User talk:Aciram/Archives/2021/July

"Professionals" in Affair of the Poisons
"Victims" is something I jotted down quickly, and I'm sure there's a better term--"professionals" is not it, and there is way too much material in Wikipedia's voice throughout that article. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "way too much material in Wikipedia's voice", but the two lists are divided between the clients of the poisoners-occultists-members of Voisin's organization, and their clients. Those termed "professionals" were sentenced for being professional poisoners or at least for having assisted in Voisin's organization of professional poisoners and occultists. Its true it doesn't cover it completely (nothing can), but I don't see the problem. I won't protest if another term is found, but the main concern is that there is some sort of difference made between the clients and the people the clients hired - and they were indeed professional poisoners/occulists, or at least they were judged as such. I seen nothing strange in referring to an occulist or a poisoner as professionals. This was their job, their profession. I have not so far heard of a better term, but until one is found, the currect term is better and more neutral than Victims.--Aciram (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is that you can say things like "they were judged for a crime", when the "judging" is ... well, the king writing up a lettre a cachet and condemning someone to life in prison. How is that any kind of judgment at all? Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of them were judged and executed. Marguerite Joly for example were judged before execution. All of those executed were judged. Others were indeed not judged but imprisoned without verdict. They are in the same list. They all have in common being punished for being professional poisioners or members of Voisin's organization, either by verdict or without a verdict. It is not always easy to expres yourself and cover everything in matters as complicated as these are. Its not easy to find an expression which covers everything 100 percent either, and perhaps impossible. But that was not what our discussion was about. They were all professional posioners - or at least, they were either sentenced as such, or imprisoned without sentence for being considered such. But I'm not going to argue. Perhaps a better word can be found eventually, but we have not found any so far. --Aciram (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Section order
I made the section order on Hanne Nielsen the way it was because I was told by a few Women In Red editors that it could be considered sexist to not have the career section first because it is what a female subject is known for. I always wrote both female and male articles in chonological order up until that point. I'm fine with what you did and I prefer it that way. If someone complains about it, I will just deal with it then. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a female and a feminist and I would say the most feminist thing is to treat everyone equally. I strongly suggest that you don't start to make articles of men and women look different because of what they said, and I hope they don't. Of course the articles of men and women must be written the same way, and of course an article must be in correct chonological order. To treat them differently is sexism; to put "Early life" at the end of the article makes no sense to the reader, and to write the career section first for females but not for males are sexist. Articles of men and women must be treated the same way, and all articles are to be written in chonological order. --Aciram (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alice of Montferrat
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)