine than that of an encyclopedia. Also, are you implying that by being responsible for the 1792 Revolutionary Wars, Marie-Antoinette was responsible for the deaths of millions of people? And, what does "mass mobilization" have to do with her? Is it attributed to her or to the Congress of Vienna? If the latter, then it has absolutely nothing to do in the lead on Marie-Antoinette. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * First I did not write this article, it was there since 2011 with its reliance on Fraser.
 * Second thank you for any constructive edit you make.
 * Third MA was a conservative figure who was opposed to the French Revolution arguably the greatest and political revolution of all times, the queen whom I admired a lot played a major role in that revolution, she pushed for the declaration of war which was proposed by the king to the assembly the only constitutional authotity who could do that, she gave military secrets to allied powers, she was not the only one responsible about the war, the girondins and the majority of the revolutionary leaders were also involved; the millions of death were not her responsibility alone. Mass mobilization happened because of the war not because of MA but the dynamics of the war changed everything.
 * Fourth MA represent glamour and a certain style of life present today in your imagination and is real in the life of a certain elite.
 * Five if you ask a person in the street what he knows about MA h'll tell you 'let them eat a cake. Yes she did not say it but it represent the class conflict and the question of royal authoriy which the queen tried to maintain in conspiring against the revolution(see her double dealing with barnave a moderate leader who believed in her sincerity).
 * Six The queen resisted all types of reforms before the revolution with the exception of 1788, she did not want to go more than the propositions of 23 june 1789 well below the aspiration of the estates general.
 * Seven the queen had her defenders people like Burke who was a liberal but turned to conservative positions after he saws the extremity of the Revolution.Aubmn (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You may not have written the article, and should not be blamed for pre-2015 errors it contains, but is what you are doing to it now bringing improvement to it? Let's remain on the introduction & its 4th paragraph, the great portion of it being your work: implying that Marie-Antoinette is the cause of the French Revolution: the Revolution had been in the making for a long time, with ideas that predated the birth (1755) of Marie-Antoinette. The American Revolution & its cost had more to do with the happening of the French Revolution than Marie-Antoinette and all her wigs & shoes. As for today's popularity of Marie-Antoinette, the "major cultural icon associated with high glamour, wealth and a certain style of life based on luxury and celebrity appealing today to the social and cultural elites; frequently referenced in popular culture..., und so weiter, I think that Antonia Fraser's book (2002) and Sofia Coppola's film (2006) have more to do with this "engouement" than any other reason. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * First you are partly right about Coppola movie and Fraser book about the glamour, it is even much before that but that's the facts as you said we love it or not.
 * Second I agree with you the cost of the American Revolution was much more than the queen expenses but the queen image was destroyed by her expenses, she was called Madame Deficit by the French themselves. She was called "Autrichienne", the necklace scandal destroyed her reputation and that of the monarchy.
 * Three the queen opposed the reforms of Turgot and Necker who could have saved the monarchy and perhaps avoided the Revolution.
 * Four the queen caused the 14 of july when she pressured the king to sack Necker and to use Germanic merceneray troops among others against the French People, her favorite Breuteil was prime minister while Benseval a man of her court was leading the troops.
 * Five I wont repeat her role with foreign powers and the betrayal of French military secrets or her double dealing with Barnave.
 * Six since you like the American Revolution, I'm quoting Thomas Jefferson the author of the declaration of independence and who was ambassador in Paris before becoming secretary of state than president: " No Queen no Revolution".Aubmn (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RE the American Revolution, it is not what Jefferson said about Marie-Antoinette that had any bearing on the French Revolution, but the impact of the American Revolution on the French together with the spread of new ideas by the Philosophes in the Age of Enlightenment for over a century. --90.62.50.101 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I repeat the arguments, first you are right on the effect of the philosophes and the cost of French participation in the American War, know something was bound to happen but was the Revolution something unavoidable, was the Queen respected to make reforms, the answer is no (resistance to reforms, madame deficit, the necklace scandal, l'autrichienne etc..), the 14 of july, the refusal of the queen to go beyond the king propositions on 23 June (see evelyne lever, castelot about this...among others ), the 14 of July, the corruption of Mirabeau, the flying to Varennes..., the double dealing with Barnave , the declaration of war, the betrayal of military informations to Austria...etc..All of this led to Madame Veto and the radicalization of the Revolution....Aubmn (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)