Talk:Louis de Saint-Just

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 POV dispute 2 Hair 2.1 Confession 3 "Germany"

[edit] POV dispute

This article is absolutely shot through with animus towards its subject. I realize that the POV is that of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which makes it less objectionable than if it had been deliberately added by a regular Wikipedian, but it's pretty egregious even by Britannica's standards. This deserves significant rewriting on that basis.

Normally, if I was accusing an article of POV I'd cite specifics. In this case, I believe a bright chimp could see the bias, so I will refrain, but I'm glad to participate in discussion if someone would rather discuss than edit. -- Jmabel 06:08, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

The prospect of bit by bit whitewashing Saint-Just, to the extent that the POV label is removed will be an entertaining spectacle. Wetman 10:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Journalistic neutrality? What journalist neutrality? The ghost of Camille Desmoulins has arrived to take matters into his own, oh, slightly embittered and by now thoroughly decomposed hands. There are times when unqualified bits of invective are indeed justice poetic. Oh, snerk. Snerk indeed. (anon 2 Aug 2005, about a year after the comments to which it applies.)

Oh God, not Camille again... Although I like how you think, anon :D I wouldn't happen to know you, would I? I would take it upon myself to rewrite the article, but I'm not too up on Wiki formatting, and I don't want to annoy anyone by completely trashing an entry and redoing it. Although I WOULD like to take on Wetman for his belief that you would have to "whitewash" poor Antoine to find anything to say about him that wasn't completely hostile. If no one has any objections I might start tinkering with the article a bit... *chases Camille's ghost away with a broom* --Togemon 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV on this article is extremely ugly. Some form of the word 'gloomy' is used three times. It's hard to think of a less helpful and more POV word than gloomy. Removing all the POV language and not replacing it with anything would pretty much render the article a stub. The burden of stub-hood versus the rabid, fanatical, and gloomy genius of 1911 Britanica stands before us. I pray that we have the wisdom and the courage to make the right choice, or find someone who knows more about this fellow. --Irongaard 02:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair

Weirdly "the youth with the beautiful countenance and the long fair locks", was changed anonymously, without comment, to "...and the long dark locks". Since the 1911 Britannica says "fair", I am restoring; if someone has a more primary citation and I am wrong, then fine. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone agrees on what color his hair was, or much else about his appearance. I've heard it described as everything from dark to white-blonde. Whoever changed it probably just had a personal preference. --Togemon 03:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

With the hair colour debate, one must choose whether to believe portraits or written word. Pretty much all Saint-Just's portraits are drawn with dark brown hair, whereas most written accounts describe him as a blonde.

Perhaps this is a translation problem; on the pictures I know his hair seems to be what the French call "blond foncé", but I don't think this would be called "blond" in English. David Sneek 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, blond means blonde. And blonde foncé means light blonde. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.98.160.92 (talk • contribs) 28 March 2006.

See for yourself. David Sneek 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactement :-). 'Foncé' means 'dark', so 'blond foncé' means 'dark blond', as the link above actually shows. Chakgogka

[edit] Confession

Back before I became a more responsible wikipedian - back in the days when I lurked and read instead of editing and helping - I changed the purported color of Saint-Just's hair for no reason other than to see whether it would be changed back. I had doubts about wikipedia's capacity for protecting itself from subtle vandalism, and I figured I would switch a minor detail for a short period of time in order to see whether my little sabotage would go undetected. Jmabel saw it and reverted it, thus giving me faith in wikipedia's ability for self-correction. I shouldn't have done it, but I had no malicious intent and have since become a decent and mildly useful wikipedian under a number of other names and IP addresses. To make up for my original vandalism, I created a large number of redirects for the many variant forms of Louis' name, so that this article can be found more easily (before, you had to nail a single variant to get the article to come up at all). Anyway, I'm sorry; I have no real opinion at all on the Saint-Just hair-color issue. 141.150.105.19 01:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Germany"

Re: this edit While the link provided for Germany - to the current unified country - is arguably wrong, I believe that the word "Germany", which at that time referred to a region defined by language, not politics, was entirely correct. "Prussia" is certainly wrong: there was no French-Prussian border. The army they were facing was mostly Prussian, but the Rhineland was not Prussian territory until after Napoleon was ultimately defeated. Perhaps we should say "the Rhineland" if Tazmaniacs has a problem with "Germany"? Or was the problem just with the link? - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "modern Germany", or even better Rhineland as you propose would be more accurate? Tazmaniacs 05:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say "modern Germany": this is "Germany" precisely as the term was then used. But "the Rhineland" is at least accurate; "Prussia" is not, so that's what I'll do. - Jmabel | Talk 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)