Talk:Marie Antoinette

Marie Sophie Hélène Béatrix

This site says its actualy a pastel portrait of the child of Louise Hyacinthe de Montesquiou and Anne-François V not Marie Sophie Hélène Béatrix.©Geni (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The portrait to the left could definitely serve as a better infobox image. It's a lot more high-res than the current one, and the current one is also just based off of another, full portrait. It also follows MOS:LEADIMAGE as it is a more famed portrait used in encyclopedic ways. I understand that the current one faces the text, which follows MOS, but it literally appears to be if you took a regular portrait and cropped out the face. I want to also point out that other royals of Marie-Antoinette's generation also have full upper-body portraits in the lead like her mother Maria Theresa and her siblings. See I'm not sure if I'm being too nitpicky; it just seems like the one I am proposing is just more in alignment with the standards and not to mention highly aesthetically pleasing. Rexophile (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree - think the previous one provided a better representation of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree - I support the change from the current cropped image. I think the proposed image ( ) is better as - if my memory does not fail me - this version was made specifically because it was deemed more proper for a queen of France (as opposed to ), and thus fits being the infobox picture of a queen of France

Another worthy proposal in my opinion, is this image, already present in the article (we just need to move it from the body to the infobox):

This painting shows the queen with her crown beside her (clearly showing her royal status) and is painted in a manner more matching the painting found in the infobox of Louis XVI.

But this is merely a secondary proposal, I mainly support Rexophile's proposal. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

NPOV qualifiers

@Mattia332, I do just want to discuss this with you, and I'm not totally opposed to any changes to the prose. I'm just at a loss why this version is required to maintain NPOV. You insist it must read a certain way, I'm sure it reads another way, so let's not see either of our readings as superior out of the gate. Could you please explain your edits to me? Remsense 🌈 论 22:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me clarify why I believe the current version (prior to my rewording) don't aligns with NPOV and historical rigor:

1. Accuracy over ambiguity:

Phrases like “anti-monarchist republicans”, “Parisians”, or “de facto” are more historically precise than the broader and less verifiable alternatives like “people of France” or “image among French citizens.” The Revolution was driven by defined factions, not a homogenous national will — and it’s important not to flatten this complexity, specially due to the importance of Marie in pop culture, people might come upon this page and not history very well at all, and such terminology will help them understand this factually, which is also backed up by the sources used in the page.

2. Attribution matters:

The phrase “falsely accused” is backed by scholarship (e.g. the Diamond Necklace Affair and accusations of illegitimate children), which makes it fair to present this claim with that adverb. Simply saying “accused” removes that essential layer of historical interpretation and may give undue weight to Revolutionary propaganda.

3. Contextual identifiers:

Terms like “present-day Place de la Concorde” are helpful for readers unfamiliar with historical geography. It doesn't inject bias; it orients.

4. NPOV ≠ false equivalence:

Neutrality doesn’t mean stripping all analysis from prose. It means presenting well-sourced claims as such. The previous version doesn't editorialize — it reflects mainstream historiography and makes proper use of qualifiers where needed.

I understand your concern about tone, but I would argue that the softened revision introduces vagueness and misleading generalities, not balance. Best wishes Mattia332 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)