Talk:Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans

what "ordeal"?

can anyone make sense of this sentence?

He was granted a final wish to have a gracious dinner before the execution but, having been stripped of all assets upon his arrest, was ultimately refused this ordeal.

mcoverdale (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"comtesse de Buffon"

I suspect that the "comtesse de Buffon" referred to here would be the widow of Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, but am not sure. If someone knows, worth a link in the article. -- Jmabel 22:41, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

"count of Champcenetz"

Similarly, I'd guess "count of Champcenetz" is Louis René de Champcenetz, but I'm not sure. Presumably related, anyway. If someone knows what individual is referred to, a link would be good. -- Jmabel 22:52, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's his father, of the same name - linked to Marquis de Champcenetz. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very British biased

Very British biased... 1911 Encyclopedia ? Ericd 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Redundant & trivial content

A lot of unsourced edits are being uploaded rapidly to articles on French royalty. Some appear dubious, others wrong. Yet requests for reputable citations are ignored, deleted, or inadequately sourced (page numbers in books are essential to verify if the citation is accurate) -- while the wholesale editing continues. Please respond to these requests, either with reputable sources or more careful edits, before adding additional unsourced material. Also, much of the added material is redundant, excessive, or trivial. I've already recorded repeated objections to 1. unsourced allegations (e.g. that seem unprecedented, unlikely, or undocumentable) are apt to be deleted unless precisely sourced 2. redundancies (if it's in a box on the page, it's apt to be deleted from the text): 3. excess (details which belong in another person's article [e.g. parent, spouse, child], or which describe hard-to-verify details [e.g. "She felt envious": unless it's an attributed quote from a diary or correspondence -- how is it possible to know what someone who died hundreds of years ago "felt" or "thought"? Let's stick to what they verifiably said or did]), 4. gallicization (names and titles when combined, OK [but members of dynasties that ruled outside France -- Lorraine, Savoy, Modena, Bouillon, Monaco, etc -- shouldn't be gallicized, except for cadets born into a branch naturalised in France]; well-known phrases, yes; untranslatable terms, maybe; just for the sake of a more "French" sound or "feel" to the article -- not usually, and subject to deletion). Other editors will, of course, have their own views. Please don't use sockpuppets. I look forward to better mutual cooperation -- and better Wiki articles. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange Foot Race

"Strange Foot Race.—In 1776, the Duchess of Charteris beat her husband in a foot race of 200 yards, for 200 guineas. The Duchess was allowed to secure her petticoats above the knees".("Variates", The Scottish journal of topography, antiquities, traditions, &c Published, 1848 {{citation}}: line feed character in |title= at position 64 (help))

Not sure if this curiosity refers to this married couple as the spelling is slightly different, and I am not going to do anything with it. So I will leave it here for anyone who wants to take it further. -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Hello everyone, my name is Ariana and I plan on adding exciting new content to this page! I'm aware that this isn't the most exciting topic for everyone, but I feel that if I were to add new facts from more recent sources, it could be beneficial to those using the page for educational purposes. I also hope to add new sections to this article, such as Egalite's relationship to his cousin, the king, which was crucial to many of the decisions he made during the French Revolution. I hope to see the page flourishing soon! Arianabarron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Arianabarron,

On 20 February, you stated that you "plan on adding exciting new content to this page!". From its 30,359 bytes, the article is now down at 20,575 bytes after you removed several sections, which you deemed "unnecessary", such as the Gallery of the Duke of Orléans' children & Ancestry, this last one being a very important section, which shows the personage's place & relationship within the family tree of European royal families [1]

or "unused" (how do you know it is *unused*?)[2]

These two sections are indeed very important because, for curious readers, they give the links to other articles.

You also renamed Sources the section originally named References, removing the previous Sources section, which is a bibliography of works consulted by readers who contributed to the article.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Blue Indigo,

I genuinly appreciate your feedback. I would simply like to challenge some of the points that you made. First of all, more information (or bytes, since you brought them up) doesn't necessarily mean better information. The "Gallery" of the Duke's children really isn't necessary to this page, in my opinion. If someone wants to see what his children looked like, they can simply click on the hyperlinks that lead to their page, where there is a picture present. The gallery makes the page aesthetically overwhelming. The "Ancestry" section was also very overwhelming, in my opinion.

In regards to the "sources" section, I did not remove any sources by readers who contributed to the article. As I mentioned, this was only a copy-edit of the article, therefore I didn't remove all of previous editors' information. Whatever I did not remove remained in it's original state, with the original sources. I simply thought "Sources" would be a better synonym for "References".

Best regards, Arianabarron (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Arianabarron

I agree with you that a greater number of bytes "doesn't necessarily mean better information"; however, I was simply bringing to your attention that, in spite of your adding new information, the article was shrinking because of entire sections you had removed.

1. Gallery: You are right, if the readers want to see what the children look like, they can click on each personal link, but, will they have to rely on Google images[3] to eventually see the whole brood of siblings together, while it seems only logical to see them all on their parents' Wikipedia page since Wikipedia is what we are working on?

2. References vs Sources: I do believe that Wikipedia follows the rules established in publishing, and that the quotes taken from authors are the "references" (usually showing at bottom of pages in books, or at end of articles, such as done at Wikipedia) given with name of authors, title of book or article, name of publisher, date, page the quote was taken from, etc. while the "sources", listing the names of authors by alphabetical order, is the "bibliography", that is: books/articles consulted by wiki contributors and from which the various quotes were taken.

3.Suggestion: With its various sections & links to articles such as Ancestors[4], Princes of France, House of Bourbon etc., may I suggest checking en.wiki article on Orléans' cousin Louis XVI of France? [5]

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please don't shout

@Arianabarron:,

1. You reverted last contributor's edit with this edit summary: "Changed my lead paragraph back to its ORIGINAL STATE)"[6]

May I bring your attention to the fact that you didn't revert to the section *original state*, but to your own contribution of 7 March.[7]

Further, from Wikipedia's article Please don't shout[8], here is some advice on how to communicate so as not to appear aggressive to others:

Typing in all caps ("TYPING IN ALL CAPS") on Wikipedia, in line with most internet resources, is perceived as "shouting" and can come across as aggressive. Please do not do it, even in edit summaries. More than occasional use of bold, italics and underline is also very 'shouty' behaviour.

2. Also, would you be kind enough to give references to the titles Duke d'Orléans, Hugh Bourbon Capet, Philippe de la France, and Monsieur Philippe d'Orléans, you are giving Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, while removing his real titles, from the one given at birth to those he inherited later on?

3. Reference is also needed at "He was Louis XVI's first cousin and the wealthiest man in France after the King". The Duke of Orléans was probably one of the richest men in France, but not the richest after the king, and no richer than the Duke of Penthièvre, his father-in-law, who was born in wealth & who got richer during his life by wisely running his estates, and thanks to several inheritances. And it is in great part thanks to the dowry of his wife, Penthièvre's daughter, that Orléans was very rich.

Arrière-petit-fils du Régent, le duc d'Orléans est, à la veille de la Révolution, l'un des princes les plus riches de France et le partisan le plus chaleureux des idées nouvelles. (ORLÉANS LOUIS PHILIPPE JOSEPH duc d' (1747-1793) dit PHILIPPE ÉGALITÉ, by Jean Tulard, in Encyclopédie Universalis).

Being extremely new at Wikipedia, you may not be aware of the fact that by reverting, with no explanation & no references, you could be starting an edit-war and making it impossible for other contributors to edit the article.

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Blue Indigo

@Blue Indigo:

It seems as if your goal since I edited this article is to attack everything I do. I have contributed a lot to this article, not just the lead section, but to other sections of the article, which by the way - are cited with scholarly sources. Before my lead section was removed the first time, the references you are asking about were there. I worked really hard and did a lot of research to improve the article, and I find it really offensive and disrespectful that you have done nothing but criticize this article. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia, but that does not make my information less valuable than its other editors. But do not worry, I won't edit the article anymore. I have finished my class and received positive feedback from my professor, which is all that matters. In regards to your comment on the shouting, there is no need to be ultra sensitive. Typing in caps does not always mean shouting. Regards, Arianabarron (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arianabarron:

1. In suggesting you work on an article on Wikipedia, maybe the goal of your professor was for you to not only work on the subject itself, but also to learn to work on an article at which you were not going to be doing a solo performance, but more than likely work within a team; with teammates not always agreeing with your changing the content of text without giving any reference, and obviously refusing to do so since you would immediately revert the edit. Also removing entire sections, such as the ancestry of an individual who holds rank & place in the history of not only France but Europe, simply because you judge such section unnecessary or unused (your words), although those are standard parts of articles on members of royal or governing families. As already pointed out, replacing titles with others for which you gave no reference or even a single example is not the way to work at Wikipedia. And I do not agree that pointed those details out to you is attacking you.

2. All that you added was not removed, which means that "I didn't attack everything that you did" - although I did correct some errors. Being busy outside of Wikipedia, I have not had time to go thru the whole new version, but will, and if I change anything in what you have done, you should not take it as a personal attack - if so, then everyone should complain that the previous and/or next contributor is on the attack. Consequently, when you add something that needs to be referenced, please bring the reference, and until you have done so, do not feel that anyone is attacking you for asking for reference, such as “Citation needed”. I also do not see anything in my above exchange with you that could be construed as being an attack, and I would like to remind you that in response to my first note, you wrote: “I genuinly appreciate your feedback. I would simply like to challenge some of the points that you made.”

3. If the goal of your professor has been reached, i.e. you chose a Wikipedia article you wanted to improve & worked on it, that is good... at least for you & your professor. Now, here is a question for you: when your professor criticizes or points out your mistakes, do you find it "offensive & disrespectful"? Furthermore, when you took on the challenge of bringing changes to the article, didn't it come to your mind that some wiki contributor(s) might not agree with your contribution & would let you know live? Hadn't your professor warned you?

My goal, as you call it, was not to disrespect or attack you, but to avoid unsourced material in the article while more important & referenced material was being discarded. The request for citation is not an attack. We learn more from or because of the critic brought out than from unearned compliments.

4. As far as you not editing the article anymore, since you have logged into Wikipedia, there is no reason for you not to continue on this article or any other. Nobody is or was after you. In fact, it was interesting to go thru an article as you were bringing changes to it. A lot of it, if not most of what you added, is still there, and will probably remain, albeit with some changes: that's the way of Wikipedia. In fact, going thru the history of the article from very beginning, a lot that had been put a long time ago, and which was removed also a long time ago, should be put back. All this to tell you that you should not be offended. That's the way Wikipedia works for all of us.

By the way, where did you get Duke d'Orléans, Hugh Bourbon Capet, Philippe de la France, and Monsieur Philippe d'Orléans? :)

Looking forward to you returning to the article, so that we can continue or settle our disagreements, and wishing you the best in your studies. --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentencing Louis XVI to death

Here it is stated “A majority (75 votes) was necessary to indict the King, and an overwhelming amount of 394 votes were collected in favor of his death.” This would suggest that while voting to execute his cousin was a betrayal of sorts it was not consequential in the vote outcome. However the wiki entry for Louis XVI states:

“...the result was uncomfortably close for such a dramatic decision. 288 of the deputies voted against death and for some other alternative, mainly some means of imprisonment or exile. 72 of the deputies voted for the death penalty, but subject to a number of delaying conditions and reservations. The voting took a total of 36 hours. 361 of the deputies voted for Louis's immediate execution. Louis was condemned to death by a majority of one vote.”

That entry indicates the final vote on sentencing was 361-360 if favor of immediate execution versus prison, exile, or delayed execution. If this is accurate then the Duke’s vote was much more consequential. There is a clear discrepancy between the two articles regarding the vote numbers

Requested move 20 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus not to move the article to the proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans → Philippe Égalité – Not only is Louis Philippe II not this man's common name, but it is hardly ever used at all. He is commonly called either duke of Orléans/duc d'Orléans or, much more conveniently, Philippe Égalité. The name Philippe Égalité can be found in the titles of numerous biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, rather reluctantly, as I'm getting very fed up with the flood of royal RMs. But the common name argument is true, and the risk of confusions with other Dukes of Orléans rather high. In addition, Philippe Égalité is not just a nickname, like Louis the Fat; he actually changed his name to this, and was executed under this name (which the nom might have said). We usually take the last/final name or title of a royal or noble person. I suppose Philippe Égalité (Duke of Orléans) might be a compromise, if the disam police allow it. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  The parentheses wouldn't be needed, as there's no one else named Philippe Égalité that this person needs to be disambiguated from. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I hear sirens (unmarked car though). Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ain't never heard or seen him called by any other name. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Really? I'm tempted to suggest that (especially as a republican) you should do some reading on the French Revolution then. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I have read up on the French Revolution. Never came across the proposed name, to my memory. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  With me it's the opposite and this is the only name I've heard used for him. Killuminator (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, he's certainly known by this name, but he's also commonly known as the Duke of Orléans. Most of the people we title XX, Duke of Wotsit, aren't actually commonly known as anything other than the Duke of Wotsit (e.g. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - who on earth ever calls him Arthur Welleseley, or indeed 1st Duke of Wellington?). It's an exception to the strict common name policy that we've adopted for ease of identification. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is not the only person to be known as the duke of Orléans. The question is how calling him Louis Philippe II, the name by which he is never known, in conjunction with an ambiguous title of nobility facilitates identification. Not even people with a decent understanding of the French Revolution will recognize that by "Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans" we actually mean the man everyone knows as Philippe Égalité. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is not the only person to be known as the duke of Orléans. That was my point! The 1st Duke of Wellington isn't the only person to be known as the Duke of Wellington either. They're all called the Duke of Wellington. That is their common name. The first names of titled people are very commonly not well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

But unlike the 1st Duke of Wellington, this person has a well-established, unambiguous common name. Why should the article about him be at the most unrecognizable possible title? He is virtually never called "Louis Philippe II". Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCROY. Many other royals and nobles have nicknames, that may even be more common than their official names. But that doesn't mean we use them here. The redirect is perfect sufficient here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above, this was his last official name, not a nickname at all. And in fact we often use nickname, though usually for earlier periods than this. WP:NCROY firmly supports WP:COMMONNAME, another argument in favour. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Let us also be reminded that WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and that WP:NCROY is not. If WP:NCROY truly contradicts the policy, it is worth nothing. Also, who even says that "Louis Philippe II" was ever his official name? Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I know we've had this discussion before. NCROY may not be a policy, but WP:CONSISTENT is. And CONSISTENT is the reason NCROY exists. COMMONNAME is not the only policy. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. For whom do you think it is practical to use the most obscure name possible instead of the most recognizable common name? Surtsicna (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject France has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the other reasons above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.