Talk:St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
An event mentioned in this article is an August 24 selected anniversary.
Hmm, just read parts of this article. The bias is clearly discernable and I am concerned about the factual veracity of the article. I am currently studying this period and shall endeavour in the next few weeks to correct this article, though I do not have the time to do so now. There are some serious and fundamental mistakes in this article, so be warned. PaulHardwick 17:20, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
I've done a minimal amount of tidying up and formatting, but this anonymous contribution really needs the attention of somebody who knows about 16th century France. --rbrwr
In particular, the section =Background to the massacres= is so dense as to be hard to follow, even for those of us with a clue. It might be worth reworking this in close cooordination with French Wars of Religion. Perhaps some of this material belongs there rather than here; in any case, it does not look to me like these two highly related articles have been coordinated. -- Jmabel 02:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Vasari's mural?
I'd like to see a picture of Vasari's mural. I've looked but haven't been able to find one. If somebody has one, could it be added to the article? Alister Namarra 09:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
You can view one of them at the Polish Wikipedia version of this article. Just click "Polski" in the left-hand links. --Folantin 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
[edit] NPOV Section
Some anon with a penchant for writing history keeps putting this fantasy in the article that I've never seen in my life. I've reverted him 3 times already, but fear I may break the 3RR if I continue, so I've marked it for NPOV-ing. It has the gall to describe the Huguenots as avaricious, hardly the case at all, they were a rag tag army fighting to preserve a cause they believed in, composed largely of paysannes, not something they would do for greed like the Queen Mother's. The anon's edits even resort to outright fabrications, apparently the overall intent is to create an apology for the actions of the papal party. If any source anywhere can be found for a Huguenot Massacre in 1569, he'll have to show it. Codex Sinaiticus 00:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
On August 24, 1569, the Huguenot general, Gabriel de Montgomery, enjoyed victory over the royal forces led by General Terride at the Battle of Orthez in French Navarre. The surrender of the Catholic nobility was predicated upon a promise by the Huguenots that their lives would be spared. In spite of that pledge, the Huguenots had the Catholics massacred in cold blood on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1569. This is far from a “resort to outright fabrications” but rather is a recourse to the facts of history. No historian, however partisan, denies the event I just described. That an inchoate individual is unaware of these events is of no consequence to the legitimacy of the entry to Wikipedia. Neither do I have a penchant for writing history, rather I desire to separate history from histrionics and prevent history from being re-written to exclude certain inconvenient facts not favorable to ones diatribe. It is essential to have the reader aware of the fact that on St. Bartholomew's Day 1569, Hugenot forces massacred, in cold blood, Catholics who had been promised safety by the Huguenots. This is why the date became relevant and is the reason why St. Bartholomew's Day 1572, three years later, came to be. Not including it is like harping on the fact that the United States declared War on Japan without mentioning Pearl Harbor. Likewise, the additions to the article do not say that the Huguenots were avaricious, just that the nobility, who had ulterior motives for joining the Hugenots, were avaricious. Kindly read more carefully. Mezeray's quote describes how the Huguenot's were perceived by 16th century Frenchman as wealthy. Coligny, a Huguenot himself, lived in Paris is a fabulous mansion and Pardaillan, a Huguenot, dined with Catherine de' Medici which is how she heard of the threats the Huguenot's had made. Captain Piles, another Huguenot, was of the opinion that "even if the Admiral [Coligny] lost an arm there would be numberless others who would take so many lives that the rivers of the kingdom would run with blood". The threats of the Huguenots and Catherine de' Medici’s son's consternation impelled Catherine to try to avert this civil war by organizing an immediate suppression of the Huguenot leadership. Since as many as half of the nobility identified themselves as Huguenots, and since they lived in mansions and dined with the crown, it is historically untenable to describe them as rag tag. Untenable is being kind since Coligny was the king’s advisor. History loves an underdog, but the Huguenots defy that appellation, popular misconceptions notwithstanding. Naturally, it is unfair to ascribe avarice to all Huguenots, but the nobility certainly were greedy and it is transparent that greed was their motivation. As stated, historians estimate that upwards of 50% of the nobility of France had become Huguenots in the sixteenth century for political and financial gain - a chance to overthrow the crown and enrich themselves. Certainly not the "rag tag" mishigosh as they have been described. The nobility did not become Huguenots for philosophical or theological reasons - this much is true. A modern day parallel might be to say George Bush became an Evangelical Christian to gain power, although the comparison would be invidious. I respectfully submit that this side of the story needs to be told lest readers perceive the Huguenots to be akin to helpless underdogs who were ultimately extinguished by a paroxysm of papal power. Lastly, if anything, my editing of this page is doing a favor to Wikipedia and helping Wikipedia avoid copyright issues. Wikipedia requires that contributions be original, which mine is, and not the work of someone else who holds copy rights. What I found this morning, however, was plagiarism on a grand scale as the one-sided version of this story is repeated verbatim on umpteen websites. Here are just a few websites where the cookie-cutter, lopsided version of the history of St. Bartholomew's Day is presented: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I think everyone gets the point which is that the original version is often passed off as the complete history of St. Bartholomew's Day and it is not even original to Wikipedia nor any particular contributor of Wikipedia. At first I was sensitive to the fact that this might be your authorship and that it was offensive that I tamper with it. No one likes anyone else to gainsay his work. But I can not see the legitimacy of defending someone's cut-and-paste work from elsewhere into Wikipedia and then denouncing an attempt at lucidity and clarification of the facts and background. I sincerely believe I am helping Wikipedia deliver a thoughtful and balanced work to the public instead of a canned polemical version of history available verbatim countless places on the internet. Lastly, I am a Ph.D. and a J.D. who specializes in intellectual property so I mention the copyright issue with some appreciation for the topic. As for the massacre of 1569, I direct you to Belloc who documents that it was Joan of Navarre's (who was virulently anti-Catholic) Huguenot general who captured the Catholics who he then assured safety, only to kill them in cold blood St. Bartholomew's Day 1569. How The Reformation Happened by H. Belloc p. 118. (1992 edition); Jacques-Auguste de Thous “The History of the Bloody Massacres of the Protestants in France in the year of our Lord, 1572” (London 1674); “The French Religious Wars, 1562-1598 (Essential Histories)” by Robert J. Knecht; “The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629 (New Approaches to European History)” by Mack P. Holt, William Beik. Hope this helps.
- Well most of that sounds like your POV at best; but what about a source for a massacre by Huguenots in 1569? I don't see how anything like that could have escaped my attention - so I'd like to see a source please. Codex Sinaiticus 02:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Boy, you're a wordy fellow, anon. There are some interesting points in the text you've added, that I won't deny, but some of it is going to have to be sourced. (For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't mention this 1569 massacre, and you'd think they of all people would.) Additionally, the entire paragraph reeks with an overwrought need to sell itself. If the facts are easily verified, the conclusions should be easily available. Conclusions that don't proceed directly from verifiable facts are suspect, which causes problems for a project such as Wikipedia. I can agree that there is a lot more to be said about Catholic-Protestant antagonism and even class warfare issues, but they belong more in the realm of historical analysis, and much of what you've included is the sort of thing that we could more easily include if we were quoting a respected historian, e.g. "Sumner says that most of the massacres in 1572 were carried out by the common man ..." As it is, I'm afraid almost all of what you've written is an inappropriate addition. --Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC).
- Your concerns about copyright issues are probably unfounded. Several of the web sources you are citing are copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I've patched the article in little pieces here and there, together with others, for over three years, and so I know that there if there is "mass plagiarism", it is not from our direction that it has been done - but it is a good thing to be concerned about, and to check. It will do the article much good to have more citations, and I appreciate the balance you are attempting to bring, although it causes me to think that my education on the subject is apparently more lacking than I had realized. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Anon, please sign your edits to Talk pages. It would help if you would register a username, too. First, regarding the sites where you found copies of this article (note: I fixed the formatting so they are clickable), see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks; you should learn a little bit about how the GFDL license works and affects your contributions. I am not, by the way, amused at being called a "Huguenot"; my religion and ethnic background are of no consequence to my role as an editor here. Please keep that in mind. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Coligny most certainly did not "live in Paris in a fabulous mansion" as anon above has alleged... He was staying in a hostel temporarily at the time of the wedding festivities... His ancestral home, where he seldom was because of military campaigns, was in Chatillon sur Loing, and the Catholic mob had already disfigured it pretty badly with vandalisms prior to this. By the Queen Mum's favourites' party, Coligny was a very hated man. Codex Sinaiticus 14:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
History begs to differ. Coligny did in fact have a mansion in Paris very near the Louvre. It was in this home that he was killed. Recall that Coligny was advisor to Charles IX since Charles took the throne when he was only 10. Naturally, if you are advisor to the King of France, you would probably need to live in Paris. I say ‘probably’ to be kind, since your assertion that he did not have a mansion is incorrect. Indeed, there are even paintings of his mansion. See Jean du -Bouchet, Preuves de lhisto-ire ginalogique de lillustre maison de Coligny (Paris 1661). Coligny, being a wealthy Huguenot noble, had several magnificent homes, one of which was in Paris wherein he died. Kind thanks to Dhartung for fixing my links.
- Anon dude, Coligny wasn't at home, he was shot on the street (Rue des Poulies) while walking from the Louvre to his lodging on Rue de Béthisy. The lodging belonged to the Du Bourg family, and was no mansion. It is now 144 Rue de Rivoli, famous for their "de Coligny slept here" sign. It's here that he was martyred at sword point, his corpse tossed from a second story window. I've read many accounts including those of eye witnesses, where in the world are you coming from? Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are you are still confused, perhaps partly my fault. Coligny was attacked twice. Indeed, the first was not in his home. He survived the first attack on the 22nd of August after which he actually spoke with Charles IX who came to him to offer sympathy and resolve to find the assailant(s). The second attack came as he was recovering at his home. The home you see in Paris today is not what was standing there in 1572, tourist placard notwithstanding. It is now 144 Rue de Rivoli but that is of no relevance. Ultimately, this point is moot since the article does not assert the nature of Coligny's domicile.
-
- Well I can assert the nature of Coligny's domicile. He was renting temporarily at the Inn of Ponthieu, that belonged to the Chancellor of France, Antoine Dubourg. It was no mansion, it was a small guest-house; it was more recently the "Cafe Coligny", and I had thought it was still there today... Codex Sinaiticus 02:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Also, Coligny did not stay at court but came into Paris specially by invitation for the wedding, and only lingered because he felt some concession was about to be made by the King for the sake of his co-religionists, in exchange for support in the (Spanish) Low Countries. He knew full well that Catherine was ill disposition toward him made it dangerous for him to be in Paris, and said as much. Codex Sinaiticus 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV pushing
Dear anon, the material has been included in a neutralized form. Read it through and discuss it here if you think that it hasn't been treated fairly. However, if you simply re-insert the material instead of discussing why the edits you have ignored are inadequate, the action will not be well-regarded and it will be reverted. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC).
Sounds like a fair proposal, and you sound like a fair person, however just by your mere jumbling of the data, however innocently, you have introduced no less than a dozen historical errors into the text, as opposed my contribution which, although admittedly firm, was accurate (previous groundless accusations of falsification by another person notwithstanding). I will enumerate the shortcomings of your version soon, however I would ask that you appreciate the labour of historians who sometimes need a tome to refute a sentence or two. For example, someone simply asserts "Coligny did not live in a Parisian mansion" and then adds that the idea itself is preposterous. To refute that level of ignorance (not to mention hubris) requires effort, even if making the spurious allegation took but five seconds. I am sure you see this point. If it is any solace to you, I am not a Roman Catholic, nonetheless I am trying to provide a tonic to the very slanted apology for Huguenotism and spoof of the whole factual record that I found here yesterday.
- Jumbling of data is a fair description - sorry about that. My intention was to stop the silly reverts. They cannot succeed, they mar the articles, and they engender bad will. It doesn't matter to me what your religious views are. But regardless, you do see that the material as written presented opinions as though they were simply facts, don't you? The account doesn't have to be written as either pro- or anti-Huguenot. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that the repeated use of the word "avarice" and its variants is compatible with an evenhanded article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Protected
Protection does not mean that the version locked in place is "approved". The purpose of protection is the same as the merged version was, to prevent revert wars and to encourage a good-faith effort at collaboration. Please enumerate the historical errors that have been introduced by the jumbled version, and let's work on getting the page unprotected as quickly as we can.
Incidentally, I looked back in the history and realized that I was not involved in this article earlier after all, but another, related article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I just read the whole article for suggested changes.
1. "Background" - forty Huguenots were killed because they refused to kneel in front of the host (the eucharist </wiki/Eucharist>) during a Catholic street procession.
Could you add the words "as they emerged from the Sermon" following the word "killed"?
2. Anything about 1569 should be put chronologically into the "background" section, not "massacres".
3. Huguenot forces committed random massacres of Catholics, destroyed churches, shrines and private houses. That's a fairly rash accusation, the exact reverse of the one we usually hear. Probably fair to say there was a bit of give-and-take on both sides. Coligny even during times of peace, was known to hang a few ruffians who were disturbing the peace in Huguenot-controlled countryside. This statement should be qualified with "allegedly" before comitted, if it is to be kept at all (more historical verification will be needed)
4. In the phrase, "Huguenots had the Catholics massacred", it could be changed to "Montgomery had the Catholic nobility [or Guises, even] massacred"... Similarly, "he supposes that the killing was supposed to be limited to the nobility attending the wedding, who had been responsible for the first massacre of Catholics in 1569" I'm sure he didn't blame the ones in Paris for the battle in Navarre 1569, perhaps it should read, "he supposes that the killing was supposed to be limited to the nobility attending the wedding, in revenge for the massacre of Catholic nobility in 1569.
By the way, I checked and am now convinced that the battle took place in Navarre on St Bartholemews Day 1569, but still haven't seen anything yet to confirm that "massacre" is even the fitting term for it... If you have a short quote from your source, I'd love to see it... Codex Sinaiticus 01:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'll implement 1 and 2, but I'm especially waiting for Anon to chime in. It's not my place to arbitrate changes; but rather, to encourage collaboration. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, I do think that the description of anti-Catholic violence (" ... destroyed churches, shrines and private houses") is true to the facts as I've learned them; nor do I think that there was as much of the same on the other side, except for massacres, of which there seems to have been enough to go around for everyone. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Uprotected
I'm lifting protection from this page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 12:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] War in the article
Recent edits have been extremely partisan. I tried to find a middle ground on a couple of points, but mostly I'm not jumping in here. I would suggest that rather than having the article veer back and forth wildly between "Catholic" and "Protestant" versions of history, people would do well to enumerate points of disagreement and seek mutually agreeable language and well-cited sources.
I have to say, I don't like seeing unexplained removal of well-cited material. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
yeah I'm not really sure about the section concerning who was responsible for the murderer...that could definitely use some development vlad
[edit] Edit
I thought that more should be written on the influence on the Guises so i've changed a few things in the backgrdound and massacre section. I tried to keep as much of the original as possible. Think that more could be done on the proposed invasion of the Netherlands but I don't have the motivation to do that right now....I'll put down the reference for the Duc de Guise quote in a few days its in my notes and i'll need to trawl through the books my notes were based on to find the exact reference. Hope u like it....Vlad
I found it as soon as I looked in Holt...oh and I remembered Teligny was Coligny's brother in law not son-in-law Vlad
-
- Sorry, that edit had too much questionable stuff in it, got several dates wrong, botched the link and the date to Saint Germain, and of all the books I've had, I don't recall seeing that the Duc of Guise personally murdered M. l'Amiral, by all accounts the dirty deed was performed by a certain Besme... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
If you tell me what u thought was questionable i'll get back to u on that..... For the murder of Coligny again see Holt who attributes the killing to Guise (pg 85). The stuff on the Guise involvement in the massacre can be found in Sutherland's 'The massacre of St Bartholomew and the European conflict, 1559-1572'.....oh and i think that the quote from the Duc de Guise should be kept. But the main point was to show the influence of the Guise faction, and to show that the killing of Coligny possibly had more to it then a conspiracy by Catherine de Medici. Vlad
A few more things just struck me. I think that the stuff about Teligny and Protestant force just outside Paris should be kept. I think that this was a big factor in the decision to murder Charles.....if u don't believe this i can give you references. Also it might be worth mentioning the interview at Bayonne in 1565 between Catherine and Phillip II- this is often taken as evidence of a long term desire on Catherine's part to destroy Protestantism....Vlad
-
- The decision to murder Charles whom? Do you mean Gaspard? You might want to get your facts a little more down pat. There is no reliable mention of a protestant army lurking outside Paris when the massacres went down. There was a body of Huguenots in the city for the wedding, they were mostly armed with swords, they were attacked with firearms, and after that only a very few escaped the city to tell the tale, by putting on the white scarf... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry...I meant Coligny I was thinking about Charles ordering the murder. 4000 protestants outside Paris led by Teligny brother in law of Coligny.....again the source is Mack Holt's 'The French Wars of Religion' if u want though I can name other sources thats just the only one i have to hand. Out of interest what books have u read? Vlad
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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.
[edit] Catherine the Monster
I've tried to soften the edges on the slant about Catherine de Medici's intentions several times now, but the paragraph keeps getting switched back. I saw that someone in the discussion page mentioned Mack P. Holt, the author through whom I found persuasive arguments to suggest that the Queen Mother did not mean for the Massacres to happen initially, but continue to see unwavering insistences that the earthly editor of this page can read a dead woman's mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ignatius Hero (talk • contribs).
- One of the basic problems this article continues to have is archaic, flowery language (deriving from a pre-20th century source), and there's entirely too much psychologizing, partly as a result. I think if we could clean up and simplify the language it wouldn't sound so biased. At any rate, please review WP:CITE for citation styles, but if you have an URL, just drop it into the text between two brackets like [http://www.example.com/], and someone else can improve the formatting later. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Whilst it is facinating to know what our american friends have studied at university, may I suggest we place the article in its proper context, Europe? Western wathcman is insignificant outside the US. It reeks of american religious conflict.
- I assure you, Western Watchman is of only small significance in the U.S., either. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Catherine's roll in the instigation of the riots comes across quite biased. One example:
- "On the evening of August 23, Catherine went to see the king to discuss the crisis. Though no details of the meeting survive, it is obvious that Charles IX and his mother took the decision to eliminate the Protestant leaders, with the exception of the princes of the blood, Henri of Navarre and the Prince of Condé."
Very little in history so obvious, especially given that, as the paragraph itself states, no details of the meeting survive. 147.9.166.211 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV plus French article proposal
I think this article has one or two problems with NPOV. I feel there's a certain "but the Huguenots were asking for it" slant in several places. It also seems to be drawn from some very old sources of dubious impartiality. I propose incorporating some material from the French language Wikipedia article which, though not extensive, at least quotes the opinions of modern French historians from the past decade or so. The de Thou stuff is available elsewhere on the Web, so maybe just a link?--Folantin 18:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The French addition/alteration would read something like this:
Interpretation
Historians are divided over the causes and the responsibility for the massacre:
- According to Denis Crouzet, Charles IX feared a protestant uprising, and chose to strangle it at birth in order to protect his own power. The decision was therefore his own, and not Catherine de' Medici's.
- The traditional interpretation, maintained by Janine Garrisson, makes Catherine de' Medici and her Catholic advisers the principal culprits. They forced the hand of a hesitant and weak-willed king.
- According to Jean-Louis Bourgeon, it was the violently anti-Huguenot city of Paris which was really responsible. He stresses that the city was on the verge of revolt. The Guises, who were highly popular, exploited this situation to put pressure on the king and the queen mother. Charles IX was thus forced to head off the potential riot, which was the work of the Guises, the bourgeois militia and the common people.
--Folantin 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I endorse this wording. As you noticed, there has been a significant effort by one editor to ensure a certain point of view about the massacres. --Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. I inserted the French info as an "Interpretation" section. I made some fairly drastic cuts elsewhere too, including the de Thou material, which is available elsewhere on the Web, I think. Maybe I'll add an external link to it. But, as it stood, I thought the article gave excessive prominence to just one historian. It would be fine to have de Thou's opinion given alongside the views of other observers from the time, just like the French Wikipedia article gives a variety of modern interpretations without coming down in favour of any particular one. Most of the other stuff seemed of dubious relevance, or biased, too. If someone wants to present an historical overview of interpretations down the centuries, then fine, but who really cares what the "Western Watchman" (whatever that is) of 1912 thought? Let's keep this article in focus.--Folantin 09:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've replaced a great deal of this article with translations from the French version, which seems more scholarly and up-to-date. I have kept some of the original material (you can see the joins at places and the style of the article needs some work plus more wikification). I hope this will be generally acceptable. I think the French article is less controversial - after all, there's only one comment on its talk page!--Folantin 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Was Walsingham a victim?
There is an obvious contradiction - this page claims Sir Walsingham (Elizabeth I's ambassador to France) was a victim of the massacre (August 1572). The page on Walsingham, however, states he died in 1590. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.28.64 (talk • contribs) .
- This seems to be a relic of the 1911 Encyclopedia text that is the original basis of the article, with its overbearing language. It says the massacres "put his life in jeopardy". The available sources indicate that he was ambassador to France, and along with Sir Phillip Sidney was present during the events; some say his residence became a refuge or headquarters for Protestants. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I just cut the whole of the passage someone added about Walsingham. It made no sense. Also, there was rather too much savagery/barbarity/horror in the article, so I cut that down. "Show, don't tell" is the best policy (cf. the Holocaust) --Folantin 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Walsingham bit was added relatively recently, and I ended deleting the exact same text on the 18th. I can't even figure out how it got back in there, unless it had been added in twice. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] St Adrian's Day Massacre?
As the initial 'St. Bartholomew's Day massacre' went on for more than one further whole day ([10]), is its customary title not therefore something of a misnomer? And why the derisory lower-case 'm' for 'massacre,' for that matter!? And the singular:'Day'!?
- "St. Bartholomew's Day massacre" is the name used by all mainstream anglophone historians, so that's the name this page uses. The lower-case "m" is per Wikipedia naming policy. --Folantin 09:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Such blinkered appeals to precedent = precisely what St Bartholomew's Day victim Ramus sacrificed his life to exposing - why ' massacre' and not ' day,' as 'per Wikipedia naming policy?' Also, the 'mainstream anglophone' rendering of ' Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy ' is clearly a loose translation, as ' la ' => feminine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.217 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, of course you're a martyr for the truth just like Ramus, aren't you? After all, he was murdered in an argument over minuscule and majuscule letters. Such intolerance has no place in today's world. And the massacres really took place in St Louis, Missouri, as every schoolboy knows. Now be a good troll and stop wasting my time (don't think we can't get the picture by reading your user talk pages). --Folantin 13:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's minuscule 'm,' with the other things mentioned, trivialises the Massacre, intentionally or otherwise. It is many of the the unbanned Wiki editors who are reading more like facetious trolls, these days, and my talk pages which shed light on systematic Wiki mismanagement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.217 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
Does anyone know just when anglophone historians started using "St. Bartholomew's Day massacre" rather than "the Massacre of St Bartholomew"? Some of the older books on my shelf by G. M. Trevelyan and Hugh Trevor-Roper use the earlier term as late as the 1960s and there's also a debate over just what the title of the Doctor Who story The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve a) means and b) is meant to mean. Timrollpickering 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
