Talk:Bal des débutantes

Untitled comment

I am writting to complain about this article and content. It violates 2 major issues. First, It is not neutral. A simple search on the internet reveals this event has a very sordid history, it is a commercial venture. The organizers and events have solely presented their version, which has been dutifully echoed by the media they have been distributing for years. (IE they are citing their own press releases- distributed through Agence Presse France). Clearly this article has been made by a pro who created a good article that is 100% self-promotion. The second major violation is lack of verification. I have tried to pursue sources that supposedly cited facts... but over issues I knew to be untrue and in fact there is no existing records to verify beyond their own press releases (IE Hotel was for sale in 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010 etc. But that is not why event did not happen 2010. According to internet press, the Le Bal organizers where simply not hired that year. Other major infractions include citations of web blogs which have been previously criticized on wikipedia as essentially original research.

Incidentally, the same organizers have previously been removed from the wikipedia Crillon Hotel information page for due to violations of self promotion. Self-promotion is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

I suggest taking page down until a solution can be made to correctly deal with it. 188.116.36.89 (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up to comments made the other day. Due to the innapropriate violations I am considering deleting the current article and letting a supervisor adjudicate.

Follow up to comments made the other day. Due to the innapropriate violations I am considering deleting the current article and letting a supervisor adjudicate.

On review, in addition to the comments made on the other discussion... the attack on the character of Paris Hilton is offensive and inappropriate. Furthermore, the article cited is a perfect example of how false articles were used to make the piece look like it has citations when it does not. Paris Hilton is not mentioned in the original article. I do not have time to comb through the whole false piece... but there are many such examples. Article needs serious editing in order to be acceptable for public use on Wikipedia.

188.116.36.30 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I cant believe how wikipedia allows this blatent commercial promotion (not a neutral publication... and after all these years

I cant believe how wikipedia allows this blatent commercial promotion (not a neutral publication... and after all these years. The gimic is simple. The project is headed by a PR company and person (Ophelie Renouard - ORComunications who specifically admits on her other sites that she promotes people and improves their social standing. She enlists an assortment of media contacts... she distributes her own press releases, which are snapped up by media, and then of course these same articles can be used as the source material for the wikipedia entry. Its a violation that is allowed... because the wikipedia persons who approve it happen to be in the same media network. Total bias at the expense of an innocent public. Really innappropriate copmmercial promotion that misleads the public because the hard hitting connections to negative media are removed. (IE the events connection to organized crime (Stanley Ho) has been totally covered up. Along time ago, the connection was cited with specific publications... and pertenant since the event itself hopes to present itself as a charitiable event for women and children... while the guest lists connected it with sweat shop ownership in southeast asia(also previously cited articles... removed because they either dont feel good or because the editors themselves has bias. This is NOT a neutral subject. It is a specificly misleading one. 101.109.158.38 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with you. This article looks like a press release. No sources supporting most of the claims in this article.--Renoiretmoi (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• If there is negative press on le Bal that can of course be cited and included in the wiki article too. I notice that a user has just deleted a lot of good and referenced information as "irrelevant", even information about when it occurs, etc. I'm going to revert the changes. I hope that the editors who are against le Bal can edit in a responsible way that adds information — in the end we all want the article to be neutral. --Dbarthelme (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dbarthelme, it looks like you are either working for Ophelie Renouard or you are Ophelie Renouard herself, judging on your edits, as you seem to always paste pre-prepared text as if it were a press release. Please discuss your edits here before you edit this article. If you do not do this, you risk being blocked from Wikipedia.--Renoiretmoi (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have been doing my edits into a text doc before putting them in, as I don't want to make mistakes. And yes, I admit to being a fan of le Bal. I likewise suspect you might be an enemy of le Bal, as you keep deleting good information without explanation, like that le Bal takes place every year on Thanksgiving. But life is too short and we can both assume good faith on the part of the other, no? I'm totally willing to accept changes in tone that make the article more neutral. Can we not delete good, useful facts however? I think you might be a fan of the ball in New York, so maybe we can find more neutral ways to compare those two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 08:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry forgot to sign the preceding!Dbarthelme (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Personal attacks such as "you are an enemy of the ball" are forbidden on Wikipedia. It is a shame that you have started a discussion in that tone. The edits that seem to have been removed are due to the PR tone/puffery and nature of the sentences or because the information is just unnecessary and are thus irrelevant to Wikipedia articles, regardless of the sources.--Renoiretmoi (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
        • One of many examples of information that should still be removed due to the promotional nature (and without sources): The American blogger Jane Aldridge, who founded Sea of Shoes, was already well known when she took part in le Bal in 2009 in Chanel Haute Couture. Her blog continues to grow. This is blatant promotion and clearly a peacock statement.--Renoiretmoi (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • I agree that "her blog continues to grow" is unsupported and also unnecessary, you're right. How about if we keep the line about her attendance, however, which is an interesting example of someone attending for her own merits not because of who she is the daughter of. Also, do you agree to put back that it's on Thanksgiving weekend. And finally, you have my apologies for thinking that you might have something against le Bal if you don't! I don't mind either way, and certainly didn't mean to cause offense. It's good to have all viewpoints.Dbarthelme (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
            • The section The Event also risks being deleted as it is written as a press release/event program, regardless of the sources. Mentioning that it takes place on "Thanksgiving weekend" is irrelevant in my opinion for the article as the ball takes place in France and it is just extra information, etc, so I would leave this information out of the article. Do not add this without the consensus of this talk page. Just mentioning November should be sufficient.--Renoiretmoi (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Le Bal is in France, but is always scheduled for the American holiday, whenever that occurs. Again, it seems relevant to include when the event happens each year. Perhaps you can help rewrite the Event section more to your taste, if you feel it is not in Wikipedia style, instead of deleting it. Please do not delete information without the consensus of the talk page.Dbarthelme (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
                • You seem very persistent to add irrelevant information to this article of which there is no consensus. As I have already said that the "thanksgiving" information is irrelevant, it should not be added as there is no consensus on this. However, information can still be deleted if it has a PR/non-neutral tone, regardless of consensus - it can be discussed here, but other editors can still remove it due to not fulfilling Wikipedia criteria of neutrality. Especially the information without sources and blatant publicity--Renoiretmoi (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • You have never said why you feel that this is irrelevant. That the event is planned around the American Thanksgiving holiday every year (in order to fit the schedule of Americans who attend) strikes me as important, as it explains WHEN the event occurs; this is one of the 5 Ws, a very basic piece of information. Likewise for the deletion of information about the debutantes and cavaliers; do we not want to know WHO the ball is held for and who has attended? If you don't like how something informational is written, you should help improve it, not keep deleting it. I hope that other people will chime in on this, as convincing you seems a tall bar to clear.

If you're offended about Thanksgiving (which occurs on different dates each year), we can explain that it occurs on the Saturday after the fourth Thursday of the month, which happens to coincide with an unmentionable American holiday, but that seems silly, no?Dbarthelme (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced information?

The user dailybeasts removed several sections yesterday due to "unsourced information"; I had carefully provided references for this information... so that seems a bit odd. The content about the media coverage and what debutantes do after le Bal was found in magazines and newspapers. At the same time I really do want to thank him/her for some of the other edits, which were quite good. The tone on this talk page has been a bit sour but I really do appreciate what people are doing to make the article better. Checking out these sources took time and I hope you'll understand I don't like to see it wasted. Dbarthelme (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [What section?????]

A tag was added in July 2015 indicating that someone thinks this article is not neutral. A few points in this respect have been addressed by myself and others to make the article more neutral, both before and after the tag.

It's not clear what section the tag is referring to and whoever added it hasn't added a section into the talk page for it, as I'm doing now. I don't see anything particularly of one POV or another on this page at this time, so I'm going to remove it... if someone does feel that there is a neutrality problem please identify the section and what lines of text are objectionable and why, as per policy.

--Dbarthelme (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• You can not remove these tags in this article without consensus. No consensus has been agreed. Do not take this matter into your own hands.--Dailybeasts (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC) strike sock comments--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Dailybeasts, welcome back! As I mentioned above, you cannot add tags without explaining in the talk page what sections you are objecting to, and why. I thought we had dealt with these. Please explain what your objections are specifically so that we can attempt to reach a consensus and resolve them. I'm not sure which section, which phrases, and how you could forsee fixing them. You seem like a reasonable person and I'm sure we can come to a consensus.--Dbarthelme (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Also if you could propose another way to state when this annual event takes place, that would be helpful, since you really don't like Thanksgiving, I know! ;) Thanks... --Dbarthelme (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • For lack of response I've gone ahead and removed the unexplained tags. Of course I remain open to discussing these and contributing to further revisions if we can identify any specific NPOV problems. Dbarthelme (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

*****It is a very strict rule to never ever remove tags without consensus. Those tags must remain as your neutrality is disputed. Further to another comment, this ball has been called the "Crillon Ball" in numerous sources. Just simply Google it. Your tone does not contain good faith either with comments such as "since you really don't like Thanksgiving, I know! ;) " - you seem to be making the editing of this article too personal and therefore you are not objective. Thanksgiving is not relevant to a ball in Paris. Simply mentioning the month of the ball is sufficient. As you seem to be a major contributor, and have solely contributed to this article since you joined Wikipedia, I fear that you are closer related to the subject of this article than you claiming. Therefore, the tags should remain and I do not agree to a consensus on this particular matter. I would appreciate a more professional and mature approach in your comments and not simply giving personal accusations and sarcastic "smileys" to other editors--Dailybeasts (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)strike sock comments--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • Again, can you please document exactly what sections/phrases you are objecting to for NPOV etc? I'm OK with being vague about when the event occurs and just saying November.Dbarthelme (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Dailybeasts, it's difficult to come to a consensus with you if I don't know what you're objecting to in terms of "Advertising" and "NPOV". I do see that there were complaints on the talk page about earlier, very different versions of the article, which have long since been addressed. For reference, here's the policy: The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid over-tagging, using multiple redundant templates (e.g. and ) for the same problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute I'm completely OK with leaving the tag on the page while we resolve your issues, but I need to know what we're trying to resolve specifically. Also please recall that tags are to be a "temporary measure". I'm sure we can come to a solution. Dbarthelme (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• BTW, I just reread your comment and realized that I should address it. You said "your neutrality is disputed". Well, yes. I'm openly a fan of le Bal, and there is no rule that editors have to be neutral, we have opinions, all of us. The article, however, MUST be neutral, and I want it to be so. Let's see what we can do to make the article more neutral; if you feel that it's missing information or misrepresenting something?

You can't tag an article because you don't think an editor is neutral; you must be objecting to something IN the article. I'm sure there was something that you read in there that made you feel that way though, so please do share and help improve.Dbarthelme (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I just checked and that's a fair point that some — mostly older — articles do refer to it as the Crillon Ball, and that seems to have been true when the Crillon was consistently the only sponsor. It's not true now on, at least on le Bal's site: http://www.lebal.fr/en/presentation/ I'd suggest a formulation like "formerly sometimes known as the Crillon Ball", what do you think?Dbarthelme (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

***Dbarthelme, it is difficult to repeatedly explain the issues of this article with you as you do not seem to understand the whole picture. Simply reading into the basic rules of Wikipedia does not mean that you can decide how this article should be "run". It is all about consensus and the neutrality and tone (advertisement) is the issue that lacks a consensus at this moment. As I already indicated with you before, the main issue is the tone of the entire article. The entire article just does not seem right for this encyclopedia. It also leaves an impression as an advertisement, e.g. the entire section of The Event that seems to be written like a program/agenda of the ball with details given about exact days (how would you know what is organised on which particular day if you are not closely related to the ball as these days could change each year?). Other statements such as "Journalists do not, however, focus on the cavaliers; the débutantes are the stars of the show. For example, in 1996 Prince Louis de Bourbon accompanied the Italian Deb Robinia Mentasti-Granelli and was only recognized by Stéphane Bern" and "coverage often emphasizes the cachet of the event and its elegance" do not help your cause - this does not sound neutral at all, regardless of the (lack of) "references" mentioned. Another example is the "film" and the "French detective novel" about the ball that have been mentioned. There is no concrete proof that the film and novel are about this specific ball (the reference given does not support the claim). I fear that there might be a promotional reasoning in mentioning this information. Furthermore, going into details about the publicist of the ball Ophelie Renouard is unnecessary too in the final section in my opinion. The main focus should be the ball and the publicist/organizer of the ball should just briefly be mentioned. Tagging is not an issue in this article and it has been correctly used in this article. As a matter of fact, there are still many places where there should be more tags added as there are some very irrelevant statements in this article that are not supported by references (e.g. mentioning a whole history section and then jumping to mentioning novels such as "Anna Karenina" and "The Great Gatsby"...). When I have more time to waste, I will come back and discuss these issues with you - so you must be patient and give editors a chance to review this article. Be aware that tags can remain for years in articles. View articles on Wikipedia with tags and you will see that some tags have remained in articles for several years. Last but not least, your neutrality is another issue, but it does give me more reason to dispute the neutrality of this article as you have solely contributed to this article, removed tags without coming to a consensus and have given very personal accusations on this talk page. You are repeatedly claiming to be a "fan" of the ball but you seem to know an awful lot of details that only a publicist/organizer/worker of the ball would know and want to publish. As there is still no consensus, the tags about e.g. neutrality must remain for now. However, I am interested in knowing what your specific aims are for this article and why you insist on arguing about the tags and certain types of information (such as your previous interest in persistently mentioning "Thanksgiving" for this French ball). Could you please clarify your aims for this article and what you hope to achieve? Your explanation might help me understand your particular reasoning as a "fan/expert" of the ball. But as I have already said before, be patient as I do not dedicate all my time to this article. You seem to expect editors to have immediate resolutions to your particular demands.--Dailybeasts (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • • I do appreciate some of your suggestions that you are giving now by the way. However, the sentence "formerly sometimes known as the Crillon Ball" is not proper English, so I would not change it to that. The article mentions that the "Crillon Ball" is one of the names given to the ball, so I would keep the sentence how it is right now as many, many, references refer to the ball as the "Crillon Ball", regardless of what the ball website might be calling itself. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website that solely mentions the "latest" details about the ball--Dailybeasts (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)strike sock comments--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Hi, Dailybeasts, thanks for your articulate comments and for all the detail. I feel like we're already having a more productive conversation. I definitely can see a couple of your points.

I'm not interested in getting into the questions about my personal experiences with le Bal, and it's expressly not necessary from a Wikipedia standpoint. I do get that you just want to know where I'm coming from. Sorry. If you'd like to share your experience/why you're interested in this article I'd be happy to hear though. I will say that my aim is to have this be a much more complete and informative article about le Bal than what has been up here previously. If we could get more editors involved I also think that would be a great thing. How do we go about doing that? Regarding Renouard: I'm not sure why you call her the publicist. She is constantly referred to in the press articles as the creator and organizer. Is there something else I should know about that? She certainly seems to be a key, if not principal figure for this event. If you feel that the entire article has a "tone" problem it's great that you're pointing to specifics. Coverage often emphasizes le Bal's cachet and elegance: I agree, this implies that elegance and cachet are an objective fact. I'll change this. I've deleted the line about the movie, I heard about that but can't find references for it. The novel is very real however and clearly about le Bal. Giving a bit about the status and history of debutantes in literature and history strikes me as quite relevant, but perhaps other editors could weigh in on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Forgot to sign, sorry!Dbarthelme (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Response to the cavaliers section: I've changed the sentences that you were objecting to. I'm guessing you'll find the tone much more neutral but let me know what you think. Those were fair comments. Please also let me know if there are any other specific issues in the article that you feel are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the the tags that have been added, does this article read like an advertisement and is there a failure of neutrality here? If so, what can be done to fix it? Both editors working on this don't quite agree (and in my opinion we need to see more specifics and work to resolve this, rather than just leave it NPOV tagged), and both of us would like outside opinions. Thanks! Dbarthelme (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I've promptly read over the article and I think it is unquestionably unencyclopaedic. It's not just a matter of how it is written, but also what sort of information is discussed and how it is broached. I think the only way to fix this at this point would be writing an entire new article. 01:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing, but perhaps you could say something specific about why you feel this way and what/how you would cover it.Dbarthelme (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I could understand a complaint that this article has tone issues. The sheer number of fashion brands and media organizations mentioned makes it feel quite commercial. However, I would suggest that these references are fairly material to describing what this event IS: a high-society, high-fashion event which (apparently) garners significant attention around the world. I was entirely unfamiliar with the article's subject, but was brought here by the RfC bot, and I think the neutrality complaints are overblown, if not altogether unnecessary.--MichaelProcton (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment As a copy editor who happened across this article, I'm going to go ahead and rewrite what I think could be improved, focusing on the tagged issue of excessive intricate detail. (In the process, I'm also going to remove some of those issue tags, as they are excessive and many are redundant.) Feel free to take these edits as suggestions, if I remove anything that is necessary to the understanding of the event please re-add it, but consider its level of significance to the overall topic, and remember that many specific details that are covered on other pages don't need to be described in detail here. —2macia22 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

I'm not sure why some of the sources are tagged as "unreliable" — would just like to know why. Folha de São Paulo in particular is a major newspaper of record. The other recent tagging of unsourced statements makes more sense, and those need to have sources cited. --Dbarthelme (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources --Dbarthelme (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Crillon Ball

I have to say I'm able to find even some recent press and blog references to "Crillon Ball", while that's clearly not what le Bal calls itself on its own website and releases. Is there another formulation we could use for the opening sentence to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that they have trademarked this as Le Bal des Débutantes. My assumption is Crillon can't be used any more since it hasn't always been at the Crillon. --Dbarthelme (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose trimming "see also" section

I made this edit to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It included removing some links from the "see also" section. Dailybeasts reverted part of it in this edit, with the edit summary "Added the other links again - I do not see why relevant links must be removed."

Guideline WP:NOTSEEALSO states 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body' (emphasis in the original). The links under discussion are already linked in the body of the article:

1. International Debutante Ball in the second paragraph of History
2. Nepotism in the second paragraph of Debs (as "famous parents")
3. Paris in the second sentence of the lead

I see no reason to break with general practice and duplicate in the "see also" section these three specific links. Cherry picking these three links for prominent duplication gives these aspects of the subject undue weight. Your input is welcome. -- Worldbruce (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the deletion of these links, and well-put. The "nepotism" one reads like more of a sneaky effort to editorialize anyhow... Thanks for your edits! --Dbarthelme (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

*I only added other topics to make the article look more objective and more general in my opinion. Worldbruce, quite frankly, I am getting tired of the personal attacks by Dbarthelme. I question her own personal "sneaky" attacks and conclude that it is highly likely that Dbarthelme is "editorializing" the article by adding promotional statements such as The American blogger Jane Aldridge, who founded Sea of Shoes, was already well known when she took part in le Bal in 2009 in Chanel Haute Couture. Her blog continues to grow. (see Debarthelme's previous edits). I had to remove a lot of these kinds of statements added by Dbarthelme before you started editing this article. I have wanted to discuss a lot of issues, but Dbarthelme just seems to revert my edits most of the time.--Dailybeasts (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)strike sock comments--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC) **Worldbruce, I truly hope all of these disagreements with Dbarthelme can be settled peacefully.--Dailybeasts (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)strike sock comments--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I honestly didn't know who had added those sections; they've been there for a long time! No offense meant! The "nepotism" link was actually kind of funny but does seem inappropriate ultimately for an encyclopedia. And yes, as we previously agreed, the line about the blogger was absolutely not good; I think I had just borrowed that from the French version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on all comments, I'm trimming the "see also" section as proposed, and axing France too. I'm adding it to the lead with a link in case any reader thinks the event takes place in Paris, Texas. I will continue working on the references as time permits, and will work up from those foundations. It may be months before I get to some of the issues raised. I'm not ignoring them, but editors with different methods may deal with them first. Worldbruce (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions after partial copy edit

• To start, I apologize for the ambiguity between "debutante" and "débutante"; I'm honestly not sure if the diacritic marks are accepted into standard English from the borrowed French, and there seems to be no consensus on the topic, as redirects point in different directions depending on if it's a proper noun or not.

Both with and without the written accent are accepted; I know that different US publications have different policies. To my mind it doesn't matter as long as we're consistent, but I slightly favor "débutante" since it's such a Frenchy event (hardly a grammatical argument, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• The lead is rather awkwardly written, and the cited sources contradict the numbers, so I've changed them. The number "25 debutantes" occurs elsewhere in the article as well, is this specific to a particular year? Can it be cited elsewhere? Please clear this up.

It appears there have been 20-25 girls in different years.--Dbarthelme (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The "Origins" section info is good, but really belongs in a "History" section of debutante balls, not for this specific ball. The subsection "Modern History" is enough for a "History" section (with a single sentence or two summarizing Origins, perhaps).
• To respond to some of the comments addressed above, I think the inclusion of fashion brands in this article is a significant, (presumably) citable fact of what occurred at the event. It's part of what this event is about, and it belongs here. There's nothing promotional about saying that a girl was wearing a certain brand of dress, not when that girl's fashion is a significant topic of interest to the event.
• How is Forbes a self-published reference? Taking out that note (and also moving the reference to a more suitable fact).

Forbes Magazine would generally be a reliable source. In contrast, forbes.com/sites/... are contributor blogs written without any meaningful editorial oversight. Note the disclaimer in tiny type: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." The magazine/blog distinction comes up repeatedly on the reliable source noticeboard. Broadly speaking, the consensus of past discussions is "don't cite forbes.com/sites for statements of fact". I'm sure we can find a better source. Worldbruce (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any links currently to ""forbes.com/sites/...""; the world's hottest party reference is on their main site. So all seems well now for that.Dbarthelme (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, just looking at this article, the citations look crowded and overdone, and I think it's because there are so many placed in the middle of sentences. If you can, it would be better to try to rewrite sentences so sources can be placed at the end of the sentence; it just reads a lot more clearly.
• Is the makeup and hair always done by the same groups? If so, cite it; if not, take it out. This one can be generic, especially if it changes year to year. And the brand of car they drive does seem to be an insignificant detail. Actually, same with the journalist author who introduces them: if it's not the same person every single year, this shouldn't be in this section. Maybe in the history section, a list of introducers, if it's a significant citable detail?

It's definitely the same host every year and I'm pretty sure the same makeup. You raise a great point, but the press articles seem to focus just on one particular year, and it's been hard to find a good source that talks about the general history of le Bal as opposed to particular editions. I'll keep looking. Dbarthelme (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As I read through this section, this seems to be the biggest issue. These particular, specific details make it seem as though the section is written describing a particular instance of le Bal, when it should be written so as to generically describe every instance of it. Not so much an NPOV issue, but definitely a tone issue.

Le Bal really is about the same each year, except for minor exceptions. The same host, roles for the sponsors, and series of events. So saying that something happens on the Friday of le Bal for example is accurate. --Dbarthelme (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• The info about which girls opened each year seems significant, but it doesn't belong in this section. I don't know what you'd call the section to put it in, though.

I like it in this section personally as it fits the chronology of how the event takes place. I guess it could be a separate section too though. I've added in who opened each year for the past decade; I haven't found good information on years prior to that. --Dbarthelme (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully that gives you some idea of the tone and detail issues involved? I'll keep going at it later this week, but right now my eyes are glazing over and I'm worried I'm gonna start introducing silly mistakes :). —2macia22 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement tag

This article is still tagged as reading like an advertisement, but a number of editors have made substantial changes to alleviate this problem. My feeling is that the tag is no longer necessary. Others thoughts? Otherwise, what still reads like an advertisement?

As someone mentioned above, it IS an event that involves a lot of fashion brands, so it's kind of unavoidable that these would be mentioned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag as per rules for removal of tags; there is no longer any material promoting the mentioned companies and the article strikes me as quite objective, particularly since the heavy edit by redpenofdeath. If anyone disagrees, please add details in the talk page!--Dbarthelme (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

This article is inaccurate. The Bal de Debutantes was founded by Fiona Lazareff, editor-in-chief of Boulevard magazine, in 1991, see article in THE FIGARO (leading French newspeper) «"Les debs défilent", Le coup d’œil de Janie Samet», Le Figaro, 26 September 1991. Orphélie Renouard was simply the PR manager of the Crillon Hotel. Cawblimey (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the lack of sources, it's also nonsense. It was started in 1957, with the involvement (at least) of Jean Patou, who is usually credited with having started it. Please see this article in Le Figaro, a leading French newspaper. However, I do agree that the article is inaccurate – it needs to be substantially rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there have been various similar Bals, including at l'Orangerie in 1958. And I found the 1991 article; that appears to have been a defilé and not so much like le Bal in its current form as a ball and deb media event. One could debate which is the real Bal in its modern version, I guess? Le Bal's own website has this take here: https://www.lebal.paris/en/le-bal/ Maybe a separate section is warranted to discuss precursor events? Dbarthelme (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This article has many inappropriate refs written in French and do not confirm what is said in English in this article. I would be happy to expand this article with appropriate refs.--Daddario1 (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think my French is highly excellent, and can't find such inconsistencies myself... Please be specific! Thanks. :) Dbarthelme (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Controversial" families

This line about controversial families appears very tangential to me. None of the press covering le Bal, as far as I can find, ever comments on the participants being "controversial". I'd definitely agree that any politician involved would rather by definition be controversial. And of the hundreds of famous people involved over the years, I guess a few must have at some point done something shady that was reported. But again, I don't see the relevance to le Bal and apparently neither do any of the press reporting on it. I'd agree to describing the politicians as sometimes controversial but I'd leave the rest out of it unless there really was a lot of press coverage of some sort of controversy pertaining to le Bal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I once again reverted changes about "controversy", this time claiming that le Bal was somehow involved in the Canada-China dispute. No coverage of le Bal has mentioned "controversy" when discussing these debs' families, this is incredibly tangential to the article. The sources linked to in the "controversy" bits are not about le Bal. I'd suggest adding the information about controversy to the wikipedia pages of those people involved in the controversies mentioned. Is this an acceptable solution?--Dbarthelme (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It is peculiar how you always seem to remove this particular information on your own terms first and then open a discussion on the talk page. You cannot remove information until a consensus has been reached. It is ironic how you pinpoint a talk page discussion, yet keep removing the information before having reached any consensus. I do not agree with your arguments that you have put forward.--Daddario1 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again, could you respond to the points above? I'd suggest perhaps a third opinion in this case if we can't reach an agreement, but I'd like to give you a chance to respond to the above. Thanks!Dbarthelme (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I will think about this matter and will come back to this discussion with an answer once I have thought it through.--Daddario1 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I'd propose removing this stuff until you or anyone can come up with a reason for having it in. Thanks for thinking it through.Dbarthelme (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You are not showing goodwill by consistently reverting edits before we have reached a consensus. I do not appreciate that. You could give some reasonable time to resolve this with me without acting in such manner.--Daddario1 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been asking you to provide a justification for your edits here since Sept. 27, so three months. I'll post a request for outside input from other editors on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarthelme (talk • contribs) 12:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In general the information added by Daddario1 seems to be adequately referenced - rather better than most of the rest of the article - and relevant to the character of the event. I suggest that in general it should stay, though doubtless improvements could be made. Hunc (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Heavily referenced absolutely, but the question is relevance. Of the hundreds of Bal attendees each year, are the dealings of a few attendees, on issues not connected to le Bal, relevant to an article about this particular fashion event? None of the press articles about the actual event has gone off on such tangents. The research from Daddario1 is an original, unique linking of a few attendees and their relatives to outside stories. It seems to me this research on controversy should be better placed in articles about the individuals themselves, where appropriate, and not in this fashion event. I do agree that much of the article in general could be improved with more references.Dbarthelme (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that the "controversial" information is significant to the nature of the event, and thus to this article. Possibly, rather more significant than the breathy voice of social columnists that pervades so much of the rest of the article. Hunc (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• All of this original research has been removed. None of the events relating to the debutantes or their family members had anything to do with the ball (most happened years later), and would belong only in articles about the individuals who were specifically involved in the events. This is BLP 101. Do not reinsert this material in this article. If appropriate, it can be inserted into articles about the individuals. If the individuals are not notable enough for their own article, then the event is probably not notable either. Risker (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 07:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Bal des débutantes → Bal des débutantes (Paris) – Or some similar disambiguator. "Bal des débutantes" is too generic to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this unique event (the article itself arguably borders Wikipedia:PROMOTION), and so Bal des débutantes should consequently better be redirected to the general article Debutante ball. Relatedly, see Talk:Cotillion ball. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Le Bal is somewhere between a débutante ball and a fashion event, sure, but I think it's more of a fashion event. So I wouldn't lump it in with débutante balls. Those débutante balls are generally society events in which people PAY to attend and to have their daughters make débuts. Le Bal invitations are not sold, and it is more of a media and fashion event in which daughters of famous and elites show designs from different fashion houses. I think le Bal's model has been copied a few times outside of Paris in the decades since, but it's not at all like a real debutante ball.--Dbarthelme (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a mere procedural article title rename proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks. I do see your point, but I don't think the clarification of adding "(Paris)" is necessary either since I don't see any potential confusion, regardless of it being a "non-transliterated gallicism". It's frequently written about in society press in English and referred to as simply le Bal or le Bal des Debutantes without causing any issue. Can't say I have a strong opinion on this either way though.--Dbarthelme (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Don't see what the new name is disambiguating this article from. Ascot Gold Cup has its own article, despite there being lots of other horse races which don't. FactStraight (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  @FactStraight: "Bal des débutantes" is an occurent non-transliterated gallicism synonym for debutante ball (the latter also a gallicism), and as such WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the more generic sense. That's why. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also per nom, this phrase is used in English to refer tot he suggested new target. And "World Cup" isn't about the FIFA World Cup, which would be the correct analogy to use, and not the suggested "Ascot" Gold Cup which isn't called "Gold Cup", since this article isn't called Paris bal des débutantes. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Since no other article currently on WP needs the precise title, the better way to avoid any possible confusion is by using hatnotes. Station1 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed, and propose instead Bal des débutantes, Paris) or Parisien bal des débutantes, preferably the second, or translate into English as do the English language sources, Parisian debutante ball. The ball has no proper name. It used to be the Le Bal Crillon des Debutantes, named after the hotel, until they changed hotel. Removing the hotel name has made the simple descriptive name ambiguous. Parenthetical disambiguation doesn't really work. A source claims this ball is "a unique forum for the presentation of the world’s most eligible young ladies". It is not a Parisian version of a debutante ball, but it is a very special debutante ball, specified with a variety of adjectives, Parisian, or high fashion. Western popular media rely on the French "bal des débutantes" to suffice for "Paris", but this is not suitable for Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• En 2018, Annabel Yao avec le Comte Gaspard de Limburg-Stirum.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ouverture du Bal 2018 avec True Whitaker et son père Forest Whitaker.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 2017 Ouverture du Bal avec S.M. Maharaja Sawai Padmanabh Singh de Jaipur et Ava Phillippe.jpg
• En 2000, Lauren Bush et SAR Prince Louis de Bourbon.jpg
• En 2003, Dree Hemingway .jpg
• En 2007 Lily Collins et Richard Dennen.jpg
• En 2013, Kyra L. Kennedy et son père Robert Jr Kennedy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request (spelling correction)

Under section "The Event", the text "The debutants have sessions with By Terry for makeup" contains a typo and should be replaced with "The débutantes have …".

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)