Talk:Milady de Winter

Merge (2008)
There is no sourced content here. By the time the original research is removed and the excessive plot summary removed, the tiny bit remaining should be merged back to The Three Musketeers or perhaps to a List of characters in The Three Musketeers article. Currently content not sufficient for stand-alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a book, so I find the need for citations from a third part kind of funny. You can't debate if it's real or not as it is peer say fictional in origin. I think the article is good as it is and it helped me when I found the need to research Lady Winter as a symbol for something beautiful but dangerous that took a journey to realize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.55.141 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Transgender theory' section
Removed this section in accordance with WP:NOR. (talk) 02:58, 28 Dec 2021
 * Although I agree that the paragraph sourced to the text is original research and don't oppose you removing that, the bulk of it is reporting the opinion of Lord Sudley. As Lord Sudley did write that and we are reporting that he wrote it (not saying it's true) there's no way at all that it's original research. That he made that statement is valid information. We aren't endorsing hsi opinion or saying it's correct, we are simply reporting it. There is no policy reason to remove that information that I can see, but if you think of one then please let me know. --Shimbo (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As you've not responded, I assume you agree, so I will restore the section shortly, minus the final paragraph which we both agree is original research.--Shimbo (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider this: As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia") and WP:VNOT ("While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") and finally WP:MIAB ("It contradicts a well-established consensus. Consensus is the central decision-making process on Wikipedia. Consensus can change, but the firmer the established consensus is, the higher the bar is for overturning it." and "It creates more problems than it solves.").


 * Now, we're talking about a misguided theory that misrepresents facts, history, and character (so this information is on a lesser level that what's described, it's false yet published, not true and published). Without going into it, the theory mentions a book that supposedly influenced the novelists but the thing is, that book was written years after the novel in question, so it's impossible for it to have any influence on the novelists. It's false history. 'Reporting information' is not the goal of Wikipedia (See first paragraph). As far as I can see the only true 'quality' of this information is being from a book source but like mentioned before, that's not enough reason for its inclusion. If you want to consider this flawed information for inclusion in the article, the burden is on you as a consensus must be reached for its inclusion (not for its deletion).--DemianStratford (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So you agree then that your previous rationale that the information was original research was incorrect and now we are moving on to try some different rationales why it should be removed? Okay, though what this looks like is that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The information was there for years, and there was a "consensus" that it was valid in so much as  many people had seen it and no-one had disagreed with its inclusion. So the "well-established consensus" is that it is included and you are the one challenging the consensus. Whether the theory is "misguided" is neither here nor there. That's your opinion (and in fact I think it's a questionable theory myself). But it's irrelevant what you or I think and whether the theory is, in our opinion, "right" or not. A notable figure in a reliable source proposed the theory, so, there's no policy reason to reject it. Finally, there is no "consensus" ATM, there's your opinion that it shouldn't be there and mine that it should. I suggest an RfC so a wider range of people can consider the issue and a genuine consensus can be reached. --Shimbo (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you told me to present to you other reasons for the justified deletion of the rest of the section, which is what I did. You said it should be included here because we're 'reporting' his opinion, which is not what Wikipedia's about. Wikipedia is not a collection of wacky opinions and this particular information doesn't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion. Even if something is true and verifiable that doesn't warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. Imagine now something that is nothing more than a baseless opinion? It's even below the minimum requirement. Now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we're including a so-called gender-changing theory (which you consider 'questionable' yourself), we would need more than just a fleeting remark in a book's introduction, we would need a different view on the topic, possibly also a well-sourced counterargument, otherwise we would just be spreading a person's wacky opinion (which is not what Wikipedia's about) or irresponsibly spreading misinformation (again, which is not what Wikipedia's about). We would be doing wrong either way. From what I understand, the literary consensus is that this is a relatively well-known female character. A simple mention in an introduction doesn't mean that a well-established female literary character is a transgender and it would misrepresent this personage if we spread a mere fan fiction opinion that contradicts her gender (with no credible evidence, I might add). On the other hand, you mistake silence and abstinence of votes with voluntarily reaching a consensus. This isn't what a consensus is. A consensus is a general agreement. So yes, I agree that a real consensus must be reached because by any metric and rule (and just plain ethics) that I can think of, this can be justifiably removed and shouldn't be included. --DemianStratford (talk)21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well clearly we aren't going to agree about this, as your reasoning appears to me to be little more thanWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. So an RfC would appear to be the way forward. --Shimbo (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the whole section should be removed. However, it mostly consists of a large block quote, which I feel is a slight violation of the principles in MOS:QUOTE. Thus, I'd be in favor of a trimmed rewrite of the section and invite to comment below if they'd like me to mediate such a process. I think there are areas of this discussion where both of you agree or could find some middle ground. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ,How about something like this:

{{Quote box
 * quote =

Inspiration for Character
In the introduction to his 1952 English translation of The Three Musketeers, Lord Sudley suggests that Dumas might have found inspiration for Milady from the Chevalier d'Éon, a transgender spy who acted as Louis XV's secret envoy to Russia and England, saying: The fleur-de-lis on Milady's shoulder with which she was branded for having committed a felony in her extreme youth would certainly come as a shock to anyone discovering it, but it does not fully account for the terror and horror which she evoked in every man who had ever known her intimately. Only her husbands (she had two) and her lovers find out her 'secret,' and for that, she declares, they must die... Sudley states that Dumas owned a copy of Mémoires sur la Chevaliére d'Éon. However, he also concedes that the idea of d'Éon being an inspiration for Milady de Winter is "impossible to prove or disprove." }} --Shimbo (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello there, thank you for participating in this discussion. I think the title of your section ('Inspiration for Character') sounds too definitive when talking about an unproved theory (that even its author doubts). 'Lord Sudley's transgender theory' might be a more adequately specific and less misguiding title section, or something along those lines. DemianStratford (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello there, thank you for participating in this discussion. I think the title of your section ('Inspiration for Character') sounds too definitive when talking about an unproved theory (that even its author doubts). 'Lord Sudley's transgender theory' might be a more adequately specific and less misguiding title section, or something along those lines. DemianStratford (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the quote At the end of the story, d'Artagnan discloses this to [Richelieu], who then declares that he and his friends were perfectly justified in taking the law into their own hands and beheading her. Might not Dumas, in creating such a character, have intended to convey that Milady had that particular form of physical malformation which was regarded even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a terrifying token of divine displeasure, punishable by death - a malformation of which the fleur-de-lis was merely a symbol? might be better for this section (and really all that is necessary to make the connection). Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the connection. This seems to be jumping to conclusions to fit the proposed theory and there's lots of conjecture ('Might not Dumas...', 'have intended to convey...'). Seems like Dudley's making up Dumas' intentions, essentially putting words in this mouth in way. I don't understand how a character saying the beheading of a spy was a justified action means that said spy was necessarily a transgender woman. I mean, it's quite a stretch. It misses the forest for the trees: she was a spy. There are other canonical things in the narrative that the author doesn't seem to question, like how Milady de Winter has a son (and he appears in the sequel as an adult). How can a transgender woman have a biological son? The theory brings more problems than it solves. Even if Dumas, allegedly but not provably, got inspiration from the Chevaliére d'Éon (a disputed idea, even more if one considers the 'Origin of the character' section, which contains more possible sources of inspiration), we don't know which exact aspects of d'Éon's persona he took, but considering de Winter has a son, Dumas likely didn't take d'Éon's sex/gender, and likely just d'Éon's condition as a spy (de Winter doesn't even have the same death as d'Éon), if anything. This is why I think stating conjectures as fact is dangerous and frankly irresponsible but if you still want to go ahead, that's up to you. The title section should at least be properly titled, in a way that doesn't misguide readers into believing a single author's opinion is canonical and factual. -- DemianStratford (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , How about we merge the paragraph into the "origins of the character" section? Then it's clearly just one possible influence on the creation of the character? We could possibly even cut the quote down further so the paragraph says:

{{Quote box
 * quote =

Origin of the Character
[The existing other possible influences and then:] In the introduction to his 1952 English translation of The Three Musketeers, Lord Sudley suggests that Dumas might have found inspiration for Milady from the Chevalier d'Éon, a transgender spy who acted as Louis XV's secret envoy to Russia and England. Sudley states this would explain why "Only her husbands (she had two) and her lovers find out her 'secret,' and for that, she declares, they must die..." and that Dumas owned a copy of Mémoires sur la Chevaliére d'Éon. However, he also concedes that the idea of d'Éon being an inspiration for Milady de Winter is "impossible to prove or disprove." }} --Shimbo (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there is some way to share the rest of the source (due to it being off-line) without infringing on copyright somehow. I get the feeling we'd all have more clarity if we knew what was before and after this section. I agree with @DemianStratford's concerns and agree we should tread carefully in this area. However, if a reputable source believes the Chevalier is a likely source of inspiration I don't see much wrong with Wikipedia reflecting that, in a way reflecting WP:DUE. I think Shimbo's paragraph is somewhat appropriate for this purpose, as it is both quite short and includes Sudley's own criticisms of his suggestion. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it helps, the edition of The Three Musketeers with Lord Sudley's introduction is on archive.org. Not sure if this link will work for you (you have to have an account) but here it is: https://archive.org/details/threemusketeers0000unse_l4g4kple/page/22/mode/2up?view=theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimbo (talk • contribs)
 * Lucky me, the one page you don't need to log in to read is the one we're talking about, incl. some text afterwards. Thanks for the link, !
 * I've been following this. I think this is the most reasonable and proportional proposal. It may need to be a bit shorter for DUEness purposes, but I think it's better than what we had before. Urve (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, Okay, as there appears to be a consensus that the new shorter paragraph is adequate, unless there's any further comments I'll add the proposed paragraph shortly.--Shimbo (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, after re-reading Lord Sudley's introduction I have reconsidered certain things regarding the 'transgender' label. He escribes d'Éon as having 'actual hermaphroditism' and having a 'particular form of physical malformation', there is no mention whatsoever of 'transgenderism' in the only source we're using to include this claim, therefore, it's a misleading statement to describe d'Éon as a transgender. I thought we were on the same page that misleading information should be changed and that we should be careful with misrepresenting this character and the person that is allegedly but inconclusively based on. The Wikipedia page on d'Éon says 'was a French diplomat, spy, and soldier. D'Éon fought in the Seven Years' War, and spied for France while in Russia and England. D'Éon had androgynous physical characteristics and natural abilities as a mimic and a spy. D'Éon appeared publicly as a man and pursued masculine occupations for 49 years, although during that time d'Éon successfully infiltrated the court of Empress Elizabeth of Russia by presenting as a woman. Starting in 1777, d'Éon lived as a woman. Doctors who examined d'Éon's body after death discovered "male organs in every respect perfectly formed", but also feminine characteristics.' 'Androgynous' is a fair description based on the evidence that we have, considering what Lord Sudley said. Also, Shimbo, please wait until the other users involved comment on this and analyze it properly before posting changes, else you don't have a consensus and force users to fix the false information that you publish. Just a heads up. --DemianStratford (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page I won't change the article. To be fair I asked nearly 24 hours ago for any further comments, before adding the wording which I thought everyone had agreed to, including you. --Shimbo (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page I won't change the article. To be fair I asked nearly 24 hours ago for any further comments, before adding the wording which I thought everyone had agreed to, including you. --Shimbo (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

a consensus does not need each and every one to agree, per your edit summary. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  21:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I might have oversimplified that statement but as per WP:CON, 'unanimity is ideal but not always achievable'. So it's not necessary but nevertheless, it should be the first option before going for other options,. Given that we're so few in this discussion, I thought it was sensible we could find the ideal scenario as I had agreed to the inclusion of the theory if it was accurately presented, and the changes were published before I could opine on the matter (my being an active participant just like the others). This topic aside, what are your thoughts on my comment above? -DemianStratford (talk 22:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. Hope I didn't sound passive aggressive, ! I didn't catch the term on a first read but yes, d'Eon was not trans and we shouldn't characterize them as such. Intersex is much preferred to hermaphrodite nowadays, if we are to use a modern term. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, ! Your observation is fair. And yes, 'intersex' could also work, and it's apparently the preferred scientific term for this kind of condition. What are your opinions on 'androgynous'? Too vague? It's the term used in D'Éon's article. Which one do you think it's best? --DemianStratford (talk 23:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say androgynous is too vague and perhaps not medical enough for what we are trying to say. Eddie Redmayne has been described as having androgynous features, for example. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)