Talk:Pasquale Paoli

message: I'd appreciate any info on the corsican constitution. See Talk:Polish_Constitution_of_May_3%2C_1791#Corsican_constitution for some info I found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution info 

message: Is it usual f
or Wikipedia to carry links to travel agents advertising their products?  I thought this was specifically excluded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertChalle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't give them any mercy at all, buddy, put them right up against the Internet wall. Remember Paoli. He didn't go around selling soap for extra money as far as I know. Hack that stuff right out of there. If you give them the slightest inch they will be pushing you all over Wikipedia making you think there is something wrong with you.Dave (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial advertising content 

message: Here is an interesting link in the article that ain't got a thing to do with Pasquale Paoli. Maybe the author is under the impression that Rousseau influenced Paoli. A brief glance at the date will dispose of that idea. More likely the other way around. Rousseau is butting into Corsica stealing Paoli's thunder just after France bought the island on the sly and is now about to dismantle the republic. Furthermore since he is writing in support of royalist France there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about him at this point. The revolutionary is Paoli and he has to teach everyone else how to do it. The French Revolution lies some 24 years in the future. As the link is a good one and I do not know what else to do with it I am stuffing it in here where those who are inclined to do so can get it.Dave (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting links

message: I took this ref out of there:
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521845807&id=iv41_FKFfUQC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=partitions+of+Poland+absolute+monarchies&vq=Pasquale+Paoli&sig=_gaNILwINF5DvjzaXBXDld8Veek Power and the Nation in European History
In case you are wondering just what that is I will tell you. It is a reference to a page in a reviewable book published by Google Books. The book is good and the page is probably good but Google has pulled their usual fast and slippery one and has made the page unavailable now for review! I fell for the old Google review trick quite a few times myself when I first started using Google. You can't put a link to a page in a Google reviewable Book! Not only will it be dead shortly but such links have the form of a search string and take up lines and lines. What I do is use Google to get the page and the information and then do a formal cite book on it. If the book is downloadable I say that. Most people know enough to do a Google search on the book. If Google does not now allow them to access the page at least they know it is there. Unfortunately in this case the preceding and following pages don't give a clue to whether the missing page said that so I can't put it in. If you have the book and looked it up or if you CAN get to review the page by all means do a formal cite book on it. You can find out how to do that in the Help section. If you don't want to bother to take the time then don't work on Wikipedia. Thanks.Dave (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google refs

message: Removed Military History tag as subject of the article is notable as a political leader not as a military leader. --dashiellx (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I see the Lees House subscribers are with us this month. Perhaps one or more of you should get a login. You know, I have looked high and low for any evidence that Paoli had any children - because one source refers to his "heirs" - or that he carried on in any of the usual ways men carry on, even great ones. The only shred I found anywhere was that his friendship was especially cherished by Maria Cosway, who, having an open relationship with her husband, usually cherished her cherishees fairly intimitely (including Thomas Jefferson). I know he was of a monkish disposition because he used to rule Corsica from a monastery and his brother was a monk. But just how far did he go with that? How could such a famous man not leave a letter, not a scrap, not a slander, not an accusation by an outraged husband, not a passionate statement by a female ex-comrade-in-arms? I can only conclude a conspiracy of admirers conspired to erase that side of his life from history, or else he really was a monkish celibate and there was nothing to relate. It did occur to me that he might have been a closet homosexual, but with whom? Why has it not surfaced? Now, the book you cite is not reviewable on Google books.  So I cannot check your ref and therefore cannot remove it if wrong. What I DO not see is what relevance it has to his secretary, who, like the old woman in the shoe, had so many children he didn't know what to do. Perhaps you might go a sentence further and explain the author's sentiment! Right now the article only says that so-and-so thinks he was a homosexual. Oh, ja? And such a famous man! If anyone knows anything personal about Paoli some restrained statement (with reference) might give us a clue. Thanks.Dave (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The possible homosexuality

message: The article feels hagiographic and political, particularly in the terms used to describe and oppose Bonaparte and Paoli. Neutral references for such tendencious/lyrical formulations as "would be condemned as a traitor to the very revolution for which he had just been fighting" or "From then on Napoleon acted arbitrarily and high-handedly without recourse to the law" ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.193.90 (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: In 1791, the National Assembly ordered elections for the officers of the Corsican National Guard, which Napoleon had created. Three lieutenant-colonelcies were available, one senior. Going on leave again Napoleon ran in Corsica and won the senior position after kidnapping one candidate to keep him out of the public eye (keep him safe, he said) and having the other one beat up. The Reign of Terror was beginning in Paris and Napoleon and the revolution were beyond democracy, certainly beyond Paoli's moderate ideas. From then on Napoleon acted arbitrarily and high-handedly without recourse to the law on behalf of the revolution and against royalism. He found himself having to arrest officers in the French army far senior to himself. Nominally Napoleon's employer, Paoli kept his own counsel and surrounded himself with his own associates, the "Paolists."
This section refers to Napoléon, not Paoli. But, more importantly, it is full of errors, straight from the Black legend.
1. The Reign of Terror did not begin in 1791, but in 1793.
2. Napoléon abducting other candidates. No he was elected second lieutenant-colonel (not senior one) by 402 voices on 522 soldiers (national guardmen elected their officers). His superior won 521 voices and Napoléon did not even vote for himself ! There was no third lieutenant-colonelcy.
3. Napoléon arresting senior officers. No, he did not, even the ones he had conflict with, like Colonna Cesari. 
93.21.171.222 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about Napoleon Bonaparte