Talk:Germaine de Staël

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Picaresque

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)[reply]

Bias

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)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

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)[reply]

link rot

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anyway, the mother was « de Lausanne » (so she probably was born near the church!) : see [1], 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)[reply]

sentence fragment

"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)[reply]

Reversion

Taksen 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
So why did you say the content was unsourced,
assuming good faith? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I checked the article on Maurice there is nothing Staël. Only her name is mentioned in the box. I opened the reference to D. Young. De Staël is not mentioned once in this article. It is hard to believe that Constant and Staël, both involved in early liberalism, were interested in christian socialism or something similar. Everybody was interested in or influenced by Stael, as she was the most famous author of her times. A google search on those two names hardly helps. What you do is promoting Maurice, but not in a box on Stael, with a source that does not mention her, unacceptable.Taksen (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC) You use an IP and don't have a profile, not very convincing.Taksen (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date issue with the Estates General

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)[reply]

go ahead, you're right.Taksen (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. 201.214.20.182 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of article not showing under publish

A significant amount of previously edited and unmodified text, after subtitle, "Mistress of Coppet" is not responding to "publish changes" request and is therefore missing. Is this a unicode glitch? Help to resolve would be welcome. Thanks. --Po Mieczu (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With help, sorted Hidden text.--Po Mieczu (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Po Mieczu, why don't you have a profile? Your talkpage is not very interesting either. I have enough experience here to know that that is not a good sign. It is not very convincing to mention Goethe etc. in the lead to prove she was a good author and an unknown Polish author to prove she was a proto-feminist. Thanks you for improving my style, but it is also a lot of work to check what you did; to me this looks like a raid. I am sceptical. Taksen (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC
I just google'd on De Stael and feminism; almost only recent articles in French come up. I have no time to read them, but the French Wikipedia on De Stael does not mention the word feminism either. She is called a feminine personality. It seems to me she was interested in individual freedom, not in equality; perhaps her view on divorce can be mentioned.Taksen (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INTEGRITY please

Hey

WP:INTEGRITY. The first paragraph in "East European travels" is not including citations. --Mhhossein talk 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"One-legged" Thomas Jefferson, fact or vandalism?

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]
Thank you, its all in the comma. TGC55 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

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)[reply]

Addition of "Swiss" into short description

@

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)[reply
]

Hello Freedom4U. As mentioned here [2] (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[3]), her first husband received citizenship from the Republic of Geneva in 1789. --Sapphorain (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@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)[reply]

I know that you are an inclusionist but i think wikipedia goes beyond just beliefs. :) Sangsangaplaz (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) I see you are a Calvinist. It explains something.Taksen (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also please don't attack a straw man. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appreciated when you delete sourced information; Wikipedia will become a mess within months. I already saw some bad examples and will prevent it. Taksen (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I used the reference to her "Considerations" six times. Do you want to delete these too? Please go improve articles, deleting is too easy.Taksen (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe she wasn't one of the first against Napoleon. There is nothing wrong with

primary sources, perhaps when someone is unexperienced: Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."[13]. I have never heard of you two or Arthur Marwick, but it you can change the sentence to something less "promotional". Taksen (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"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)[reply
]
Also DON'T USE AD HOMINEM PLEASE! Sangsangaplaz (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer interested in your discussion, deleting sourced information is not appreciated.Taksen (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
PLease stop edit warring, this disscussion hasn't reached consensus, so stop reverting anything under dispute. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangsangaplaz, Taksen, sorry, I had missed this conversation. Looking at this article as it stands now, can I propose:

1. In the lead section, replace "…and subsequently due to personal persecution by Napoleon, as she discerned the tyrannical nature and ambitions of his rule ahead of many others." with: "…and subsequently due to personal persecution by Napoleon. She claimed to have discerned the tyrannical nature and ambitions of his rule ahead of many others." leaving in place the two primary references from Madame de Stael, and the non-primary source needed template.

2. In "Marriage", I still do not understand why there are mentions of Jan Potocki and Stanisław Kostka Potocki. Neither of their articles mentions Madame de Staël. If there is no explanation of why their meetings or correspondence were important, or had mutual influence, or some consequence, then the statement has no relevance and should not be included.

Opinions? Masato.harada (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these changes (although I sincerely apologize for being so late). Sangsangaplaz (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Masato.harada (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing usage of words, anti-liberal sentiment disguised as liberal

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germaine_de_Staël&oldid=1195325598"