Talk:Demimonde

message: There is little information in this article about the demimonde, though a wealth of information on those classified as demimondaine. It provides the illusion that the two were synonymous. I would recommend splitting the two articles, preferably after more content, and citations, were added to both.
Dak06 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article splitting 

message: Hi all,
I come here from the posting at WP:3O, and a request for such an opinion on my talk page. I have read the article, and have read this talk page. I know nothing about this area, and so my outside view is that of a person wanting to be able to learn something from the article. My thoughts are these:
#As the article stands, it is rather difficult to understand the terminology.
#*Expand on the terms and language that are used, with a good description of each of them or, at least, a summary of them and a link to the full article.
#*Add a 'context' or 'background' section so that it is possible to read the article without being an expert.
#At present, the best verification that has been offered in support of either view is an online dictionary. That is insufficient for an encyclopedia article. I am sure this terminology, if in use in this way, can be found in respectable literature. We all know how unreliable online dictionaries and encyclopedias are.
#*The references in the article are given with little context: it would be helpful if you could say how these references do what they do.
#*Referencing is an essential part of writing articles, see WP:CITE for advice. Those who consider deletion of pages often err on the side of caution when dealing with possible original research: we need to be sure it is not original, or point-of-view before we include it. Make sure the references leave no room for doubt; at present there is too much room for doubt.
#*The original author claims that dictionaries often overlook the meaning given in the article: are there good sources that do not overlook this meaning that can be referenced here (they need not be available online)?
#If there are, in fact, two usages of the word "demimonde" then I would encourage you to make a 'disambiguation' page that gives both meanings, and gives backing to both meanings.
#*It strikes me that the dictionary definition so far cited does not adequately support either argument, though this may be more a question of scope than content. 
#The final sentence I have removed, but it is worrying that it was ever there. It gives the distinct impression of original reseach (see WP:NOR), and the lack of authoritative referencing reinforces that impression.
#Given that the article has faced claims of being original research, deal with those claims! Face them head on, provide authoritative sources (not merely the results of a Google search), expand on the points that are raised and prove them wrong. At the same time, be prepared to collaborate, and write about both usages if both are appropriate.
I do not think that the author's second response was a helpful way to proceed: it can be hard to see your article being criticised, but it is a healthy part of writing a good, thorough encyclopedia. Moreover, the comments were not criticisms, they were suggestions. However, User:Xaa might note the  philosophy: if you see something you don't like, be bold and fix it. If you think this article can be turned into a good thorough reference work, go ahead and do it. You do not need anyone's permission! Ultimately, if you think it cannot be fixed and there is nothing to be had from the article, take it to VfD. 
I would urge you both to get along with one another: you both evidently know something about the area, and a good article prepared jointly by knowledgeable people would have long term value to the project. -Splash 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view 

message: A question and a proposal.
(1) Why use the spelling "demimonde"? It seems that the correct spelling is "demi-monde".  See for instance OED (which doesn't even offer "demimonde" as alternative spelling) or the next item, (2).
* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=demimonde   As you can see, the spelling is correct, it's just American.  Demi-monde is Commonwealth spelling.  By the current wikipedia rules, the spelling set (American or Commonwealth) that started the article should be carred through the rest of the article, so that articles don't end up with mixed spelling rules and look bad. If you feel it is important to include demi-monde, the best solution is a redirect from demi-monde to the existing article. Xaa 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title and (hopefully?) soften debate 

message: I checked out this article because I wanted to link it to the "See also" section of another Wikipedia article.  When I glanced over the first paragraph, it looked like it said that "demimonde" means "mistress," which of course it doesn't.  The problem was that the first sentence of the article actually introduced "demimondaine" as meaning "mistress." I thought this was a really misleading way to write the artice, because a casual reader could take away from it that "demimonde" simply means all the mistresses of the 19th century (a bit more slanderous accusation than a correct definition, which would include anyone, male ofrfemale, who basically led a racy or non-conformist night-life among similarly-minded people during the 19th century-  men who went to a disreputable cabaret to hear iconoclastic, bawdy poetry or people who met in a salon to talk very taboo politics were just as much part of the demimonde as a woman who was doing nothing notable besides sneaking around behind her husband's back with another man).  
So I very gently re-wrote the first paragraph, especially the first sentence, to clear this up, and moved the "demimondaine" sentence from the first sentence of the article to a bit later on in the first paragraph- a much more appropriate place to introduce a related term, especially one that is spelled so similarly to the title of the article it appears in.  I hope other Wikipedia contributors will also try to stay aware of the ways in which ignorance is likely to be spread, and least likely to be corrected/detected once they are out there, when they write.  After all, we don't want a young student to quickly read this article, and then some time later when they are sitting in a professor's class and hear "demimonde," "demimonde," "demimonde," at different points in the lecture, to think the professor is saying "mistresses," "mistresses," "mistresses," when what she meant to communicate was "19th century counter-culture," "19th century counter-culture," "19th century counter-culture"- right? The professor may be trying to praise the demimonde or just say something neutral about it, but if Wikipedia is not clear enough, part of their audience could think that what the professor was praising was sex out of wedlock (and then in turn the professor's credibility or reputation could be hurt when the professor was in fact not at all trying to devote ten minutes of her lecture to championing cheating on one's spouse).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.104.225 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: So it isn't put back, I'm noting a removal from the fictional references section (does Wikipedia allow this now?) for Showtime's Penny Dreadful series that refers to a word that is actually something like Demi-Mundi (half-world) --184.63.132.236 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penny Dreadful reference REMOVAL 

message: As far as I know, Countess Castiglione came from an aristocratic and wealthy family. I never read or heard that she was destitute and only when in Paris became wealthy. It seems very odd to me as she was wealthy herself, related to wealthy people, and part of the establishment before moving to France. 
For this reason, I suggest that the paragraph related to her (pasted below) is modified. At the very least, a reliable source should be added confirming the fact that when she moved to Paris she was not wealthy.
"A famous beauty was Virginia Oldoini, Countess di Castiglione, who came to Paris in the 1850s with very little money of her own and soon became mistress of Napoleon III; after that relationship ended she moved on to other wealthy men in government, finance and European royalty. She was one of the most aristocratic and exclusive of the demimondaines—reputed to have charged a member of the British aristocracy one million francs for 12 hours in her company."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimalSymbolicum (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countess of Castiglione