Talk:Louis Henri, Duke of Bourbon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Living Museum of the Horse should be mentioned. Axeman89 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the matter with the reference to Brobdignag in the "Persecution of Protestants" section? English is my second language, but so far as I know, Brobdignagian means "gigantic" (a reference to Jonathan Swift's works). Can somebody clarify that sentence? Rizzardi 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exactly Who is the Article About?
I hate to say it, but much of this article has absolutely nothing to do with Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon, Prince de Condé. A lengthy discussion of the marriage of Louis XV should be found in the article on Louis, not this article. And there is almost no information about Louis Henri from the point of his activities regarding the marriage of the king until his death some 15 years later.
Thus, I would recommend excising almost all of what is found regarding the marriage of Louis XV, and let's get some information about Louis Henri from 1725 through 1740. Doug 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It surprises me to see this above comment still here 5 months later and no response from the author. The details of Louis XV's wedding arrangements deserve only a couple of lines here and belong in an article on the future queen instead if at all. They are also presented in a style of a wider history discussion. The style is not appropriate to a biographical article at all and strikes any reader as being copied from a textbook or something similar. I propose to remove it if no one objects.--AssegaiAli 02:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No response so I am removing all the irrelevant copy --AssegaiAli (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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) 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

