Talk:Louis XVII

message: Large sections of this article are vague, speculative and unencyclopaedic. At least half of it is devoted to possible theories of Louis escape from prison, consisting of unverifiable speculation, written in a sensationalist style, and of course entirely unsourced. While wikipedia should give appropriate weight to alternative points of view, the historical consensus is that Louis did indeed die in the Temple Prison, and that the stories of his possible escape (and the subsequent claims by pretenders) should be seen in the same light as those surrounding Edward V of England, Dmitri I of Russia, etc etc. The article in no way reflects this consensus. It requires dramatic amendment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.71.239 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia should be factual and encyclopaedic

message: Louis XVI had four children but only 3 are listed in the list on the side, the one that's missing is the youngest daughter Sophie Beatrix. I don't know how to change it as I don't know how to change side banners like that.
*Done.  If you want to do it in the future, go to "Edit this  page" and choose the template for the family, and edit that. Prsgoddess187 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis XVI's children 

message: He never reigned. ObRoy 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But he is nonetheless counted in the lineage, and traditionally known as Louis XVII. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how proper is it to put the regnal number to him? 

message: The first paragraph is largely a story, that while plausible doesn't cite any refrences and therefore likely contains some inaccuracies. I don't think it's necessary and probably breaks some neutrality rules. If there was a source where the information that lead to the writing of the story comes from, or if it is quoted from a notable work and changed format to reflect that I wouldn't have a problem with it. ASA-IRULE 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The changes made on 16 December 2007 to the third paragraph are taken from an article by Mircea Platon that lists no sources. The paragraph should be reversed to its pre-changes state. False evidence and unverifiable stories have no place in Wikipedia, no more than in any encyclopedic article. 
Frania W. (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story "After his father's death" 

message: I had an edit conflict that I don't have time to continue. Details below:91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: There's no doubt at the time that how Louis XVII was treated was controversial. I'd say that it can still carry a symbolic controversy today, seen as a symbol by proxy for the French revolution and its humanity or lack thereof. Given this, it's not overly surprising that the article seems to be written based on a lot of loose claims with few verifiable sources mentioned. Did he really contract Syphilis and was threatened with the Guillotine? What is supposed to be the exact meaning of saying that "Marie Jeanne, in fact, took great care of the child's person"? In my view this article would be served best by a complete rewriting, with at least a section on his early life which everyone can agree on, and an academically oriented section (hence, referencing a number of sources) of what is more or less known of his life under the Revolutionaries.158.143.136.183 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs general cleanup and rewriting

message: The article states he was made to sleep with prostitutes and contracted venereal diseases; this is apparently based on a single Romanian language source. Yet he died at the age of ten. Few male children are capable of sexual intercourse at such a young age.218.14.53.8 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venereal Disease 

message: It's messy, under-referenced and poorly structured at the moment. There are numerous resources for Louis Charles: eg, Marie-Therese: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter by Nagel, Catelot's version, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfodderst (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Article Needs Significant Work to Reduce Messiness and Improve Clarity''' 

message: Pretty much the entire biography section is taken word for word from The Encyclopædia Britannica, and no source credit is provided.  The phrase "the little Dauphin was again separated" should have been a clue here!  Copied and pasted straight out of the prestigious Britannica.
http://books.google.com/books?id=o0EOAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA45&ots=vkJK3vwe85&dq=%22the%20little%20Dauphin%20was%20again%20separated%22&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=%22the%20little%20Dauphin%20was%20again%20separated%22&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.124.196 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography is (Copyright Violation) Copied Right Out of Encyclopedia Britannica 

message: Was there really a separate DNA test in 1993 before the one in 2000 performed by Delorme? I have no access to the book cited for 1993. It seems strange anyway. KarlFrei (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA tests in 1993 *and* 2000? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Louis XVII of France. 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/20081006063500/http://louis17.ifrance.com/ to http://louis17.ifrance.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Louis XVII of France. 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/20090513073022/http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44 to http://www.genebase.com/blog/?p=44
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) 04:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the article currently starts out with "he became the heir apparent to the throne and the Dauphin of France", but that's one thing, not two things. it should be "he became the Dauphin of France, the heir apparent to the throne, and..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.201.234 (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dauphin is the heir apparent 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Please add the category :Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: by SergeWoodzing on 02:02, 14 March 2022. --Jhertel (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022 

message: Please add the category :Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 17:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022 

message: Please add the following template to the bottom of the article:
 2601:249:9301:D570:ED46:5CCB:F533:719E (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , and thanks. --Jhertel (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023