Talk:Candide/Archive 1

Tending one's garden

I was talking with a friend of mine the other day and we couldn't agree as to the meaning of Candide's last words: "That's all very well, but let us cultivate our garden." I argued that Voltaire meant it metaphorically (as in "interior cultivation"; personal growth), while my friend supported that it was meant literally (as in mind your own business). Who is right after all? Or perhaps it was meant as both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Individual (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 February 2005 (UTC)

Others would argue that he saw the world as a garden which, since it was all in disarray, needed to be cultivated by the people who lived in it. So he may have meant it literally, but not in the since on minding one's own business, but rather doing good in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.14.25 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with knowing one's limitations and doing one's utmost from within them to keep one's corner of the world green and growing. At the end of the novel Candide has wasted his life pursuing a woman who has become bitter and haggard, a shadow of the girl he has suffered so much for. He does not mind; he tends his garden. By this point Voltaire has all but abandoned idealism, as any scene outside El Dorado can attest. What good in the world we can do, we muddily must, but mind the garden gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.34 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

SparkNotes.com has its own take on The Garden in their Themes, Motifs, and Symbols section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.136.87 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more should be said about Voltaire and his intent in context to writing the novel. Mike 7 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ---

Personally, I was always sort of depressed by the very narrow explanations supplied for that quotation. Perhaps the most important line in the book - it directly contrasts the "new" Candide's philosophy with that of the "old" Candide (and therefore also that of Pangloss). Previously he was given to questioning the sufficient reasons for things; that is, the "why." The problem with this viewpoint is two-fold: (1) it doesn't necessitate action and (2) the actual existence of an answer to the question of "why?" may not even exist (a more comedic instance of this occuring with a child's continuous asking). The last line dealt instead with the necessary condition, which can often be related to the question of "how." This attitude is future-seeking, requiring action as a means. Any explanation which illustrates this contrast should, I feel, be considered valid. Of course, it should only be taken as a necessary condition for an interesting paper; I mention it here mostly because many readers seem to not understand logic when they read Voltaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Anabre~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe the last line can be paraphrased thus:

"We've spent this whole book wandering through misery to figure out how to be happy, so let's shut up and get on with it now that we've got it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patoplague (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I think you could also view it as Candide's final realization of the imperfection of the world-that it is not the best of all possible worlds,and so must be cultivated. Thus playing off the image of the garden of eden, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.41.2 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

--- The garden is simply the work that occupies their time and does not allow them to philosophize. Voltaire is agruing that philosophy is the downfall of human ambition and happiness. Simply living is the only simple way to live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.126.236 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake

Wasn't the novel (slightly) influenced by the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake? There's a mention in that article. --Madchester 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is mentioned in the afterword of my version of the book also. (see my remarks below for the ISBN number) 85.2.195.227 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Second part is a fake

The mentioned "second" book where Candide leaves the garden was not written by Voltaire himself, but by someone else. So it's not really a sequel. This is mentioned in the afterword of this book: (reputable german version) "Candid; Voltaire", Reclam Verlag, ISBN-13: 978-3-15-006549-5 or ISBN-10: 3-15-006549-6. Another thing to mention is that Voltaire released a slightly edited version a few years after. (this was because the book was publicly burnt in march 1759 just after it was released in january 1759). The title is "Candide, with the additions which were found in the pocket of the doctor, when he died in 1759 in Minden." 85.2.195.227 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

not true that name is the publisher's, the book is very obscure and is only in German but it is written by Voltaire --Yev900 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How to say "Candide"?

How do you pronounce Candide? I've asked several people and received just as many guesses. Scott 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.answers.com/topic/candide. It's French. -- Rmrfstar 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous statement about race!

The statement about Voltaire being a racist towards blacks is outrageous! How can that person have come to that conclusion, when Voltaire depicted the cruelty and injustice that blacks had to endure during his time? I don't know if the source is true, but it doesn't argue why; therefore, I say that the entire text should be deleted. In fact, a Steward should come in and delete the entire history where that fragment was added to the article so that it will forever be gone from the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that statement so imflammatory that it can't be commented out temporarily? Is it so wrong that no matter how many good sources I might find it should never be included? -- Rmrfstar 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You included that source? That makes no sense. I don't understand the source. Okay, I understand that that woman says this and that about Voltaire, but on what basis? I find her argument a very weak one and also, your interpretation of it is a bit misleading. I checked the article on Polygenism and this is what it says:

Voltaire even brought the subject up in his Essay on the Manner and Spirit of Nations and on the Principal Occurrences in History in 1756 (which was an early work of comparative history), although Voltaire made no attempt to solve the problem.

He was a bit curious on the subject. No crime in that. There is no proof that he believed something which that woman seems to want to make it to be. Also, even if someone was to believe that some of these so-called races (I diagree with the usage of that term) has certain attributes that are stronger than the atributes of other so-called races, that would not mean the person is racist, if the belief is proven. What if one day it is proven right that Asians, in general, are a bit more intelligent than the rest of us? Would it make those who believe in that fact racist? I don't think so. It is the perception that counts. It is you perceive a group of people and I see no indication that Voltaire perceived the blacks or any other group in a negative light. On the contrary, he focused on the cruelty and injustice that they had to endure! --Thus Spake Anittas 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of forever expurgating all history of it. We are not here to impose our personal moral judgements on information. While the assertion in question may be arguable (and I myself am disinclined to believe it), would you also suggest that we burn any book that was published which suggested the claim? Protect the readers from any possibility of encountering subversive suggestions, you know. Heaven forbid we allow people the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Nevertheless (to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment), in spite of his depictions (and apparent sympathy?) regarding the treatment of blacks, can we say with certainty that he wasn't to some degree influenced by the generally pervasive western cultural attitudes of his day? One might be sympathetic to a degree, yet at the same time still assume the "truth" commonly understod that such-and-such a race of people are simply inferior. - Tenmiles 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not like that. I just find the source very weak (see my reply to R-star above). As far as I know, Wiki policy is very severe on not using sources and the standard is very high for controversial statements made in biographical articles. Jimbo Wales blanked many such articles and asked for credible sources to be presented. Okay, Voltaire is not a living person and he cannot sue Wiki, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve a fair despiction of his life.--Thus Spake Anittas 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you don't like this woman's reasoning and likewise the source isn't weak because you don't like what it says; the statement is based on a real paper from a real journal. Yes Wiki policy is strict on this matter... that's why it's been commented out! I'm fine with leaving it that way until other sources can confirm whether or not the belief is in the mainstream or not; but it definitely does not need to be purged forever from this wiki because you (or anyone else does) disagree with it. No objective source has been brought forth, as of yet, that would suggest we should permanently remove all chances of the statement ever being reincluded. -- Rmrfstar 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what that woman is supposed to have argued, based on your interpretation:

She argues that in Candide, Voltaire portrays blacks as inferior to whites; but she states he does not attempt to prove this in the novella

Would it be too much in asking where exactly in the book blacks are portraited as "inferior to whites"? I would really love to see that line. Voltaire took great usage of sarcasm, but I can't remember him ever suggesting such a thing. I do not have the journal available, but if you could tell us what else she writes there, I would personally be pleased for your effort invested in this. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a difference between "portraying" and "proving". Perhaps, (now I don't myself subscribe to this notion), Voltaire portrayed something that he did not rigorously prove? Google the DOI and you can get the full text of the article[1]... one of the quotes from it which I was referencing in the paragraph I wrote was, "Voltaire repeatedly privledges whiteness in Candide". -- Rmrfstar 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about proving? I don't think she proved anything. I read her journal and it was interesting. She made some good observations, but I think she's out of line when it comes to Voltaire. It all reads like a conspiracy theory. I mean, we're talking about Voltaire here--a second Jesus-- not some redneck from Alabama (no offence to anyone). Voltaire was a good man who wanted all people and animals alike to live in harmony. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

She said that he, "does not attempt to prove this in the novella", and it was in reference to that quote that I tried to distinguish between "portraying" and "proving". I'm sorry, but this is not the place for you to push the point of view that Voltaire was a "good man". The source is valid enough to be left commented out. It's not redundant... an editor of the future (perhaps 500 years in the future) might not think to look at that particular place in the history for this significant interpretation. The fact that the matter was published in a reasonable journal is enough to warrant its inclusion for the sake of such an editor. It is inappropriate to delete this material (which none but an editor would ever see) because you disagree with it. That is your only defence as I see it: "she is wrong; Voltaire was a 'good man' and could not have been as she says". Such reasoning is obviously in opposition to the policies of Wikipedia on the matter: you must concede that other points of view should be treated in articles, and as you have not proven that this statement is not widely believed, it should be available for other editors to consider. Please understand, you do not hold a monopoly on what material is to be included and you should not repeatedly delete well-sourced material from articles that you don't like; please see WP:POV and WP:BIAS. -- Rmrfstar 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood anything that I have been said so far. I declare her source as a non-credible source not because I like Voltaire and because I think he was a good man, but because her argument is too weak. It is for that reason that I think her journal should not be taken into consideration. I can find more sources which say that the Holocaust did not occur, but that doesn't mean that the sources are credible. Two different things, I know, but I'm trying to point out that just because a source exists, does not mean that it must be recognized as a credible one. You said that her argument was not weak. What for? I say her argument is weak because she speculates on things and then draws her own conclusions and interpretations. One example is when she says that in Candide, the two monkeys that attack two women represent black people. Her argument for that statement? Because in France, some artists used monkeys to represent black people. Yeah, great argument! Firstly, it wasn't done just in France and secondly, there is absolutely zero connection between the two; and thirdly, it contradicts the things that Voltaire stood for. You can't just make such connections by comparing one's work with the popular art of that time and say, 'this is what it means." No, it may not mean that and making such accusations is stupid. If you read her journal, it does not say that Voltaire may have seen blacks as inferior; it says, and I quote: "He clearly viewed blacks as inferior to whites, but he was not centrally interested in proving black inferioty." I'm sorry, but how exactly did he clearly view blacks as inferior? I've emailed her that question and so far, no reply. That she connected two monkeys which were not given the slicest hint of being portraited as blacks by is her doing, not Voltaire's. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, your disagreeing with her argument is just as meaningless. You state that because you can't follow her reasoning, her journal must not be credible. That's backwards as I see it. This is not the place to disect arguments, but represent academic opinion. Do you have any comparable sources which refute her statment (and at the same time, name it merely extremist) ? Also, I'd like to hear how keeping the information specifically commented out is damaging to the encyclopedia, without saying it's redundant or so poorly argued (this is obviously a subjective assessment of yours) that it should never be considered for inclusion. -- Rmrfstar 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not her argument is considered credible will always be a subjective matter to each reader, as in all judgements of credibility anywhere. Nevertheless, it represents a published source which is perfectly cite-able. No matter that the opinion may be unpopular or non-conventional; the fact that such thought exists is still worth acknowledging - in the larger scheme of researching Voltaire. Even if the reference is not allowed to remain in the "published" article, there's no reason to remove its history. Placing it into comment brackets effectively removes it from the (published) article, but at least allows the preservation of the information just in case the unthinkable were to happen, and someone else actually might be interested in the information. Even if it wasn't allowed to remain (commented out)- I can't see the need for so extreme an action as to demand that all history of it be erased permanently (so that no one else would ever be able to see what happened?). - Tenmiles 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I meant "respectable" or "cite-able" or somesuch similar adjective, not "credible" which is, as you say, a subjective assessment. -- Rmrfstar 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys are happy now, because someone added that info to the article. Enjoy your victory. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What victory? We are not adversaries; we are just contributing editors, all of us. We were mutually engaged in a discussion about the merits of censoring unpopular opinions. I respect Voltaire, and I do not personally believe that he was a racist - but I do not believe in the total expurgation of any reference to a dissenting point of view. That is, after all, what they were doing when they burned his books. --- Look, is there possibly a tag which can be used leading into that section which says something along the lines of "The neutrality of the reference(s) cited in this section is disputed; See talk page for details"? - Tenmiles 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is a valid viewpoint about Voltaire and without endorsing it or deprecating it, it should be addressed in NPOV fashion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)}

I'm beginning a GA review on this article, so I'm totally new to this discussion. I noticed a comment indicating that this needed to be resolved before it could be "approved for anything".

Personally, I don't understand why this is an issue. Since someone brought up Holocaust denial, let's start there. The main page of The Holocaust has, under "Cultural, political, and scholarly responses", a link to Holocaust denial. We know it's a scientifically unsound and indefensible position. But the fact is that it is an important phenomenon, and (in my inclusionist opinion) we should be presenting all significant points of view on a topic so that the readers can make up their own minds. I understand that we don't want to include any half-baked nonsense published by a lone doofus on his webpage, but this is clearly not such an instance.

Insofar as the interested parties aren't even urging that it be left in the article itself, it seems to me that the edited-out comment inclusion is a very reasonable compromise. I personally would vote for having it in the article (as part of a comprehensive perspective of cultural criticism), but I'm not advocating one way or another. Mostly, I just want to have it resolved so that it's not a sticking point if the rest of the article is in fact in GA condition. (This is my first stop on the tour so far.) – Scartol · Talk 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust denial section reveals, with the use of sources, that the argument for the holocaust denial is a false one. We can't do the same here because we have no other source that either confirms the assumption or argues against it--and there is probably no such source. If Voltaire were alive, Jimbo would be here in a rush and remove that comment before NY Times would even have the time to write about it; but because he's gone and can't defend himself, people can include such outrageous comments as the one about race. I can't argue against it in the article because I have no source to back me up; which means the reader is left with only that argument and if someone is not too familiar with Voltaire, they will not have a chance to balance their view. This is something similar to what the person who first reviewed the article and failed it, had said. If she had made a good point and if others perceived her so-called observation as notable, scholars would have agreed with her theory, or argued against it. We need at least one additional and credible source to evaluate what was said there. And also, I say it again, that woman based her whole argument on assumptions and nothing concrete. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not having read the article in question until now. It deals with the illustrations in the book, not the text itself. Therefore, it has very very little to do with Voltaire. I don't think it fits in the article (if anywhere), but rather in the article for Moreau le Jeune, the artist in question. – Scartol · Talk 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things

1. Shouldn't the title be Candide, or Optimism?

See WP:NAME: The article on Voltaire is to be found at Voltaire, not Francois Marie Arouet.

2. The link to Leonardo Sciascia leads to an author from our modern age. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe Candido is from our modern age. -- Rmrfstar 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Much Better!

Thanks, various anonymous Internet people for you contributions: this article is much better now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.174.125 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome! -- Rmrfstar 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article needs to be expanded and copy edited. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• The lead needs to be radically revised and expanded per WP:LEAD (please read carefully). It is not a standalone summary of the article nor does it allude to each section of the article. Most of the details currently in the lead should be relegated to the article itself.
• I would dispense with the "Characters" section. Let the summary of the plot describe the characters. This list makes wikipedia look too much like SparkNotes.
• The plot summary is a little disjointed. I know that such summaries are difficult to write, but is there any way to make this one flow a bit better?
• The "Style" section needs to be greatly expanded. Two entire subsections on satire and the picaresque should be written.
• The "Analysis" section seems too brief to me. This is one of the major works of literature of the eighteenth century (as you point out in the article), but the article doesn't actually discuss it in any detail at all.

• EX: Explain Leibnizian to the reader - give some philosophical background.
• EX: The "Evil" subsection is much too short. For example, the 1755 Lisbon earthquake caused Voltaire to become an deist, if not an atheist. It was one of the primary impetuses for his writing this book, I believe. Much more needs to be explained to the reader here not only about the book but about the history surrounding it.
• EX: The "Conclusion" section is vague and difficult to follow. Outline in detail the arguments you are trying to present.
• EX: The "Race" section is only two sentences long and reflects the work of one scholar. Sometimes interpretations such as this are important enough to include and sometimes not. Who has picked up on this interpretation? Is it recognized as one of the central interpretations of the novel? If it is, other scholars will have responded to her and those responses should be part of the section. If it is not listed as a common reading of the book, it should be eliminated.
• EX: The "Garden motif" section needs more detail. What are the biblical references? What do these symbols mean? Why does the garden refer to the Encyclopedie?

• I would eliminate the "Allusions" section. Any important allusions are better discussed in relevant sections of the "Analysis" or "Plot summary", otherwise the section simply becomes a list, such as has happened here.
• The "Adaptations" section needs to be summarized more - there is no need for such detail on this page about Bernstein's Candide, for example. Note that there is just as much information on the adaptations of Candide as there is about Candide itself in this article - that is an imbalance.
• The sources for this article are going to be voluminous, obviously. Can you explain why you have chosen the ones you have? Which of these are the most important works published on Candide? I'm concerned that so many of them are articles. Many books must have been written on Candide - where are they?
• The article needs to be carefully copy edited.

• Some of the language sounds a little stilted (e.g. "thrice" and "thither").
• EX: The most primary of these is Leibnizian optimism, which Voltaire makes to look absurd in the face of the seemingly endless calamities depicted in the novel.
• EX: Voltaire exemplifies many different types of evil in the world.

If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good review, Awadewit. I was going to improve the article with what I could, but I was pushed aside by others. This article should not be approved for anything until the controversary surrounding the false allegations made against Voltaire are settled. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest review. I shall deal with your suggestions and bring the article to FA status. -- Rmrfstar 11:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FA status...that's funny. Perhaps when Marilyn Manson will become a newborn Christian. The article can become a FA, but it takes some skill and effort which some seem to lack. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I did the lead. One thing, though—the infobox has Part 2 as a "followed by". Voltaire didn't write that. I'd like to remove it. --Milkbreath 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I removed it. -- Rmrfstar 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Manuscripts: Where is the La Vallière Manuscript now? --Milkbreath 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they're still at the Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal: I checked their catalogue, and under the entry for a facsimile of the manuscript[2], the description says, "Le texte du manuscrit [conservé à la Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal sous le n ̊ 3160] est reproduit en fac-similé." I think this implies that the text is still there. -- Rmrfstar 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations: I'm confused. He drew "two sets" in 1787. One set of four made it into a book that year. How can there be an 1803 "version" in a book from 1819? --Milkbreath 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right: it doesn't make sense. I'll check the source. -- Rmrfstar 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the simple error. -- Rmrfstar 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy: Nowhere does it say that it's really effing funny. Not "Oh my, isn't that droll" funny as you take a pinch of snuff, but laugh-till-you-cry funny. Modern funny. (Just kidding, though that reveals Voltaire's genius more than anything else about Candide, I think—that he can make me laugh like an idiot 250 years later.) And, just between you and me, Bottiglia is full of crap. It's guys like him who never give the Oscar to a comedy. --Milkbreath 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it in the first sentence to Legacy. -- Rmrfstar 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Candido: I couldn't figure out what "Einaudi" was doing there. The link took me nowhere that made sense in the sentence, so I commented it out. --Milkbreath 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's the publisher. I took it out completly: it's irrelevant. -- Rmrfstar 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you're all over this. I was kidding about mentioning how funny it is, but I think it's appropriate to, although the relative funniness of anything is strictly opinion. --Milkbreath 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

Could someone sort out a couple of problems in the Legacy section? Half the wikilinks to authors wind up at DAB pages... which Vonnegut, for example? The other thing in there I think needs sorting is the external links included a couple of times - for the most part, the article is very well referenced, and those two external links in the prose just stand out like sore thumbs. (Came here as a result of seeing the GA nom - I'm not doing the review, but I spotted these couple of things, and think they should be fixed... the section kinda lets down the article, like it fizzled out at the end). Thanks. Carre 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA fail (again)

I've been reading and re-reading this page all day, trying to decide how to proceed. After some careful and frustrating consideration, I have to issue another GA fail assessment. I know this is annoying to those folks who have worked so hard on the page; the improvements since the last GA nomination are impressive. However, there are still a number of important deficits which prevent me from passing it.

As a high school English teacher, I think of many things in terms of American-style letter grades; this article is currently a B-, where F is a stub, B is a Good Article, and A+ is a Featured Article. Right now this piece is just shy of a GA pass, for the following reasons:

1. Prose style. This is the big one. Passive voice is everywhere, a number of sentences are very difficult to understand, and the image captions are sentences. (WP:MOS#Captions is very clear on this.)
2. Character list and other sub-sections. I agree strongly with Awadewit that there should be no separate sub-section for characters, and that the information should be an integrated part of the summary section. (This hasn't really been addressed since the last GA review, so far as I can tell.) Other sub-sections (like this one) should be expanded or integrated with other sub-sections (preferably the former).
3. Structure. The basic format for the article is solid, but it's divided and sub-divided in ways that don't work very effectively. I'm of the opinion that a sub-sub-subhead (5.1.1.1) should only be used for very long, very in-depth articles with very detailed segments (which this article, and particularly this section, is not). I know Awadewit suggested a separate section for the earthquake, but there are better ways for this to be included.

A summary of the WP:WIAGA elements:

• Well-written? N Needs work. See above.
• Accurate/verifiable? Y Definitely. Some spots need work, but by and large this is fine. (I agree with the previous GA review that more books are essential in the long term.)
• Broad coverage? Y No doubt. Very nice breadth.
• NPOV? Y Yes. Well done.
• Stable? Y The race criticism thing is unstable, but otherwise this looks solid.
• Images? Y Could use some more (and more staggering), but three isn't bad for a GA in my opinion.

Because I feel like I should give more specific feedback – and because of my absurdly overwhelming sense of duty (and because I think this is an important page which has great information and really should be a GA) – I'm willing to do a more comprehensive review (probably starting tomorrow), with the goal of fixing the items mentioned here and in the previous GA review. Again, it's a fine piece of work which is just barely outside GA territory. I look forward to helping it reach that noble terrain. – Scartol · Talk 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand ready to do a complete rewrite, but I'll probably need a guide. I'll wait and see what Scartol has for us and then jump in. --Milkbreath 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction - WP:MOS#Captions only says most captions aren't complete sentences, and "Complete sentences in captions always end in a period." Carre 08:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true, and I feel foolish for mis-characterizing the source. Thank you for pointing it out, although I would still advocate for non-sentence captions. I need to finish up my copyedit of Cleomenean War, and then I'll give this some detailed attention. Thank you all for your patience and diligence. – Scartol · Talk 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the critical review. /me rolls up his sleeves. -- Rmrfstar 15:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Okay, let's get down to cases. Let me start by saying again that I really enjoy this article, and it's rekindled my love for the book. I'll make small edits as I read, but items I'm not sure about (and which I'll leave to others to decide) will be posed here as questions. I'll try to structure comments according to where they appear in the article. I apologize in advance if I pick nits too minutely. It goes without saying that what follows is my opinion, and that others are free to disagree (even if they're wrong (grin)).

Structure

• The best body structure (in my opinion) for articles about books is generally:

• Background (when applicable)
• Writing of
• Summary
• Style
• Themes
• Criticism and/or Reception
• Legacy

Obviously there are variations; I think The Lord of the Rings can serve as a good model here. My recommendation for the structure here would be to change "Publication" to "Creation", with only two sub-headers: "Writing" and "Publication". "Reception" can be postponed into "Criticism/Reception"; "Manuscripts" and "Illustrations" can be merged into "Publication".

• "Plot and structure" should just be "Summary" or "Synopsis". Awadewit suggested (and I agree) that the info from the character list be merged into the article itself.

I do disagree; but you two so strongly recommend it that I will acquiesce. -- Rmrfstar 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Style" looks good. Let's leave it.

Gee, thanks! ;)

• "Inspiration and influences" can be merged into "Background" (which should be added as the first section). "Textual allusions" should be merged into the summary.
• I would merge the earthquake info into "Background". I would make "Evil" its own sub-head, not a sub-head of "Optimism". The other structure of "Themes" looks good.

The reason that Evil is such a problem is because it conflicts with Optmisism (largely). I think it's a subtopic.

• How about we make "Conclusion" into "Analysis" and include two subheads: "Conclusion" and "Inside/Outside"?
• We should make the "Adaptations" called just that, and make it more prose and less list-like. (Each version doesn't need its own subhead, with the possible exception of Bernstein.) – Scartol · Talk 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (Keep out of this, SineBot! grin)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall think more about these. -- Rmrfstar 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just implemented almost all of your recommendations. What do you think? -- Rmrfstar 15:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! However, even though the WP:MOS doesn't give a rule on this, the MLA stylebook says that "Logic requires that there be a II to complement a I, a B to complement an A, and so forth." So if a section has a subsection at all, it really needs two (except in very rare cases, like "Evil" in this article, I guess). The point here is that "Synopsis" should be one big section; it doesn't need a separate "Plot summary" subsection. (I made this change.) Also, I retitled the "Criticism/Reception" section and removed the first subsection. I hope this is not a grievous overstepping of my role. Now I'll go through and do some more close reading, and make comments here along the way. Thanks as always for your diligence and hard work on this. – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

• Do we need to say "French-language satire"? A quick glance at Category:French novels doesn't show any other instances of the original language. I think we can just say "satire".

Perhaps the reader does not know in what language Candide was written. I don't think this possibility is that hard to accept.

I see, but I made it "French satire" since the -language part is self-evident. – Scartol · Talk 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why is there a footnote after "by the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire"? Is it really necessary? We should keep the 'notes in the lead to a bare minimum.

I removed this.

• Candide (meaning "ingenuous") – let's wait to translate his name. It's not essential here.

I believe such an important factoid should be very easy to find. Of course, we could put it in the character list ;)...

Okay, but right now it reads: Candide (meaning "ingenuous"[5]) How about ("usually translated as "ingenious"[5])? – Scartol · Talk 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the name is never translated, so saying that would be misleading. -- Rmrfstar 02:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do published critics and historians refer to it as a "novella"? If we use that term in the lead, we should be sure to use it throughout the article.

Yes they do; but other terms are used to. I tried to mix it up a little.

• is thus the subject of much literary criticism, some of it quite esoteric Is this last bit necessary? What does it add?

I removed it.

• Its biting wit and insightful portrayal of the human condition make it especially memorable and influential. This is pretty darned subjective. It's better to give facts about who or what it has influenced.

That statement is well sourced, and I believe corroborated by a few others. Perhaps another citation would be better?

Well, the problem is that we appear to be saying that it's a fact that the wit is biting and the portrayal of the human condition is insightful. We should say something like "Praised by critics for its biting wit and insightful portrayal..." – Scartol · Talk 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say something different than "praised", namely that, as the listed source states, Candide is "memorable and influential" because of its wit etc. Thus the statement is not so subjective. -- Rmrfstar 02:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• It has often been mimicked in more modern literary works… "mimicked" is awkward. Has it been parodied? Or have modern writers imitated its style and/or content? Let's be specific. Also, it's best to use writers as the subject of this sentence, not their works. (eg: "…was parodied by (name of author) in his 1967 book (name of book)…")

I rewrote it without being much more specific. Such details as you suggested should be left out of the lede, in general. Does the new construction work better?

Yeah, that looks great. – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• "One such adaptation is Leonard Bernstein's operetta…" Insofar as there's a dismbig link at the top, I wonder if this is necessary. Maybe just include Bernstein in the previous descriptions.

De-linked.

• Voltaire pokes fun at religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers. This series is great until the last pair – each of the previous two have very different words in each pair. Change one of the final ones to match.

That's the point: The words are similar enough that they're almost redundant. This shows Voltaire's attack is the most focused here.

Okay. On re-read it works, I suppose. – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• He comprehensively, if not systematically, enumerates all the evils of the world… Not sure what this accomplishes. Does any novel enumerate anything systematically? That doesn't seem like the purpose of the novel to me. I'd lose the modifying phrase.

One of the more significant points of this article (and the literary analysis I have read) is that Candide is not a "systematic" critique. As Candide is a novel, one might expect this; but I think it should be emphasized.

I still don't fancy the wording, but it's not a huge deal to me. – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are the earthquake and the war mentioned explicitly in the book? If not, the last lead sentence should be revised.

The names are not given. The events are described with a lot of specificity, however. "Explicitly" is not correct; "discussed" is. That these events are discussed in the work is undisputed.

Works for me. – Scartol · Talk 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Background

• I changed It is thought by Ira Wade that… into Ira Wade speculates that… because the former is passive voice (the person doing the action is not the subject of the sentence), which should be used as rarely as possible. Also, it's a good idea to indicate who Ira Wade is/was. (A critic? Biographer? Which nationality?) – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see that this info is included in "Manuscripts". I guess we just need to move it up. – Scartol · Talk 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• However, the info listed above should be included for other people cited by name in the article (like Ervin Beck and Elizabeth Cooney Leister in "Synopsis"). – Scartol · Talk 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved up the appositive about Wade and included information on Beck and Leister. -- Rmrfstar 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• It might seem to contradict my comments above, but we don't need phrasing like "Thus are there thought to be significant parallels between Candide and Simplicius Simplicissimus" (which I changed), since it's a matter of fact that the parallels exist. (Above, "biting wit" is an opinion.) Not everyone agrees about the parallels, perhaps (which is why we need a citation), but the rule of thumb is that the more fact-like the assertion, the less of a need we have for "it is thought" etc. Notice that the following sentence, "But Candide's closest literary relative is widely thought to be Gulliver's Travels…" does benefit from the "is thought to be" construction, since it's a matter of how widely the belief is spread. (And the superlative "most" makes it more of an opinion.) Sorry if I'm either overexplaining or making no sense. – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I think it's OK now.

• Another probable source for Candide is Cosmopolite... I'm not sure "source" is the right word here. Maybe "antecedent" or "inspiration"? – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I made it "a source of inspiration".

• The 1757 execution of British admiral John Byng is alluded to in Candide. Can we get a chapter number? Also, one sentence reads: "According to Martin..." Have we met Martin before? If not, we should have a full name, nationality, and occupation. – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See below.

• This explanation has since become proverbial. Not sure what this means. Was it the first appearance of the phrase "to encourage the others"? Let's clarify. – Scartol · Talk 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See below.

• The "Textual allusions" section should be in paragraph form, not a list. Are these the only ones? Seems like there are sure to be others. (Maybe the info here could be worked into the text of the synopsis section?) – Scartol · Talk 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out this section. Each allusion requires too much explanation to be worth the space it takes up. -- Rmrfstar 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

• This theme becomes strongest after Candide leaves El Dorado and seeks out his love directly (having found her alive). Earlier, Candide wanders rather aimlessly. These sentences are a bit confusing. Maybe something like: "After wandering aimlessly, Candide discovers that his love is alive; the theme of adventure increases as he sets out to find her." (I didn't want to change it in case I'm not representing the concept correctly.)

I substituted your version: it suffices. -- Rmrfstar 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• The paragraph which begins "The characters of Candide have been described as…" should be removed, and the ideas in it incorporated into the synopsis itself. (When you get to a mechanized character, you might say: "[name] is an example of a mechanized character etc etc.")

I moved this statement to the section on the Picaresque style. The rest I removed. -- Rmrfstar 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Cunégonde may be associated symbolically with Eve. Explain a bit about Cunégonde's symbolic connection to Eve.

I inserted a link to the gardens section which describes the matter in a bit more detail. If more needs to be added, this is the place anyway. -- Rmrfstar 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are some <!--describe more--> tags in the text; I didn't add these, but they are good spots for more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added them and will supplant them with the desired detail at a later time. -- Rmrfstar 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Style and Themes and Criticism and Legacy

• …combining his sharp wit with a fun parody of the classic adventure-romance plot. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's necessary to make clear that these assessments ("sharp wit" and "fun parody") are the opinion of critics and/or reviewers, not WP:OR. – Scartol · Talk 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to do this. -- Rmrfstar 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pangloss's reasoning is silly at best. This should be attributed to a critic or reviewer.

I'll find a source? -- Rmrfstar 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of the primary debates concerns the degree to which Voltaire was advocating… It's better to say: "Some critics claim that Voltaire was advocating…" etc etc. Rather than giving an overview of the range of discussion, just tell us what the claims are.

I disagree. I think it should be emphasized that this is a point of debate, and not just a disagreement (in the abstract, impersonal sense).

• Some of the author links are to disambig pages. Let's get more specific. – Scartol · Talk 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In "Legacy"? I fixed these. -- Rmrfstar 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

• It's a good idea to have one list of books used in the article (Bibliography is standard) and another for Further reading. See Night (book).

I used to have this; however, there was the great problem for me of choosing which works to include in the Further Reading section. So I sidestepped the matter by simply listing all the books I used as sources directly or indirectly, and I left it at that. -- Rmrfstar 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

It will be easier (and more productive) for me to comment on each section after the above structural elements are moved around. So if you're willing, please go ahead and make those changes (or tell me why you disagree and explain what to do instead) and we'll take it from there.

• There are a lot of red links in this article. WP:MOS-L suggests that an article has a problem if "There are links to articles that are not likely to exist or if they did would have little significance in the context of the article". I take this to say that we should avoid linking to articles if they won't exist any time soon. (Or if you don't plan to make them yourself -- especially if you plan to FAC it up.) – Scartol · Talk 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed all red links in the article which I don't think fulfil either of the above criteria. I don't plan on creating article for all of the red links; but that should not stop this article from passing FAC. -- Rmrfstar 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone involved. More to come. I hope this is useful. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Good luck with this project! – Scartol · Talk 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I am so sorry to have to fail this article again, especially after so much work has obviously gone into it. However, there are just too many things that still need explaining and too much copy editing that needs to be done for me to pass it at this time. I would say that those are the two biggest issues with the article at present:

• 1) Too much of the article leaves the reader guessing and doesn't explain its claims (examples below);
• 2) There is a lot of redundancy in the writing, some poor diction, and some awkward syntax. I would suggest that the editors call in a fresh copy editor - someone unfamiliar with the prose. It helps to have fresh eyes.

However, I also feel that there is a third, more minor issue:

• 3) The "Themes" section gets short shrift. If "evil" is the focus of the work, as the article contends, there should be more discussion of it - perhaps even a few quotes from the work to illustrate Voltaire's style.

Examples where explanation is required:

• The lead is full of WP:PEACOCK terms rather than content. It would be difficult for a reader unfamiliar with the book to get a grasp of what it was about and what its importance in the literary tradition is from this summary.

I tried my best to fix this, and I think I succeeded.

• Ira Wade, a noted expert on Voltaire and Candide, speculates that Voltaire's primary source for information on the earthquake was the 1755 work Relation historique du tremlement de terre survenu à Lisbonne le premier novembre by Ange Goudar, which not only described the event but conjectured as to its philosophical meaning. - What was that philosophical meaning? You need to explain for the reader.

This information is irrelevant, as it pertains to Goudar's work more than Candide. Also, I'm taking out, "which not only... philosophical meaning", because, looking at more analysis of this work, I see it's not all that relevant.

• But Candide's closest literary relative is widely thought to be Gulliver's Travels, which probably served at least in part as a model for Voltaire (especially concerning the use of satire). - Explain what Gulliver's Travels is and exactly how it influenced Voltaire.

Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Candide's parody of the bildungsroman is most likely is based on François Fénelon's The Adventures of Telemachus.[10] Another probable source of inspiration for Candide is Cosmopolite (1753) by Fougeret de Monbron. - Explain!

I think the first statement is explained sufficiently. I added a sentence explaining the second, with a source. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "Lisbon earthquake" section needs to explain the earthquake, Optimism, and Voltaire's attack on it.

I wrote this.

• This edition came to be called l'édition encadrée because the text was set within a frame. - A frame about what? Explain further.

I think this was actually a mistake (of mine?). Encadrée means "supervised" in French as well as "framed".

• The book does not invent or exaggerate evils of the world - This is confusing as just before, the article says that the book as a fast-paced and impossible plot.

It should say "improbable". I fixed this and the rest of the paragraph to be consistent.

• Gardens are thought by many critics to play a critical symbolic role in Candide. - Would this section go better under "Style", then, since it is a symbol?

Done.

• The "Conclusion" section feels repetitive.

I have tried to fix this. I may do more, though, in copyediting.

• The "Legacy" section is vague - explain how it affected these other artists, etc.

Will do.

I believe I have removed the offending sections, as I can find no references with which to explain their claims.

I have full confidence that the editors can address these issues and resubmit the article. Feel free to contact me regarding this review on my talk page if you have any questions. Awadewit | talk 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my tardiness in responding, I have been busy in the real world. Anyway, I do disagree with your decision not to pass Candide; but I can't simply dismiss all of your concerns, so I shall try to address them as well as I can before seeking further review. -- Rmrfstar 14:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I continue to be too busy to address these concerns soon. It'll be a couple of weeks before I can... but I will eventually! -- Rmrfstar 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have finally addressed some of the issues you mentioned. I'll fix the rest ASAP. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUBTITLES

I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate comments from editors of Candide because the title is not in English. You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superluser_tc 2007 December 23, 08:32 (UTC)

I have commented. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)