Talk:St. Bartholomew's Day massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

1994 film of La Reine Margot

Someone keeps reverting the description of the 1994 film of La Reine Margot as "bawdy". Have you seen it? Heck, they even cast Asia Argento in this thing. It's basically a lowbrow romp, full or erotic energy, almost bordering on soft porn. (By the way, the men all have kinda grunger hairstyles, the fashion of the moment it was made, having nothing to do with the era in which it was set.) The massacre itself is shocking, but this is another example of introducing a lowbrow approach into costume drama. - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the description as bawdy was pushing it a bit, myself. Yes, there was a fair amount of nudity in the film, but that's hardly uncommon in French, or any continental film. It's only really prudish America that steers so clear of it. It is more of a period romance set in a very specific context than anything though. Perhaps a description along these lines would be more appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) 20 April 2006.

Fine, just so long as we are clear that it was in strong contrast to the traditions of costume drama in this respect; pretty much all of the critics at the time remarked upon that. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The image of a gorgeous young French actress revealing her assets on the pretext of the demands of a French king in an historical 'costume drama' is an unforgettable and almost unparalleled moment in the history of the moving image. Oh sorry, I'm getting mixed up with Les Rois Maudits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.225 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

As I recall, the film showed Marguerite and her maid picking up random men on the street and engaging in public fornication. I don't think that scene was even in the Dumas novel on which the movie was based. And yes, I would characterize it as bawdy. Margot had herself painted nude as Venus, but she was cultured and knew Greek. She and her lover were models for the romantic nineteenth century Mathilde in Stendhal's Le Rouge et le Noir.173.52.245.208 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Kill them all"

I've removed: "According to an unsubstantiated tradition, he angrily exclaimed: "Well then, so be it! Kill them! But kill them all! Don't leave a single one alive to reproach me!"" - which I'd been trying to source; it appears in every "traditional" account, but no modern specialist one & I've finally worked out why. It comes from the "Discours du Henri III" (ie Anjou), supposedly a "confession" made to his doctor in Poland (see Catholic Encyclopedia), which has been recognised as a fake since 1877 see note 18. Needless to say, it still appears in a host of less high-quality modern sources. Pity, as the Anjou account is a cracking read. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, because se non è vero, è ben trovato and ought to be part of everyone's "culture générale"! Couldn' t it be snuck back in as an acknowledged urban legend?173.52.245.208 (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Christian terrorism"

None of the references given for this category use the phrase "Christian terrorism". Remember, Remember doesn't refer to the SBDM as "terrorism, nor does "The Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence" (whatever that is). Not one discusses the application of the concept "terrorism" to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre in any kind of detail. This is undue weight and original research (synthesis). I see no evidence that specialists in Reformation or 16th-century French history employ the term "terrorism" which is generally regarded as an anachronism for anything before the French Revolution. --Folantin (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- completely agree. In addition, it's anachronistic to apply a contemporary term to the religious persecutions carried out during the Wars of Religion. This massacre was neither an incidence of "Christian terrorism" nor a "terrorist attack", and we cannot put it in such categories unless scholarly consensus is to do so. Even if one scholar were to have used the term, that still is not consensus; you need a much broader base of scholarly opinion to establish membership in the category. Applying the term "terrorism" to pre-modern events is misleading at best. Antandrus (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I edited the text originally added to one line "A number of writers see the massacre as an example of Christian terrorism.[77][78][79][80][81]" but I don't feel strongly about that staying. I also note Johnbod's Law. It has popped up at Spanish Inquisition too. Last time I looked everything else in the category was modern. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, "Johnbod's Law", I like it. You'll struggle to find a worse example than this one [1] with its 16 references in the first line. Since none of the references given refer to the "Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre" as "Christian terrorism" I'm going to remove that sentence. It seems like the term has more to do with contemporary US political debates than anything else. --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Petergof is spectacular - I note the rest of the article has no inline refs at all! Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gregory XIII’s Second Thoughts?

Someone has removed the sentence placed on this page concerning Maurevert’s visit to Rome in November of 1572, and Gregory XIII’s displeasure at his being brought to the Vatican, tagging it as dubious. I am surprised by this. The author cited, Henri Daniel-Rops, was certainly a reputable historian--one of the “immortals” of the French Academy, actually! The story in question is also accepted as fact by a number of other major French historians, including Philippe Erlanger ([1962], p. 119, n. 2), while most recently, Arlette Jouanna ([2007], p. 203) writes concerning Gregory XIII and the papal curia after September 1572 “[t]his joy [i.e. over the killing of Huguenot leaders and the breaking up of the supposed plot] was tempered little by little with disquiet, in the measure that the atrocities committed became better known,” although she does not mention the particular incident. I have not yet found one argument by a major historian against its authenticity, although I have only been able to consult a few short articles by Robert Kingdon dealing the Gregory XIII and massacre, and not his monograph.

The ultimate source for the story seems to be a document in the French National Library. It is a diplomatic report on an interview of the French ambassador with Emperor Maximilian II within several months of the event, in which the emperor brings up information he has received about the said visit. So far as I have been able to figure out the document is unpublished, but its contents are described De la Ferrière’s edition of the Letters of Catherine de Medici, Vol. 4, cxvi. Also, Ludwig von Pastor cites a published memoir of a sometime Spanish papal courtier that he found Gregory XIII in tears over the reports about the massacre. When he tried to cheer him up by insisting that the news was very positive Gregory XIII didn’t disagree, but said he was weeping over the sin of Charles IX.

To my mind, none of this contradicts the “official” public joy of the papacy over the events of St. Bartholomew. After all, it did seem to save France from a Protestant coup. As we now know the supposed coup was a figment, but that was not at all certain at the time, as many historians have pointed out. Plus, it seemed to bring the prospect for a French policy more closely aligned with the papacy and Spain against the Turks, etc., etc. It also seems to be character for Gregory, since according to biographers he was given both to passionate outbursts, but also vacillations in his opinions.

If no one dissuades me in the next few months I intend to restore the original wording in the reactions section, revising a bit to make it more precise. It is short, does not unbalance the entry, and helps the reader see the complexity of the whole sad incident as an event of European-wide importance. It does occur to me that it might fit even better on the Gregory XIII page. I will wait a couple months before doing anything, so that others may respond and advise.

--Paul Pamphnutius 99.130.31.205 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This must have been quite a while ago - I don't remember anything on this in the article. If it is adequately referenced, but all means re-add it. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I have done so, as I proposed! --Paul Pamphnutius 99.130.67.202 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

Comments like "Please read WP:NPOV" are not really helpful amongst experienced editors. If you're having difficulty seeing why the quote as offered is inappropriate, please ask and I will elaborate. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From your edit summaries I had no idea you were an "experienced editor"; nonetheless I suggest you reread the policy. Obviously I can't see why you think it is inappropriate, so please explain on the article talk page as I suggested. I hope you have also read the article beyond the lead; that might help. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess someone who has difficulty not editting as an IP might not recognize "experience". But.... abandoning petty snipes for a few seconds, the issue is that this material shouldn't be offered as a direct quote. Additionally the "Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion" is surely unecessarily contentious language. How about to this rephrase.

“ Though by no means unique, it "was the worst of the century's religious massacres." (1) Throughout Europe, it "printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion".(2) ”

to

“ Though the event was not unique, it has been considered one the century's worst religious massacres, (1) and resulted in increased tensions between Protestants and Catholics throughout Europe.(2) ”

Two quick additional points,

1) If you want to move this to the talk page feel free, but I think we are the Most Interested People.

2) If you don't like my suggested rewrite, please offer another that eliminates the contentious language.

Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need for this weaselly and unreferenced rewrite. Chadwick's POV is if anything pro-Catholic, and his statement is not I think controversial. The massacre was a highly "contentious" issue & it is wrong to pretend it was not. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. The quotations are from experts on the subject. Plus "it has been considered one the century's worst religious massacres" misrepresents the quoted source which says it was the worst of the century's religious massacres, not one of the worst. "Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion" is not presented as objective fact but as the general opinion of Protestants in response to the massacre. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Look.... guys. I hate to point out the painfully obvious here, but using language like "Catholicism is a bloody and treacherous religion" clearly represents contentious language that is going to raise neutrality concerns. Additionally, directly quoting a source in the lede in this manner is highly unusual, unecessary, and unencyclopedic.

@Johnbod re "wrong to pretend it was not" - How is my suggested rewrite pretending the massacre was not contentious?

@Folantin re "misrepresents the quoted source " - Ummm... How? Look, we all know that "the worst" is going be a subjective label. It would be wrong to explicity state that "it was the worst", so the best and most accurate language we can use is "it has been considered the worst". NickCT (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we have simply quoted the opinion of experts in quotation marks. The rewrites are your opinion. --Folantin (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or unusual about using quotes in the lead; it is in fact especially useful for statements that might otherwise be challenged. For example the lead of the recently promoted FA Royal Gold Cup has three quotes in the lead. Can you point to any references that would contradict Chadwick's statement? As I said above, I don't in fact think it is at all controversial. The Catholic Black Legend is a fact of which Catholics are probably more aware than anyone else. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's compromise. Retain the quotes but attribute them (i.e. according to such-and-such). Putting them in as an extension of the text already in the lede seems v. strange. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Western Watchman

What is Western Watchman? Without context, the quotation in the lead sits a bit awkwardly. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Western Watchman is a Catholic newspaper, as far as I can see.

Number of deaths disputed

The number of deaths is not so high (70.000). A number more realistic is 20.000 . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.37.220.75 (talk • contribs) 6 May 2006.

Where are we digging up this outdated argument that states Catherine de Medici, contrary to every policy she had supported up to this point, suddenly became a Walshingham. Someone messed with her plans by trying to kill Navarre and the surgical killings of the next night were attempts at saving the court from the inevitable fallout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.123.57 (talk • contribs) 9 June 2006.

Hugenot army and war plan?

The odd mention of an armed force of 4,000 Hugenots mustered under Téligny piqued my curiosity. A little research reveals an apparently well-documented statement that Coligny had raised a Hugenot army in July-August 1572 (numbers above 10,000 are quoted), a large part of which he had encamped outside Paris, and which he was going to lead against the Netherlands on 25th August.

If true, this places the events in a distinctly different context. The information seems to have been assembled by Nicola Mary Sutherland The Massacre of St. Bartholomew and the European conflict, 1559-1572, though it's only on Snippet View on Google Books. [2]

That Coligny was doing any of this is implicitly contradicted by Holt French Wars of Religion, p. 81, a more recent source, [3] though he proceeds to introduce Coligny's army with no explanation on page 84. AJN (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Infobox civilian attack"

i'm amazed this hasn't come up before, but someone tried to add it. It seems to me altogether too crude to summarize the article adequately, given the complexities we all know, so I removed it. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)