Talk:Surprise of Meaux

POV tag
I added a POV tag to this article. I found the tone of this article somewhat non-neutral (anti-Huguenot) until reading the Lasting enmities section which I found to be strongly non-neutral. See below. Djmaschek (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is what was written: "The failed Huguenot coup, the second such coup in 7 years, was not an event that would be lost on either the king or the people of Paris. The Huguenots reputation was now firmly tied to rebellion and seditious behaviour, and as such when false reports of a Huguenot plot to kidnap Charles again in 1572 were circulated the population didn't need to be creativity to believe it, making it easy for them to commit the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre."
 * Here is my comment: It is one thing to explain why the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre occurred, but the wording of the sentence ("making it easy") suggests that the massacre was a normal response, when in fact it was an atrocity.
 * The "population" didn't massacre Huguenots. After all, Huguenots were part of the French population. Not all Catholics were involved, but some were, so I think it's fair to say Catholic partisans massacred Huguenots.
 * Who circulated the false reports in 1572 and why? When one group of people plans to victimize another group of people, they often whip up fear and hysteria by spreading false rumors (Hutus killing Tutsis, etc. etc.)
 * More neutral suggestion: "The failed coup, the second such coup in seven years, gave the Huguenot leaders a bad reputation for rebelling against the king. When false rumors of a third Huguenot coup were spread in 1572, they provoked the St. Bartholomew's day massacre of Huguenots by Catholic partisans. This led to the outbreak of another war."

Sovietblobfish (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Djmaschek I have fixed the offending sentence somewhat, but not the part about giving the Huguenot leaders a bad reputation, for the Catholic partisans, this was about Huguenots as a whole, regardless of their involvement, indeed they were not targeting the leaders who had mostly already been liquidated by the crown.
 * As for the rest of the article, I have described the motives of the Huguenot aristocrats as disingenuous, because that is the opinion of modern historical scholarship fairly uniformly, this is not meant as an elevation of the Catholic position and I am unsure what you found anti-Huguenot in the rest of the article, perhaps you could enlighten me.
 * @Sovietblobfish The Huguenot leaders certainly behaved in a paranoid and violent way during this episode. The article says they feared extermination, but who was going to kill them? Was it the Royal family? The Catholics? They must have been afraid of somebody. If they feared the Duke of Alva, it was with good reason. Alva was a very competent soldier, but he was also capable of butchery. The last sentence of Lasting enmities says: "The events would sting for the king to, and would not be out of consideration when he ordered the assassination of Gaspard II de Coligny and the liquidation of the aristocratic Huguenot leadership, shortly before that massacre." This seems to excuse the king ("out of consideration"). Why not just write: "Memory of the failed coup probably motivated the king to order the assassination of Gaspard II de Coligny and other aristocratic Huguenot leaders, shortly before that massacre." I will remove the POV tag if you can fix this last sentence. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this feedback, I have taken your suggestion. Sovietblobfish (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As for who they feared, it was a combined genocidal campaign from the royal army and Alba's forces (having been diverted from the Netherlands to their true purpose) As for this reputation Alba has, I believe he only really cements that grim moniker in 1568 when the imprisoned Egmont and Horne alongside thousands of others are executed. I'm not sure if he had an objectively brutal reputation in 1565 but my knowledge of Spanish history is far weaker. Ultimately however he would not commit a genocidal campaign in France and his egregious brutality would largely be confined to Holland. Sovietblobfish (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * POV removed. Djmaschek (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

B class review: Other issues
I made some corrections and edits, but it looks like more are needed. Djmaschek (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "Swiss" should always be capitalized. Proper nouns are always capitalized: Michael, English, England, New York, Bible.
 * Possessive: "the crowns army" should be "the crown's army".
 * Citations: You do not need to cite every sentence if the citations are the same. I fixed this in the Synods section. Please fix the others.
 * NO: Sentence.[1] Sentence.[1] Sentence.[1]
 * YES: Sentence. Sentence. Sentence.[1]
 * I have altered all these things, though I have been accustomed to individual sentence referencing so the reader might know that its not just the information in the final sentence that has a source to back it up. Nevertheless I have altered it Sovietblobfish (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * B class. Suggested edits were made by the user who applied for a B class review. Djmaschek (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

More
Please fix the following. Djmaschek (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a link to King Charles IX in the article.
 * Who is Alva or Alba? This person is Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, but the article calls him Fernando Álvarez de Toledo. The reader needs to know who is Alva.


 * I have added two links to Charles IX. Alva vs Alba has always been a weird one, there doesn't seem to be any consistent spelling in my books, but for the sake of consistency I have chosen Alba now, and expanded the introduction of him to mention the 'Duke of Alba' so people know to whom it refers part. Sovietblobfish (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)