Talk:François Louis, Prince of Conti

message: 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) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant & trivial content 

message: The article states: "He served in the French army, but he never managed to achieve a rank higher than  lieutenant-general ." 
I don't know what the primary editor knows about military ranks, or if the line was erroneously copied from a source, but the rank of lieutenant general is pretty high in most armies, with only one or two above it. A lieutenant general in the U.S. Army can command a Corps (tens of thousands of soldiers), or at least a Division (military) (about 15,000 soldiers). So either the rank is wrong, and he, say, "never managed to achieve a rank higher than 'lieutenant" (or whatever rank he actually attained), or the sentence should be re-worded to reflect the striking accomplishment of attaining lieutenant-general. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowly LG? 

message: Wrong passage removed from the article :
:While at court Conti was regularly involved in the production of plays and spectacles and sponsored the Illustre Théâtre, Molière's troupe, early in their career. As a result of his passion for fast living, while attending the celebration of the King's birthday at Versailles he contracted syphilis from a prostitute, an affliction which was to mar the later years of his life. Not only did Conti pass the infection to his wife—little was known about the disease at the time—but he believed it was a punishment from God for his earlier affiliation with actors and musicians, who were seen as the bottom of French society at the time. This resulted in him dismissing all artists under his sponsorship at the behest of his religious advisor  and joining the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement.
Hardly possible for François Louis, born in 1664! This applies to his father, Armand de Bourbon-Conti, who was for some time Molière's patron in 1650s. Aucassin (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion