Talk:Germaine de Staël

message: Is there any basis for the recent addition of "Picaresque" here? It is an entirely different matter from "picturesque", and was added anonymously and without citation. I don't know the novel in question, so I'm uncertain, but I suspect it is simply wrong. If no one can explain and/or cite, I think this should probably be reverted. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picaresque

message: The tone of this article is biased, bent on denigrating an extraordinary figure.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.163.199 (talk • contribs) 13 August 2006.
Precisely. Someone, please, work to change this - it's a contemptable piece, typical of its time (1911). [signed, but not logged in: RHG]
This article is a good example of the foolishness of pasting in old Britannica articles.  What was once (probably) thought to be a succinct summary of her life looks, now, a lot more like libel. Somebody with more knowledge about her life and works has a lot of cleaning up to do.  WtG.  Josh a brewer 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The link to BNF's Gallica site doesn't work.  Mme de Stael's work is there in three volumes, but this link doesn't get it.
71.163.117.143 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  link rot 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Germaine de Staël. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041014101726/http://www.stael.org/article.php?id_article=10 to http://www.stael.org/article.php?id_article=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If her parents were born in Geneva and Crassier, does that mean she is also Genevan? She was born in Paris where she also died, does that mean she still can be called Genevan? It is a bit strange to put so much attention on that detail. Categorizing can easily become a problem. If one's parents were born in Pakistan, but the child was born in London does that mean one is Pakistani? By the way she loved Paris but hated Switzerland. She married the Swedish ambassador, does that mean she was Swedish too?Taksen (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just referring to what the dictionaries say about her nationality. French dictionaries state she was French. The historical dictionary of Switzerland state she was "de Genève", which means that her family had citizenship of the Republic of Geneva. Since this last dictionary doesn't say she was "de Crassier" also (it usually does mention all the citizenships from municipalities in today's Switzerland an individual holds), it means she was not Swiss until 1815, when Geneva joined Switzerland. Sapphorain (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The story becomes more complicated when you study a map and the history of Crassier, which is divided by the border in a French and a Swiss part. If her mother Suzanne was born near the church, she was living in the canton of Bern and not from the Republic of Geneva. If her mother was born on the other side of the village, she was French.Taksen (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, the mother was « de Lausanne » (so she probably was born near the church!) : see , and she was not «  de Crassier ». And apparently this Lausanne citizenship didn’t pass to her children, which is not  at all surprising: even in todays’s Switzerland a person is usually (but not always) burgher of the municipality of his/her father, and not of his/her mother (it would become quite messy after a few generations if both were obtained). When I wrote above that "her family had citizenship of Geneva" I of course meant the family of her father: women weren't (and still aren't) much considered in burgher's conventions.  Sapphorain (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: "In 1783 William Pitt the Younger and the Comte de Guibert, whose conversation was the most far-ranging, spirited and fertile she had ever known." Without a separate verb in this sentence, there's an implication that she also wanted to marry these two men in the same year, after not marrying Gibbon. Terrible English.
100.15.129.3 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence fragment 

message: Regarding your recent reversion, you mentioned that the material is unreferenced. Which material lacks a reference? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that you are trying to add information in a box, where you don't have to explain anything. We don't need this propaganda for ``your`` favorites. Goodluck somewhere else.Taksen (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So why did you say the content was unsourced, ? And do you really feel that characterizing the edit as propagandistic is assuming good faith? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: The article states in the introduction that "She was present at the first opening of the Estates General and..." which according to the article about the Estates General itself was in 1302. It also states there that the last Estates General (and the only one since 1614) was in 1789. If nobody minds I will change the introduction to "She was present at the Estates General of 1789 and...". 190.46.184.190 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: go ahead, you're right.Taksen (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Done. 201.214.20.182 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date issue with the Estates General 

message: Hey Taksen. Regarding your revert, please see WP:INTEGRITY. The first paragraph in "East European travels" is not including citations. --Mhhossein talk 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the book Ten Years After if you are curious to know more and then add references. I assume I added already 100 references. This is not Kindergarten. I could not check your contributions; why is it hidden? What is your interest in this woman? Most of all I find your request ridiculous. I see you were blocked a few days ago. Byebye.Taksen (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to show the double standard; "that's VERY interesting for me to see you even failed to mention the clear personal attack against me. i.e. "This is not Kindergarten"! --Mhhossein talk 07:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTEGRITY please 

message: In the third paragraph of the section "Revolutionary activities" Thomas Jefferson is characterized as follows: "...Thomas Jefferson, the one-legged Minister Plenipotentiary to France ...," Assuming that the Thomas Jefferson is the American who became the later US President, I wasn't aware that he only had one leg. Perhaps this "one-legged" entry is vandalism rather than fact. Does anyone know for sure?TGC55 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1780, Governor Morris had a carriage accident in Philadelphia, and his left leg was amputated below the knee..Taksen (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, its all in the comma. TGC55 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One-legged" Thomas Jefferson, fact or vandalism? 

message: The Marriage section refers to Germaine as “Mlle Necker” (Miss Necker), right after stating she married Staël von Holstein. She would have been known as Mme (Madame) de Staël [von Holstein] at that point.
A paragraph break is warranted at that point, too, as the subject of her writing during the course of her marriage is a change from the topic of her becoming married. Her books are published to this day as authored by Madame [Germaine] de Staël, so the reference to her as Mlle Necker is superfluous, as well as misleading. Redhededkewty (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity 

message: @Sapphorain You reverted my change to the short description so I'm coming here per WP:BRD. I removed the word "Swiss" from the short description because no part of the article mentions this. You reverted me, with the edit summary:  Outside of the fact that this appears to be WP:OR, this is also not mentioned anywhere in the article and therefore fails the verifiability policy. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Freedom4U. As mentioned here  (ge.ch is the official administrative site of the Republic and Canton of Geneva), if there should remain any doubt concerning her genevan citizenship by birth through her father Jacques Necker (whose father became citizen in 1726:see), her first husband received citizenship from the Republic of Geneva in 1789. --Sapphorain (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of "Swiss" into short description 

message: @Taksen While i assume good faith the revert you did on my latest edit related to this article, i think that revert was unnecessary. I think the content i removed was in violation of rules about biographies of a living person. While i know that that article refers to living people, i think it can also apply to dead people as well. As that saying goes "Ignore all rules". 
Source: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source Sangsangaplaz (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you are an inclusionist but i think wikipedia goes beyond just beliefs. :) Sangsangaplaz (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you did not study her life because this is why she became famous. It is not a believe. The lead should be clear about that. Good luck with your unknown rule. A better rule is that you can  delete what is  unsourced, and this one was sourced. Everybody can she it came from her. Taksen (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey hey, no assumptions, i know that probably know more about her but the source is published by the subjects and can be considered promotional, i did not make any new rule, (seems like you are an anti-establishment type of guy no offense) it just seems to ruin the encyclopedic tone of the lead section. I know something like this could happen so lets keep our cool. If you think that sentence i removed should be added, you should change it so it does not sound promotional. If you want me to do it, i am happy to help. Thank you. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Also please don't attack a straw man. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: It's a primary source mate, plus it's pretty promotional. i think you should make sound less promotional if you insist on keeping it. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: It seems like another editor has removed it, and their point is pretty good. Its a quote from herself, it being sourced is not important when the source is biased. Although it could be the start of an edit war. @Madaso.harata I don't recommend reverting anything from the article (excluding obvious vandalism). You should join this 'discussion' instead. You don't have to explicitly support me though. :) Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Please don't start an edit war, PLEASE! Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: "There is nothing wrong with primary sources " I think the use of primary source in the sentence under discussion breaks point 2 and 3 of the policy on primary sources . Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Also DON'T USE AD HOMINEM PLEASE! Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no longer interested in your discussion, deleting sourced information is not appreciated.Taksen (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Deleting  sourced information is not appreciated" did you even read the points i made. Do not revert things with no consensus, wikipedia is not a soapbox where you can just ignore logical points because of your opinion.  Sangsangaplaz (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: PLease stop edit warring, this disscussion hasn't reached consensus, so stop reverting anything under dispute. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree with these changes (although I sincerely apologize for being so late). Sangsangaplaz (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Done. Masato.harada (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Madame de Staël was against a singular monarchical figure (i.e. King), but still didn't believe the masses deserved to make any decisions for themselves. She wanted to dictate the liberties of the people from her ivory tower as an aristocrat. The Enlightenment Era was one that disposed of the Divine Right of Kings, and concentrated power, and helped to establish individual rights and liberties as pre-existing before ambitious despots grabbed the reigns of power left from the deposition of the monarchies. Madame de Staël still wanted to concentrate power into an elite group (e.g. Coppet group) of elites because se thought the masses were too stupid. None of what I've just written is explained in the article, and one might believe she championed individual liberty, rather than wanting to take for her elite group the power to decide for the masses, what was once decided by the monarch or the Pope.
Madame de Staël gained power through genetic privilege, not through her academic merit (she had none; nobody translated her writings to any other language); and, as a champion of Romanticism and Rousseau she was decidedly anti-Enlightenment and illiberal. This article confuses all these terms, and the various movements involved with pursuing the liberty of the individual. Schiller and Goethe were part of the same death_cult_of_humanity she was, but it's surprising how little their influence is mentioned,
My biggest problem with this article, and all others on this platform, is how little it's acknowledged that powerful people infiltrate any, and all, movements and institutions to co-opt them for their own ends. I can't tell if she was a "neutral" or "pagani," ignorant about what was going on. Or, if she was an insider who knew the goal was to control others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.246.119 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing usage of words, anti-liberal sentiment disguised as liberal