Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta/archive1

Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta
The debate involving this article (Featured article candidates/Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta) reveals that certain editors allow themselves to impose a certain format in articles, although the format is not shown to be inconsistent with Featured article criteria (let alone break any such guideline). Although the article was reviewed by other users, all of whom gave it a passing grade (and most of whom are native English speakers), and although it was proven that other issues they pointed at were dealt with, they refuse to review their votes and claim that the article is riddled with problems, without pointing out which problems (one of the users mentioned simply voted "oppose" without indicating why). I find this type of behavior disruptive and harmful to the project. In the process, I was insulted twice by one user (who called by arguments "bleeting" and "rubbish") - interestingly, the same user who claims that the text is highly problematic and should not be passed, despite originally describing it as "very nicely written". Two other users have already reacted against such behavior so far.

The article is definitely very close to FA standards, if not already there. It is currently held at ransom by people who cannot justify themselves using guidelines, but use wording such as "it's hard to understand why these samples require multiple citations", "it's generally accepted that...", "if Tony1 is happy with the prose, I won't lodge an oppose on that basis", "I don't want to be told in every successive sentence that reference 1 is the source". I have to ask: is this good faith? Dahn 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Five reviewers have now indicated problems with the excess citations; you could have fixed it by now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only three of those users have opposed the article based on that, and no user ever pointed out why these citations should be considered excessive or reduced based on any wikipedia regulation or even recommendation. It does not become a rule if I can find five users saying it (nor does it if I find twenty or forty of 59,000); it is a rule if it is written down as a rule. In fact, I can find a large number of users who will agree that having many citations cannot harm the text, and I have repeatedly shown that the same format is present in several other FAs (my previous FA was actually transformed by other editors into what SandyGeorgia calls "excess citations").
 * Additionally, two users persist in calling the article riddled with other problems, of a more substantial nature, but fail to indicate them when asked to. Given that they are the two users who have the said POV about the format, I have even more reasons to consider that the vote system is being misused. Dahn 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cna't say I have a lot of sympathy, Sandy...the myth has been created that citation density/number reveals something about the quality of referencing, and now you reap what you sow. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never endorsed a specific density of citations, and have frequently pointed out that concept is misguided. I'm also frequently the only person looking at the actual citation, rather than the number of citations.  Thank you, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was in response to your comment here but the thrust of it was not directed at you. Although you can probably guess who I have in mind. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK :-) For the record, I don't endorse any statement like "one per sentence", "one per paragraph" or anything of the sort.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks French please tell us who the author of this is (the footnotes do not specify), and whether it is an adequate source for a bio. It is the most-cited source in the article; if the author is Sebastiani de La Porta, that would be a biased source for a bio about the subject. If the author is another, we need to know who it is. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It apparently has no author, that is why the footnotes do not specify who the author is. The text was written during his lifetime, and published by one of the most respected reviews of the period. It contains both praises and criticism, and most events it mentions is, as you will notice from actually reading the article, backed by the other sources. Whenever quoted in the text for what it says and no other sources say, the mention is underlined by words such as "the Revue contended", "it was alleged", "according to the Revue des Deux Mondes", etc. etc. Since a lot of I quoted is criticism of Sebastiani (see the allegations about his military incompetence), and yet you seem to believe that it was written by Sebastiani, you obviously don't address the article as is.
 * Let me add: this issue was not brought up the discussion, and I received no question or suggestion about this so far. Allegations were made about many and profuse problems, and yet only various trivial issues made in ignorance of the text seem to pop up. Dahn 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't know its authorship, but it's the most cited source in the article; that inspires confidence as to the article's reliability. Do you consider the professional presentation of Wiki's finest articles to be a "trivial" matter?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have not been willing to read my full point, and perhaps you will be willing to read it this time around: an article with no specified author in what was one of the most prestigious reviews of its time (comparable to the New Yorker), written during the man's lifetime, at a time when it was common practice for articles with no given author to be published as a means to represent the editorial board's opinion (at a time when a person could go to prison for writing stuff implicating the king, which the article does). Additionally, the wikipedia article 's text clearly differentiates between claim and fact, and claims rendered from the Revue are both positive and negative in nature (while the Revue belittles Sebastiani's role in the Napoleonic Wars, it ends in a panegyric over his politics during the occupation of Ancona). And please don't misrepresent my opinions. Dahn 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm misrepresenting anything. What I see is that now six editors have questioned the reasoning for the excessive citations, which you still don't want to address.  It doesn't appear that you understand consensus.  Of course, it's your choice not to heed recommendations of other editors reviewing the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus is what is discussed in relation to existing rules, not in relation to everything people can think of. Otherwise, a small but committed group of users could block any FAC because, even if it fulfills criteria, it does not look a certain way. Dahn 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, a question for you, though - is there really a need to have that much in the way of citation? I'm inclined to agree with you on principle (although I do see the point regarding how it can ruin the prose), but what's the actual need to cite three texts for one fact? I can only think of two times at FA-level articles I've had to do that - once because there was no real good way to split them, the other due to a clarification someone asked for. I'm just curious as to your reasoning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. The reasons are many and complicated. They are both generic (that which is cited from several sources can easily escape the notion that it is POV) and particular to the text. Interestingly, one of the latter emerges from the question posed by SandyGeorgia just above. I could detail even further, but I will not accept that the acceptance of this article is conditioned by that. Dahn 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. So why couldn't you have those multiple sources in the wings in the event that someone thinks there's a POV issue with them?  I'm totally on board with erring on the side of caution, but is this really the best way? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is actually no issue of POV here so far (lest for SandyGeorgia's pretentious and last-minute theory about the Revue des Deux Mondes article). I made the case of citations in general, and I think we all have seen facts that are not properly, even if trivial, be questioned by editors randomly picking at an article. I did my best to avoid that, and gave users a way to introduce contrary statements if those should be found (in theory), instead of questioning the existing text (if a date is provided, but one finds a source giving another date, the grounds for deletion, unlike the grounds for addition, would lack). Generally, I tend to do that by making one note for several citations saying the same. However, as I have stated before, users who visit my articles tend to transform them into multiple citations, including in an article that passed the FA while this was going on (which also means that, actually, very few people view this "issue" as an impediment). In short, I find the system's practical and relevant uses to outweigh by far its inconveniences (while pointing out that, of those who have actually indicated that they read the entire text, not one mentioned that he found the number of citations to be a problem, and it seems that many who did bring it up do not believe that the article should fail FAC on the basis of it). Frankly, I never though that anyone would even bring this up. Dahn 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from - I tend to put multiple citations as a sort of "see also" if anyone wants more information about a sentence or paragraph. The problem isn't so much multiple citations for a statement. What is odd is multiple footnotes for a statement. Regulamentul Organic did not have multiple ref marks on a statement when it was promoted, and certainly not four ref marks following a sentence without a period. Yes, some FAs do have multiple ref marks, but it's generally rather odd looking, especially more than two for non-controversial statements. As much as I've argued about aspects of this myself, there is a common look to FAs, and having multiple instances of three or more ref marks is outside the norm here. If the article had only a few double ref marks and one triple it would probably be within the tolerance levels. Just saying. Gimmetrow 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they are always "see alsos" in a way (given that we do not copypaste them into articles, they would always have to say more than we do). What I have said about Regulamentul Organic is this: I had designed it with one note for several citations, but it was then reshaped into multiple citations, and passed FAC as such (check it out: it is currently filled with rows of three-four citations). Since this appeared to be at the very least tolerated, if not encouraged, I designed this article with that format in mind. Converting it now on is, as I have said elsewhere, a bad and unreasonable idea: not only because, if this may look worse, it still doesn't mean it is worse, but also because I gave pages with some citations (and, for consistency, I would have to turn them into a page-by-page citation, as it was in Regulamentul Organic - which would require me revisiting and rereading every single source). And, if I were to embark on such a tedious process, a user can still come in and convert it back to this or to god knows what - which means that the sole purpose of the move was to be on SandyGeorgia's good side.
 * Just to clarify: Regulamentul Organic did not have multiple ref marks together when it was promoted (January 9) - it was changed to multiple ref marks some time later (January 31) and unrelated to the FAC process. You can see the version as promoted linked from the article talk page, in the ArticleHistory template. Gimmetrow 17:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) An aside. Yet another example of the biggest problem with FAC IMO:  the effects of "fan" and Project supports on FAC.  The Buena Vista article (see entry above this one) languishes on FAC for a month with no discernible issues, and doesn't get passed because it's not part of any WikiProject and doesn't have a "fan" base, while the same group that supported Regulamentul Organic (which was promoted with and still has red-linked See alsos) turns out in force to support Sebastiani, with serious overcitation.  It's too bad we really can't fix the systemic problem at FAC that permits articles to be promoted on fan suport.  I never understand the lack of pride seen in some WikiProjects &mdash; that some Projects seek to get their articles promoted even with deficiencies.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. There is no real problem that can be traced back to the FA criteria in that article either (this goes especially for your "red links" red herring). 2. The insinuations you make about the group of users and fan support are on par with ones anyone can make about you being part of a clique that spends its time imposing a certain view about format on the FAC pages. Let's not degenerate this discussion into that realm, SandyGeorgia. Dahn 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I can say that yes, I am a "fan" of Dahn, but I'm also able to think independently (plus, he and I have had our fair share of (civil) clashes, so I'm not the automaton you imply I am). I assure you that if I saw anything seriously wrong, I would have opposed. However, the thought of opposing for something so trivial as excess citations (which I actually think improve the article) never crossed my mind. Additionally, I have confidence that this is FA-ready, because Dahn himself has vouched for it. For instance he objected to his own article, Romanian general election, 1946, being FA-ed, even though a few other reliable editors (myself included, in retrospect) believe it to be FA-calibre. Likewise with some other articles of his that I would unhesitatingly vote to promote (like Christian Rakovsky, Take Ionescu) - if he thinks those aren't ready, and this one is, then I'm pretty sure it is. This isn't a man who nominates his own work on a whim. Biruitorul 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Although I consider the its presence among FAs (along with the presence of many other articles with multiple citations) as indicative that this is tolerated. Dahn 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You may consider that you may consider wrong. You included these citatoins after if passed FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true. I did not include any additional citations, and was not responsible for the new format. Are we clear? Because I don't want to read this allegation again. Dahn 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, clear. In fact Dahn attempted to remove the multiple citation form, but there was concurrent vandalism by another editor. Gimmetrow 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did not and do not consider that "vandalism", just "a different perspective" (though I know there is a recommendation on not changing the format already used for citations - which, btw, can be used in this situation), I don't think that it was ever indicated or assumed that doing such a thing constitutes vandalism. One may wish to consider asking Leandrod how he feels about this issue. Dahn 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The vandalism I mention had nothing to do with the citation stuff. Some other editor hacked out big chunks of the article at the same time you were making the edit in the diff above. Had nothing to do with either you or Leandrod. OK? Gimmetrow 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Dahn 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also consider this paradox: one of the "oppose" voters did not actually object to the rows of citations, but to the fact that the same citation was used for several sentences in a row. Interestingly, this was doubled by his claim to agree with Sandy Georgia - but, if I were to follow both of their "advices", the article would become largely unreferenced. Dahn 17:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but let's pull one at random here: "In 1833, Sébastiani was ambassador to the Two Sicilies, and in 1835–1840, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[3][27][28]" Is this statement really that controversial that you need to cite it to three texts?  You could just as well cite that entire paragraph up to the quote with reference 28 at this point, and knock off three of those jumps.  This is what's confusing me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that it contains dates (when I was editing the article about Choiseul-Praslin, I found out that the most trivial of dates can vary). Additionally, not all sources say he was ambassador to the Two Sicilies (while all that deal with that period say, AFAIK, that he was ambassador to the UK). Dahn 17:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For a fine example of a "good way to split them", Daniel Boone did a great job of discussing multiple sources for controversial statements. However, in this case, we find seemingly trivial statements sourced to multiple cites, and no explanation given yet for the need.  This is further complicated by the extensive use of non-English-language sources, making it harder to discover if there is some controversy in what appear to be exceedingly trivial statements with multiple sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This, of course, is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making, which I have posted about 5 times by now (even though you keep indicating that I never answered it). Dahn 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not my fault your point is hard to discern. I suspect you don't understand consensus.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I pick, say, the 1974 aluminum cent and tell people that it does not contain enough references to, say, Beyonce, I can fail the article because we haven't reached consensus. I suspect you do not understand that consensus refers to whether the article respects rules and regulations, not your format preferences. Dahn 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we transfer this discussion of specific issues with the article back to the article FAC? Most of it is article specific. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The objection regarding the Revue des Deux Mondes

 * There is a new reaction to this article, based on the fact that one of its sources (wrongly claimed to be "main" - it is actually "most detailed") has no author. I will repeat the points in its favor, saying that it is an article with no specified author in what was one of the most prestigious reviews of its time (comparable to the New Yorker), written during the man's lifetime, at a time wen it was common practice for articles with no given author to be published as a means to represent the editorial board's opinion (at a time when a person could go to prison for writing stuff implicating the king, which the article does). Additionally, the article clearly differentiates between claim and fact, and its claims are both positive and negative in nature (while it belittles Sebastiani's role in the Napoleonic Wars, it ends in a panegyric over his politics during the occupation of Ancona).


 * Plus, if one were not to use articles of the 19th century that do not cite their author, we would be imposing absurd requirements (please consider this while keeping in mind that not any source in that article is taken for granted). Comments? Dahn 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only does it not have an author, it's also in French. How about using an English source? It's a little convenient using a French source which only French readers can read. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And now is the time when you indicate precisely what rule this goes against, and precisely what sort of logic you rely on in making such a comment. Since when does wikipedia ban sources in other languages? And what is quite amusing is that "only French readers can read it" contradicts the fact that I am not French. If you suspect that I manipulated the source, which is the only reason I can think of for making such a comment, please state it clearly and we can take this to arbitration. Dahn 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration? Why are you so aggressive? What do you intend to achieve from adopting such an attitude? It isn't helping your case. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This type of question is the "When did you last beat your wife?"-type. I shall ignore it. Dahn 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * English-language sources are preferable, but are not required. Raul654 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's already been said somewhere in the discussion. I explained to Dahn that it was long-standing consensus on talk pages at WP:RS and WP:ATT that English-language sources are preferred when available, but Dahn rejected that since he can't find the "rule".  I suggested that he begin to trim the unnecessary non-English-language sources &mdash; there appear to be plenty of English-language sources for many of the statements.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "but are not required". Dahn 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir, Dahn. Enano and I scoured the internet and bookstores for English-language sources for El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda; there are none.  That is the meaning of preferred but not required &mdash; when there are no acceptable English-language sources, it's OK to use other language sources.  When English-language sources are available, they are preferred.  You have English-language sources. Consensus on this at WP:RS and WP:ATT talk has been clear. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "but are not required". I guess I should be even clearer: you cannot honestly sit here and have "doubts" about the Revue des Deux Mondes, telling me that it may not be "standard" or whatever (and absurdly claiming that its comments about Sebastiani's incompetence can still lead you to suspect that it was written by Sebastiani), and then cite a guideline that says that to back you up. Let's not mix apples and oranges: if the source would be unreliable (is it?), it shouldn't be used at all, not "it shouldn't be used as an additional reference". If sources in foreign languages should not be used (are they?), they should not be used at all. But, if this source is used because it is reliable, and if all foreign languages are used because there is no guideline against them, we are back to the argument about "not using multiple footnotes", for which you are yet to present me with a guideline. Dahn 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was Tony who mentioned curlicues; that seems to be what you're building here. Particularly when writing a bio, we need to know the biases that exist from the source and the relationship of the author to the subject of the bio.  Do we accept Nancy Reagan's books as authoritative sources on all statements about Ronald Reagan?  Who said sources in foreign languages shouldn't be used at all?  Who said it wasn't "standard"?  The argument is clear;  English language sources are preferred when they are available, but not required if there are none.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I suggest you stop poisoning the well.
 * How is this similar to the Nancy Reagan situation? Could you please tell me why we are discussing your unfounded suspicion over a text in a language you cannot read? What backs your suspicion that the analogy is in any way applicable here?
 * You do know those biases, and they are clear: it was published by the Revue des Deux Mondes, which had a preference for liberal democracy and was rather critical of the July Monarchy. I cannot tell you why it chose not to indicate its author, but it is clear who took responsabilty for it and it is clear what its bias is. As I have said several times by now, it is clearly indicated when the source makes claims about this and that, and I suggest you read the article if you debate this.
 * LuciferMorgan indicated that we should not use foreign-language sources, or else his comment makes no sense. That argument of his about "French people" is particularly relevant.
 * As for your core argument: no rule I have seen prevents multiple citations. The arguments you produce address respectively: the language of sources in general not the succession of sources in different languages, and the conclusion does not validate anything about trimming those citations; the reliability of sources in general, where, if any, the result would be "delete outright", not trim (but, of course, this argument has no application here); the issue of availability, where it is clear that sources in both are used, but the sources in the man's native language are bound to be more detailed; the argument of multiple citations, where you are yet to prove that there is a rule against usage. Dahn 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two issues that I think need to be adressed:
 * There is not, in fact, a guideline explicitly prohibiting the addition of a footnote to every clause. Nor is there a guideline prohibiting the addition of hundreds of images to the page; but, nevertheless, we seem to avoid excess in that respect quite well.  We do, however, have this interesting tidbit, from WP:MOS: "If this page does not specify which usage is preferred: Use other reliable resources, such as the style guides listed below...".  And it should be  therefore noted that the Chicago Manual of Style unequivocally prohibits having multiple footnote numbers in the same place in the text.  Make of that what you will.
 * As far as the sources themselves are concerned: are you quite convinced that the Revue—and the other works of a similar age—correspond to the modern view of Sébastiani? (This is more a question than an objection; I really don't know enough to answer that.)  The use of the Revue for purely factual points would not be unduly problematic; but, as it's being explicitly cited as a source for subjective matters, there needs to be some thought given to the historiography here.  Indeed, I would say that an actual section on the historiography of Sébastiani's life might not be amiss.
 * Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well:
 * 1) as long as the usage of multiple notes is allowed by wikipedia, condoned in several articles, and requested in at least one case, I don't think the CMS applies. I have also provided reasons why I consider them useful, while I don't think anyone could make this case for hundreds of photos (if I add hundreds of photos to one page, I get reverted; if I use a level of citations similar to the one I used in this article, the article in question can become or remain an FA, as indicated).
 * 2) please don't send me on wild goose hunts, and please don't make hypothetical comments about the article. I have said several times by now that the Revue's comments are not used primarily to source the article (or a "modern view"), but to reflect opinions and detail claims - sure, they might be present in x book I have not read, but one cannot reasonably fail this article over me not having used a hypothetical book (which, btw, could only have resulted in more citations), especially since historiography of Sebastiani is not at all extensive. Everywhere, those claims are attributed, and, heavy use is made of words like "contended", "alleged", "in the opinion of" etc etc.
 * The modern view of Sebastiani -which, for reasons I consider logical, I chose not to use in a separate section, but to detail on a topic-by-topic basis- mainly refers to some details of Sebastiani's life (his mission to Istanbul, his Polish friends, the report he addressed to the First Consul etc.). Additionally, one may note that the claims about his lack of skills as a commander are the cornerstone of Sebastiani's presentation in a book authored and published in 2002, which is referenced in the text. Dahn 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to send you on a wild goose chase; I'm really not. My question was not merely idle speculation, though; there is, apparenly, a 1948 biography of Sebastiani by Jean Tiburce de Mesmay (Horace Sebastiani: Soldat, Diplomate, Homme D'Etat, Marechal De France) that's quite substantial at least in volume (300+ pages).  You do not appear to have used it here, however; so my question, essentially is this: is this a purposeful omission (i.e. you have reason to believe that the work is unsuitable), or an inadvertent one?  Given the lack of a strong English-language historiography on the topic, I would have expected it to be consulted unless there's some explicit reason not to; is there some such reason?  Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the book. Is it implied that I should have had access to the book? Is it implied that the book is essential to this article? And is a book authored by one of his descendants in 1948 vital for this FAC? Because I'm pretty sure that I can point out plenty of volumes that could have been consulted, for any particular FA or FAC (particularly for this one, at the risk of repeating myself), but it does not mean that they must be. Nor does it mean that the other sources, having their bias and claims clearly identified, become unnecessarily suspect until that source is used. I can confidently say that all the main points in Sebastiani's life are covered, and better so than in any encyclopedia article on Sebastiani I have ever seen, so there is little that particular book could add in respect to encyclopedic detail. Dahn 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I should stress this in relation to the "no author" issue. As long as it was published unsigned (or not signed in that exact place, but indicated somewhere else in the issue), then the author is a collective one, and is the magazine itself (who took accountability for publishing it). This logic goes for, say, New York Times obituaries, for Britannica or Columbia, for newspapers published during the French Revolution, or, in my cultural context, for articles written under the generic pseudonym "Nicanor" in Viaţa Românească. The author is the Revue, and it is treated as such.

You will also note, from other Revue articles on wikisource, that the magazine published unsigned material or material signed with initials/pseudonyms, all of which is invaluable as a source for events, views, and comments of that time (see, , , , , , , , etc.). In fact, this letter, which constitutes a reply to material published by the Revue, is addressed to the editor, and refers to the text as "a note present in the Revue des deux Mondes, page 446 etc.". Let's not impose absurd guidelines in relation to accepted and acceptable secondary sources.

Additionally, I have to stress that "it may be written by a relative of Sebastiani's", in itself an argument from ignorance. To anyone familiar with the Revue's stand during the period discussed, it should be obvious that the source is both prestigious and independent (and that its politics did not coincide with those of Sebastiani). To anyone able to read the source or assume that I cited it in good faith, it should be obvious that the text is not particularly kind to Sebastiani when discussing his military career and several of his political choices, while it provides overt praise of several other political choices he made.

If anyone wants to refute this, I expect some sort of argument to be constructed, and I expect the above points to be taken into consideration, not conveniently ignored. Dahn 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Move it to the article FAC please !
What is the reason for most of this discussion not to be occurring on the article's FAC page? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this new system. Let's argue about the merits of every object of every nomination on the main FAC talk page. Yomangani talk 01:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest this entire discussion be cut-and-pasted to the talk page of the FAC, leaving a link here. OK? Gimmetrow 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If my approval is what is requested here, I have no objection. Dahn 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)