Talk:François Guizot

Untitled

Should the first body paragraph not call Mme. Guizot a typical Huguenot of the 18th, or even 19th C?

I removed the egregious error. It now says "of her time". --Jmabel | Talk 00:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bias/POV

Don't feel like slapping up a POV tag or trying to fix this article right now, but it is overflowing with the biases of the old Britannica. In some parts it approaches a work of propaganda. 75.183.8.246 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It is biased as could be. Should be shortened. Very difficult to read and very verbose. At least a summarizing introduction would be helpful...--85.140.31.47 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rating

There is a lot of information here, so this merits B article status. However, there are no specific citations despite the number of references. This would help in upgrading the article as would adding more detail and trying to help the flow of the article. ludahai 魯大海 05:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is way too much detail here, and it is difficult to glean out the parts important to posterity. I came on here to find out "why is this guy important" and although I'm convinced he is, I can't give you a twenty five word or less summary. It is tedious ploughing through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.68.88 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Did he say it?

Is he the originator of the famous quote, attributed to about every politician in varying wording: "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head"? Some say he is, but without a proper source.--87.162.57.103 13:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it is copied from the 1911 Britannica, I am much inclined to trust it for facts. Not that it's a good article; it is written for its time, for people who remembered 19th Century European history from living it. Thus it vaguely references the "Syrian situation" and "the unhappy young queen of Spain" and other matters little known to modern readers having no idea of church/state relations and other background of that particular time. Knowing a bit of the history, I added links for a few particular people and places but it remains a difficult trek for anyone who is slogging through unfamiliar territory.

Does anyone know how to find the name of the principal author? My 1943 Britannica has essentially the same article, without the Wikipedia additions but also without attribution. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:François Guizot/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

First off this is a well written article that is worth GA status in the future as long as there is some improvement in certain areas of the article. There is a lot of information that tends to be a little waffley and sometimes a little off-topic. There is a lot of POV in some sections. A few more images could go far as the information is a little full-on. The lead section is good, but the following sections could do with a lot of re-editing. For more information see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Taifarious1 04:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on François Guizot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228114632/http://oll.libertyfund.org//files/878/0470_LFeBk.pdf to http://oll.libertyfund.org//files/878/0470_LFeBk.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)