text:
Barisan Mountains

The Bukit Barisan or the Barisan Mountains are a mountain range on the western side of Sumatra, Indonesia, covering nearly 1,700 km (1,050 mi) from the north to the south of the island. The Bukit Barisan range consists primarily of volcanoes shrouded in dense jungle cover, including Sumatran tropical pine forests on the higher slopes. The highest peak of the range is Mount Kerinci at 3,800 metres (12,467 ft). The Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park is situated towards the southern end of the range in Liwa, Indonesia.

The name Bukit Barisan actually means "row of hills" or "hills that make a row" in Malay, for the range stretches end to end along the island of Sumatra.

There are 35 active volcanoes in Bukit Barisan. The largest volcano is the supervolcano Toba within the 100 km (62 miles) × 30 km (19 miles) Lake Toba, which was created after a caldera collapse (est. in 74,000 Before Present). The eruption is estimated to have been at level eight on the VEI scale, the largest possible for a volcanic eruption.

List of volcanoes
The following list is sourced from the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program.
 * Sibayak || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,212 m || 1881 || 3.23°N, 98.52°W
 * Sinabung || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,460 m || 2 March 2021 || 3.17°N, 98.392°W
 * Toba || supervolcano || align="right"|2,157 m || cca 75.000 years ago || 2.58°N, 98.83°W
 * Helatoba-Tarutung || fumarole field || align="right"|1,100 m || 2588000 BCPleistocene || 2.03°N, 98.93°W
 * Imun || unknown || align="right"|1,505 m || unknown || 2.158°N, 98.93°W
 * Sibualbuali || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,819 m || unknown || 1.556°N, 99.255°W
 * Lubukraya || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,862 m || unknown || 1.478°N, 99.209°W
 * Sorikmarapi || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,145 m || 1986 (1) || 0.686°N, 99.539°W
 * Talakmau || complex volcano || align="right"|2,919 m || unknown || 0.079°N, 99.98°W
 * Sarik-Gajah || volcanic cone || align="right"|unknown || unknown || 0.008°N, 100.2°W
 * Marapi || complex volcano || align="right"|2,891 m || August 5 2004 (2) || -0.381°N, 100.473°W
 * Tandikat || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,438 m || 1924 (1) || -0.433°N, 100.317°W
 * Talang || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,597 m || April 12 2005 (2) || -0.978°N, 100.679°W
 * Kerinci || stratovolcano || align="right"|3,800 m || June 22 2004 (2) || -1.697°N, 101.264°W
 * Hutapanjang || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,021 m || unknown || -2.33°N, 101.6°W
 * Sumbing || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,507 m || May 23 1921 (2) || -2.414°N, 101.728°W
 * Kunyit || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,151 m || unknown || -2.592°N, 101.63°W
 * Pendan || unknown || align="right"|unknown || unknown || -2.82°N, 102.02°W
 * Belirang-Beriti || compound || align="right"|1,958 m || unknown || -2.82°N, 102.18°W
 * Bukit Daun || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,467 m || unknown || -3.38°N, 102.37°W
 * Kaba || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,952 m || August 22 2000 (1) || -3.52°N, 102.62°W
 * Dempo || stratovolcano || align="right"|3,173 m || 1994-October (1) || -4.03°N, 103.13°W
 * Patah || unknown || align="right"|2,817 m || unknown || -4.27°N, 103.3°W
 * Bukit Lumut Balai || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,055 m || unknown || -4.23°N, 103.62°W
 * Besar || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,899 m || 1940-April (1) || -4.43°N, 103.67°W
 * Suoh || caldera || align="right"|1,000 m || July 10 1933 (4) || -5.25°N, 104.27°W
 * Hulubelu || caldera || align="right"|1,040 m || 1836 || -5.35°N, 104.6°W
 * Rajabasa || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,281 m || 1798 || -5.78°N, 105.625°W
 * }
 * Hutapanjang || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,021 m || unknown || -2.33°N, 101.6°W
 * Sumbing || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,507 m || May 23 1921 (2) || -2.414°N, 101.728°W
 * Kunyit || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,151 m || unknown || -2.592°N, 101.63°W
 * Pendan || unknown || align="right"|unknown || unknown || -2.82°N, 102.02°W
 * Belirang-Beriti || compound || align="right"|1,958 m || unknown || -2.82°N, 102.18°W
 * Bukit Daun || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,467 m || unknown || -3.38°N, 102.37°W
 * Kaba || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,952 m || August 22 2000 (1) || -3.52°N, 102.62°W
 * Dempo || stratovolcano || align="right"|3,173 m || 1994-October (1) || -4.03°N, 103.13°W
 * Patah || unknown || align="right"|2,817 m || unknown || -4.27°N, 103.3°W
 * Bukit Lumut Balai || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,055 m || unknown || -4.23°N, 103.62°W
 * Besar || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,899 m || 1940-April (1) || -4.43°N, 103.67°W
 * Suoh || caldera || align="right"|1,000 m || July 10 1933 (4) || -5.25°N, 104.27°W
 * Hulubelu || caldera || align="right"|1,040 m || 1836 || -5.35°N, 104.6°W
 * Rajabasa || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,281 m || 1798 || -5.78°N, 105.625°W
 * }
 * Patah || unknown || align="right"|2,817 m || unknown || -4.27°N, 103.3°W
 * Bukit Lumut Balai || stratovolcano || align="right"|2,055 m || unknown || -4.23°N, 103.62°W
 * Besar || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,899 m || 1940-April (1) || -4.43°N, 103.67°W
 * Suoh || caldera || align="right"|1,000 m || July 10 1933 (4) || -5.25°N, 104.27°W
 * Hulubelu || caldera || align="right"|1,040 m || 1836 || -5.35°N, 104.6°W
 * Rajabasa || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,281 m || 1798 || -5.78°N, 105.625°W
 * }
 * Suoh || caldera || align="right"|1,000 m || July 10 1933 (4) || -5.25°N, 104.27°W
 * Hulubelu || caldera || align="right"|1,040 m || 1836 || -5.35°N, 104.6°W
 * Rajabasa || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,281 m || 1798 || -5.78°N, 105.625°W
 * }
 * Rajabasa || stratovolcano || align="right"|1,281 m || 1798 || -5.78°N, 105.625°W
 * }

Inactive volcanoes
The following list is sourced from the Study Archaeology

title: Barisan Mountains


text:
Talk:Louis XVI

Consistent citation styles
This page does not a consistent style of in-line citations. There is already a bibliography on the page. One option is adding every book cited to this bibliography and convert all in-line citations to short citations. Does any one have an opinion about this? Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andreasvg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Consummation of marriage
I don't know much about French royalty, but I notice in this article it says ("Family life" section) that "Over time, the couple became closer, and their marriage was reportedly consummated in July 1773." The source given is Fraser, Antonia, Marie Antoinette, p.127

In the Marie Antoinette article ("1774–1778: Early years" subsection), it says, without a source, "It was due to Joseph's intervention that, on 30 August 1777, the marriage was officially consummated."

Can someone fix this contradiction?

Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

American Revolution
The article currently states that "Louis was wholly disappointed in his aim of recovering Canada from Britain" in the American Revolutionary War. I was under the impression that this was never an aim of the French government in that conflict, and this would seem to be evidenced by the fact that France never mounted an invasion of Quebec. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * They were never able to, because the Royal Navy prevented any invasion of Canada from being attempted. (92.10.132.85 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

 * Is that correct? The French Navy had many successes in that conflict (essentially battling the British to a standstill on the high seas), and France was able to successfully mount an invasion of Virginia. One would think that defending the Thirteen Colonies was a greater priority for the British than defending Canada at that time. Funnyhat (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Britain had already lost control of the thirteen colonies by 1778. The main priority of the Royal Navy was to prevent the French from recapturing any territory lost during the Seven Years' War. (92.10.142.63 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC))

 * I don't agree with that. The most decisive battle of the war (Yorktown) wasn't fought until 1781 - and the Royal Navy tried to relieve the British forces besieged there, but was stymied in the Battle of the Chesapeake.  Certainly, Louis wanted to avenge the defeat in the Seven Years' War, but I've never heard that it was a goal of the French government to recapture Canada once it was lost.  Even when it was a French possession, many (including Voltaire) argued that it was an unproductive colony, not worth maintaining. (See A few acres of snow.)  If there are sources indicating that Louis wanted to recapture Canada in the Revolutionary War, I'd be curious to see them (and they should be added as references).  Funnyhat (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The biography I read of Louis said driving the British out of Canada, India and the West Indies were his main reasons for supporting the North American colonists from the spring of 1776. In all three aims he was to be disappointed, as these places were too well defended like Gibraltar. France basically gained nothing from joining the Revolutionary War, at the cost of bankrupting its economy and causing revolution at home. (92.7.15.211 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC))

 * Reconquering Canada was never a French war aim, which was why France and the United States specifically made a point of saying in the terms of their 1778 alliance that Canada ("any part of the continent of North america which ... in virtue of that Treaty [of Paris 1763], were acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain ... or which are at this Time or have lately been under the Power of The King and Crown of Great Britain") was to go to the United States if captured, not to France. The reasons for that are obvious: Canada cost far more money for France to administer than it had ever made, it would have been impossible to defend against either Britain or the United States, and its possession would have guaranteed that the United States would turn into a hostile power rather than a useful ally against Britain.  Also it's not at all true that "Britain had already lost control of the thirteen colonies by 1778", a time when New York, much of the middle colonies and almost all the South south of Virginia were still in British hands.  Nor is it true that it was the strength of the Royal Navy that prevented French invasions of British colonies: the Royal Navy couldn't prevent the shipment of Rochambeau's army to Rhode Island in 1779 (which is the army that would have invaded Canada if that's the strategy that Rochambeau and Washington had agreed upon instead of marching south to Virginia; they did discuss such an option), nor could it break the French blockade of Yorktown that ultimately led to Britain's defeat in the war, and nor could they defeat Suffren's squadron in the Indian Ocean.  Indeed, the American Revolutionary War is the only war of the last three hundred years in which the Royal Navy hasn't been able to maintain its customary dominance of the seas.  It is true that France went to war with the idea of stripping away a number of British colonies (it's just that Canada explicitly was not one of them), and it is true that she ultimately walked away with nothing while her two major allies (the United States and Spain) made significant gains in the peace settlement.  But the sentence "France gained little from the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war, except the colonies of Tobago and Senegal. Louis XVI was wholly disappointed in his aims of recovering Canada, India and other islands in the West Indies from Britain, as they were too well defended and the Royal Navy made any invasion attempt impossible" is full of inaccuracy.  (I wonder if "the Royal Navy made any invasion attempt impossible" is meant to mean specifically an invasion of Britain? That would be a more defensible assertion, though it would be better reworded as something clearer, like "an attempted French invasion of mainland Britain had to return to port after being unable to bring the Royal Navy to battle.")  Binabik80 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The neck is part of the spine
>"The former king was then quickly beheaded. Some accounts of Louis's beheading indicate that the blade did not sever his neck entirely the first time. There are also accounts of a blood-curdling scream issuing from Louis after the blade fell but this is unlikely, since the blade severed Louis's spine."

The neck is part of the spine. If some accounts say the blade did not sever his neck entirely the first time, then it's definitely possible he screamed. Although I do wonder why, if that's true, the guillotine blade hadn't been sharpened on purpose for the king. Maybe someone decided Louis deserved two cuts instead of one (gack). Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Madam Campan
Under "Primary sources" it has: "Marie Antoinette. Memoirs of Marie Antoinette, Queen of France and Wife of Louis XVI: Queen of France." Those memoirs were written by Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan, not by the queen. Click on the link to Google Books and space down seven pages. I fixed the citation. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis's blood and Henri IV's head
These findings were later cast into severe doubt, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/mummified-head-french-king-henri-iv-dna_n_4069500.html

Wolfita (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Considering the "polémique" within the scientific world, how can Wikipedia pretend to know better, and settle the matter - both RE Henri IV's head and Louis XVI's blood - once and for all? Discussing the subject is fine, but being affirmative one way or the other is not: Wikipedia cannot take on the role of both judge & jury on scientific matters the scientific world is still debating.
 * At best, Wikipedia should only mention both sides, but not take side.

 * European Journal of Human Genetics, 9 October 2013 (English):
 * http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/full/ejhg2013211a.html

 * Science, 9 October 2013 (English):
 * http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/bloody-rag-may-not-have-touched-louis-xvis-severed-head

 * Le Monde, 20 January 2014 (French):
 * http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2014/01/20/polemiques-sur-le-crane-suppose-d-henri-iv_4351224_1650684.html

 * Paris Normandie, 24 April 2014 (French):
 * http://www.paris-normandie.fr/detail_article/articles/388111/ce-n-etait-pas-le-sang-de-louis-xvi-dans-la-calebasse

 * etc. etc. etc.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

King Louis' XVI relic and King Henri's IV head have the same Y chromosome G2A
With a differing Y chromosome haplogroup to the one shared by the relic and head, it is more likely the 'surviving' three members of the House of Bourbon aren't related to King Louis XVI and King Henri IV. The article French Kings from Henry IV to Louis XVI "Bourbon", ancient Y-DNA explains: "King Louis XVI of France from a genetic test on blood in a cloth purported to have been collected at his beheading and maintained in an ornate gourd decorated with French Revolution themes. Confirmation of this genetic profile requires testing of a known relative because the "relic" cloth was a popular item sold for money following Louis XVI's execution. The sample was tested at two laboratories with the same results. The sample is most consistent with G2a3b1a samples and contains unusually high, rare values for markers DYS385B and DYS458 in this haplogroup G subgroup. Subsequent testing in 2012 on a mummified head, purportedly that of King Henri IV of France, revealed that typing of a limited number of Y-STR's showed a Y-Dna haplogroup of G2a. Reported researchers: "Five STR loci [from the sample taken from the head] match the alleles found in Louis XVI, while another locus shows an allele that is just one mutation step apart. Taking into consideration that the partial Y-chromosome profile is extremely rare in modern human databases, we concluded that both males could be paternally related." The two French kings were separated by seven generations." Quoted as being based on this scientific article. The same one this wikipedia article quotes. That scientfic article comes to some strange conclusions like the requirement to use surviving relatives, when the relic and head support each other and not the three supposed descendants claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Scott Herbert (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Imprisonment and Execution: Vote Count Inconsistence
In the Imprisonment and Execution section the text currently reads "On 15 January 1793, the Convention, composed of 721 deputies, voted on the verdict. Given overwhelming evidence of Louis's collusion with the invaders, the verdict was a foregone conclusion – with 693 deputies voting guilty, none for acquittal, with 23 abstaining.". The numbers do not add up (693+0+23 = 716, not 721) and I have no access to the cited source (a book). Can someone verify or find another source to confirm (or not) these numbers ? -- Fbergo (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 10, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

End/s of reign/s
The article currently has

There seem to be a number of contradictions: - 1. Did he cease to be reigning King of France and Navarre and start being titular King thereof on 4 September - they day after the adoption of the French Constitution of 1791 or 1 October 1791 - the day after the dissolution of the National Constituent Assembly? 2. Did he cease to be reigning King of the French and start being titular King on 10 August 10 August (French Revolution) or 21 September 1792 Proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy? Alekksandr (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Then what happened?
After the execution, was his body entombed? Buried? Torn to shreds by the mob? Quartered and set on spikes outside the city? Inquiring minds want to know. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 * That's what happened:
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential ideas and references
As part of my experience in a classroom role-playing game of the French Revolution, I come as a novice editor hoping to be able to contribute information that could improve the article on my character, at least a bit! I have read and taken into considerations the suggestions made on here about the discrepancies within the article and will carefully review the issues, although some suggestions were made years ago. I plan most specifically to build up on the section on Louis XVI's time as a constitutional monarch and what other plans may have been under-works in his final moments of holding some power. Later I'll also like to elaborate on the article on The Edict of Versailles. I'd like to share some resources I've gathered for this purpose, and would appreciate any feedback. If any other issues have come your attention, please let it be known so I could try and address them! Thank you. References 1893-1978., Faÿ, Bernard, (1968-01-01). Louis XVI; or The end of a world;. W.H. Allen. ISBN 0491000405.

1939-, Johnson, Alison, (2013-01-01). Louis XVI and the French Revolution. McFarland. ISBN 9780786473557. OCLC 865033927.

Charles River Editors (2013). French Legends: The Life and Legacy of King Louis XVI. CreateSpace Publishing. ISBN 9781494300180.

"Edict of Toleration, November 1787". chnm.gmu.edu. Retrieved 2017-02-20. John., Hardman, (2000-01-01). Louis XVI: The Silent King. Arnold. ISBN 9780340706503. OCLC 959636426. King Louis XVI, Benefactor of America, and Martyr - Dominicana Vol. 15 No. 2 Michael., Walzer, (1992-01-01). Regicide and revolution: speeches at the trial of Louis XVI. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231082592. OCLC 26932951. Munro., Price, (2003-01-01). The fall of the French monarchy: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the Baron de Breteuil. Pan. ISBN 9780330488273. OCLC 59340837. "The Edict of Toleration (November 29th, 1787) | Musée virtuel du Protestantisme". www.museeprotestant.org. Retrieved 2017-02-20.

Andreasvg (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

quality of article
As a reader of encyclopedias, I have to hope that a better article than this might be produced about the last king of France, executed during the Revolution, an event of great importance in European and world history. I would rate this article as pitched at high-school-level readers, not well written (translated from the French version, perhaps?), and without serious political or social analysis. For example, the riots leading up to the storming of the Bastille are brushed past as of no importance. It is of course appropriate to focus on biographical details, but the sources are not scholarly and the context is minimal. It would be wonderful if the article could be improved. Actio (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 * French article = 299 530 bytes vs English article = 75,575 bytes
 * If translated from the French, something must be missing in the translation:)
 * As a reader of encyclopedias who seems to put quality first, your help & comments would be more than welcome at articles on Louis XVI's children.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you, Blue Indigo, I wish I had the capacity to make t better, but i think some serious scholarship should be cited here. I have opinions, but even I would not want to read my own presuppositions if swept into an encyclopedia article Actio (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

King of France and of Navarre
Reason given by Surtsicna for removing of Navarre from the title King of France and of Navarre:
 * He was not actually king of such a kingdom. It was just part of his official title. We use "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland", not "Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland", and "King of Denmark", not "King of Denmark, the Wends and the Goths"

I am in total disagreement with the above: what is done with the titles for the reigning monarch in the kingdoms of Great Britain and of Denmark should have no bearing on the title King of France and of Navarre. To each its own history and titles.

The title came to the kingdom of France with the Bourbon dynasty when Henri III of Navarre became Henri IV of France, remaining king of Navarre & transmitting the title to his successors. Since, France has become a republic and Navarre - in fact Basse Navarre - a part of the Pyrénées Atlantiques department. However, the past is the past & no country should have to follow the do's and don'ts of another one, and Wikipedia is here to present & explain events as they are/were, not change the history of a country.

Here is how Louis XIV, roi de France et de Navarre, began his addresses, letters, ordinances etc.
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b86015722
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b86018619/f1.image

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Louis XIV does not begin his addresses, letters and ordinances as "King of France and Navarre". He begins them as "by the Grace of God King of France and Navarre". Why have we dispensed with the Grace of God? It had a tremendous meaning. It emphasised his semi-divinity, which he very much liked. We are already changing history, to paraphrase you, by cutting out this part.
 * And here is how Britannica calls him: Louis XIV | king of France. It describes him as "king of France (1643–1715) who ruled his country, principally from his great palace at Versailles, during one of its most brilliant periods and who remains the symbol of absolute monarchy of the classical age."
 * Louis XIV's full title and style must have a place in the article. He should not, however, be called King of France and Navarre in every instance, especially not when it suggests that France and Navarre were on equal terms or that Navarre was an actual state. He should be described in this encyclopedia the way he is described in all others - as king of France.

Surtsicna (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Surtsicna, Louis par la grace de Dieu Roy de France et de Navarre: whether "par la grace de Dieu" belongs in the title or not, it does not change what follows, which is Roy de France *et de Navarre*.
 * French monarchy was "de droit divin", Divine right of kings, which does not mean that the king was a half-god, but that he received his authority only from God, which, for instance, is the case of the Pope, who, even in the Catholic Church (or by himself) is not considered to be a half-god. I think we are missing quite a bit in the translation here :)
 * Quoting you: "He should be described in this encyclopedia the way he is described in all others - as king of France." Agreed as to follow the description of other wiki encyclopedias:
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_XVI.
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_XVI_de_Francia
 * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C3%ADs_XVI_de_Fran%C3%A7a
 * https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwik_XVI
 * same for all Louis from L.XIII on.
 * By the way, Navarre was an actual state until 1620. So, before changing French history on en.wiki, it might be a good idea to be a bit less severe denying titles which actually existed.
 * I agree that the entire title should not be used throughout the whole article, but it definitely has its place in the introduction.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mon dieu, you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia! Britannica calls him simply "king of France", as do Catholic Encyclopedia, Encarta, the Dictionary of World Biography and every other biographical dictionary. The Bourbon Kingdom of Navarre was indeed an actual state until 1620, which is why I am not against describing Henry IV (III) and Louis XII (II) as kings of France and Navarre. To define their successors as kings of France and Navarre, however, is entirely misleading, since it suggests that the Kingdom of Navarre was on equal footing with France, in the same situation as under Henry and, well, that it still existed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna
 * 1. Let me apologize for accidentally removing part of your text as I was copying it to give it as a quote from you: He should be described in this encyclopedia the way he is described in all others - as king of France. I just noticed it & put it back.
 * 2. When I read the word "encyclopedia", I misunderstood it to mean 'wiki' in various languages. My mistake.
 * 3. However, going back to the beginning of this talk, I still stand by my argumentation that Roi de France et de Navarre as used by all kings of France since Henri IV is the correct title of all the Louis and the one Charles who followed him. In several subjects that concern France, I happen to often disagree with some of the encyclopedias you mention.
 * 4. Four mentions of "Roi de France et de Navarre" in Journal des débats et des décrets du 29 Août 1789
 * 5. Fourteen mentions in Jean-Christian Petitfils book Louis XVI, Perrin, 2005
 * Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * google scholar gives n= 143 hits in scholarly books and journals for "Louis XVI"  "France and navarre" in the last 50 years.  Leave out Navarre and get 19,000 books and articles for "Louis XVI"  "France ".  that's a usage ration of 132:1  --many of the navarre cites are quotes from official documents from his reign,  see for yourself https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Louis+XVI%22++%22France+and+navarre%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&as_ylo=1967&as_yhi=2017    Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I maintain that the double title roi de France et de Navarre should be kept in the lede. Even if in the minority in hits, it was an official title, and skipping it altogether is not scholarly.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough, it is in the lede of this article. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Surtsicna -
 * Probably not expressing myself to be understood clearly, so here it goes again: What I meant "in the lede" is in the second line of the first sentence of the lede, where you changed "was the last King of France and Navarre before the French Revolution" to "was the last King of France before the French Revolution". Same argument for the info box.
 * The official title including Navarre may not be Google's majority hits, but it was the official title from Henri IV onward. Giving as a proof that one is right by providing the amounts of Google-hits is a strange way to get to the truth for an encyclopedia. So, Google-hits must always win over truth, even if it means that truth will end in the trashcan of history?
 * Pas d'accord! --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not Google hits. It's Google Scholar hits. It's scholarship. It's historiography. And it's a perfectly reasonable way to ascertain what this man was. The truth is that Louis called himself King of France and Navarre. The truth is also that he was never actually King of Navarre. Which truth shall we present? If we simply define him as King of France and Navarre, we are most certainly telling no truth. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Our job as wiki editors is not to resolve debates but to follow the vast majority of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Surtsicna
 * The truth is not what Louis XVI called himself or not, or whatever the number of Google-hits tells us what the truth is or should be: the truth is that the official title of the king of France starting with Henri IV was Roi de France et de Navarre, which is the reason why all kings of France starting with him began their addresses with "... par la grâce de Dieu Roy de France et de Navarre".
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Rjensen
 * You wrote: "Our job as wiki editors is not to resolve debates but to follow the vast majority of scholars." My answer: there was no debate until en.wiki decided to change the official title of the kings of France.
 * Furthermore, does the argument that Google-hits by scholars in majority in favor of dropping Navarre suggest that the scholars who do not agree with the majority are less scholarly & their opinion should automatically be dismissed? Does that mean that their judgment is wrong? Galileo comes to mind :)
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki ignores tiny fringe viewpoints. when you have a 130-1 ratio the "fringe" rule applies--too minor to need inclusion. (Actually I think some of these few are probably just quoting old documents.) Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we do not read ratios the same way, or are not talking about the same subject. Where in the case of interest here do you see a 130 to 1 ratio? I must be missing something. Please explain. At the google scholar link you gave, there are 143 hits, 59 of them including Navarre, which amounts to 41 per cent of results -, in the minority, but not that tiny, and not exactly something to be ignored. If this was a presidential vote, the 41 per cent would lose, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tool of learning, not a straitjacket. It can always explain in one sentence or a footnote the why & because of something, or send reader to an article on the subject. On the other hand, not mentioning de Navarre will only lead to someone eventually adding it.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has never used the "official title" for Louis, as it never called him king "by the grace of God". Wikipedia doesn't use "official titles" for monarchs of other countries, so why should it do so for the French kings? Because the French kings are the only in which you are interested? Or because you would be against defining George II as "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mon Dieu ! Which Wikipedia are you talking about? There are nearly 300 of them. Which one are you referring to that only holds the truth?
 * And, no, French kings are not my only subject of interest, but attract my attention when I notice something that does not sound right to me.
 * And, yes, somewhere in the article of George II of Great Britain, which I have not read, I would mention France & send readers to article explaining why that was a part of the title of English/British monarchs from the beginning of the Hundred Years' War until 1801. That would be a nice way to extend their knowledge.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The full title, including France, is mentioned somewhere in the article about George - in a section of its own. George's official title is not mentioned in the lead, which is where you want Louis' official title to be mentioned (if I understand you correctly). Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You understood correctly.
 * If one takes into consideration the history of each country, in France's point of view, the young Henry VI, king of England, being crowned king of France because he was the son of the king of France's daughter married to an English king, was judged as the English way of stealing the throne of France from its rightful heir. One reason for that point of view of the French was the Salic Law, in force in France. Another reason was the signing of the Treaty of Troyes by the unfortunate French mad king Charles VI, which disinherited his son, the rightful Dauphin. That's how England managed to add France to its title. Right or wrong, that's a part of the history of England, and it needs to be told/explained at some point, just like Navarre, which was a real country brought to the French realm by the very king of that country - hence Navarre in the title of the kings of France.
 * The kings of England/Britain kept France in their title until 1801. That is a part of their history, and when they removed it, they did it in an official manner, so, it would not shock me if the full title was given in the lede, with proper comment/explanation either in a footnote, or later on in the article. That's my way of thinking, and I don't think it is unreasonable since it is based on historical facts.
 * Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis XVI of France. 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/20120714094231/http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_(1787).html to http://booking-help.org/book_338_glava_314_Edict_of_Versailles_%281787%29.html
 * Added tag to http://www.tigerandthistle.net/tipu315.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929061344/http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/standard/5.00/5.3_1.00/13161.html to http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/standard/5.00/5.3_1.00/13161.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020
The sentence "Louis XVI was initiated[when?] into masonic lodge Trois-Frères à l'Orient de la Cour.[4][Cite book verification needed]" should be removed. Even if it's accurate, there's no indication given as to why this piece of information is important enough to be situated in the overview of his life at the top of the page, right after a sentence about the storming of the Bastille. 2604:2000:12C0:5C97:20D2:6DCB:346E:55D9 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The cited source is to an 1895 book which depends on old letters. The actual text: "Ce point d'histoire est la participation de Louis XVI ...a une loge maconnique qui est le denommee dans le trevail de M Monin de loge des Trois-Frères à l'Orient de la Cour." This makes it clear that Amiable is only reporting what Monin claimed, and cannot be considered a WP:RS.  This sentence seems to have been added solely to justify inclusion in the category of French Freemasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Louis XIV of France which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Description of Trial
The description of Louis' trial makes it appear that Michelet spoke against Louis' execution at his trial. Actually, he was a historian who made the point decades later. VERY misleading.

Kathleen Weber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30C0:6E50:CDB4:3EDB:CCCB:17CD (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

'Louis, Dauphin of France, he became the new Dauphin.' This is incorrect grammar as it is saying the new Dauphin twice by using the noun "HE". So this sentence should read: Louis, Dauphin of France, became the new Dauphin.

Restorer of Liberty
Just to expand a bit on my edit summary, if he's known as Restorer of Liberty, this should be discussed in the body of the article. The lead summarizes the article. If it's not important enough to discuss in the article, then it doesn't belong in the lead. And the source doesn't say that he is known by that name. It just says that there exists a cotton weave museum piece whose title is "Louis XVI Restorer of Liberty". GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Images of French monarchs
Do you think we should make the images of Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, and Charles X them in normal attire instead there coronation robes? Just a question.--Orson1234 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Orson1234

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022
In the section 'Absolute Monarch of France (1774-1789)', add a hyperlink to the wikipedia article 'compte rendu au roi' where the name appears in this article.

Article in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compte_rendu 194.230.148.125 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022
Please add the following template to the end of the article: 67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Louis' intellect
The reference added recently by @Dialuanny0 regarding the claim "none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France" does not sufficiently support this claim, in my view. The cited source says:

 * "While there is no doubt that Louis’ leadership and political judgement were lacking, it is simplistic and unfair to attribute the revolution to his errors alone. The king was no intellectual or visionary but nor was he reckless or stupid. In a more settled age, he might have made a capable old regime ruler. With better judgement, he might have overseen France’s transition to a constitutional monarchy. Instead, Louis found himself in a situation beyond his control and perhaps beyond his understanding."

and

 * "The young Louis XVI was moderately intelligent..."

I think whilst it certainly supports the claim that Louis was intelligent, it doesn't cover the claim of "none doubted his intellectual ability to rule France." Saying someone is intelligient is not the same as saying no one ever claimed he was unintelligent enough to rule France. Therefore I have added a failed verification tag, as I still think the reference has some value. And as always, appreciate any attempt to improve references so please don't take this as criticism @Dialuanny0! Happy to discuss further. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022
Louis 14th in Roman Numerals is XIV. Please change XVI to XIV throughout article. 70.80.20.84 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article is most certainly about Louis 16th. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023
Change émigrés to include the link to that page. I think the format would be émigrés Richardgomes7d (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: No point in linking a French word to an article that doesn't exist. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles the Bald which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry
23 and me states I'm in the same haplogroup as Louis the xvi 2601:409:C100:A330:9426:5CC:BFA:234F (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hoverbox showing Saša Ostojić
When you hover over this article link from another article, you get that "Saša Ostojić was the last king of France". I would edit this myself but I'm new to Wikipedia editing and unsure how to do so (also this article appears to be protected so I don't want to make any changes on a new account). Just bringing this to someone's attention. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sst
whom did louis XVI get married to? 106.221.74.72 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Marie Antoinette, or in her real name Maria Antonia Josepha 2001:D08:2920:BE3F:C914:52:8726:43A7 (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Louis XVI


text:
Family (1976 TV series)

Family is an American television drama series that aired on ABC from March 9, 1976 to June 25, 1980. It was conceived as a six-episode limited series, but initial high ratings led to the production of 86 weekly episodes. Creative control of the show was split among executive producers Leonard Goldberg, Aaron Spelling and Mike Nichols.

Overview
Family depicted what was, for its time, a contemporary traditional family with realistic, believable characters. The show starred Sada Thompson and James Broderick as Kate and Doug Lawrence, an upper-middle-class couple living at 1230 Holland Street in Pasadena, California, with their three children: Nancy (portrayed by Elayne Heilveil in the original miniseries, then by Meredith Baxter Birney), Willie (Gary Frank), and Letitia, nicknamed "Buddy" (Kristy McNichol). Their fourth child, Timmy, died five years before the first season, at age 10, in a boating accident.

Family raised the profiles of all its main actors. In particular, it catapulted Kristy McNichol and Meredith Baxter Birney to stardom.

 * Kate is practical and rational. She is motivated to do what is right, even if it makes her unpopular ("Jury Duty"). A full-time homemaker, she resents people telling her she could have attained more in life ("Home Movie"). After expressing frustration with the monotony of her existence, she returns to college as a music major and joins the faculty at Buddy's high school in season 4.
 * Doug is a calm, steadfast attorney who aspires to be a judge. He listens to and values his wife (although they grapple with issues such as Doug's past infidelity and occasional workaholism) and always makes time for his children.
 * Willie is an aspiring writer. He secures his parents' permission to drop out of high school to write a screenplay; he later earns his GED. Willie pursues work, assisting in a photography studio, an advertising agency, and at a TV show called "The Dame Game." His frequent romantic affairs drove many of the episodes involving his character.
 * Younger daughter Buddy (Letitia) is a tomboy, although she sometimes considers adopting a more feminine appearance ("Coming of Age"). She is a loyal friend, compassionate toward others, and well-liked by her classmates. She has a habit of walking into a room where adults are discussing something confidential and demanding to know what is transpiring. She usually seeks her mother's help when faced with a dilemma. Kate often calls her by the nickname "Tizzylish." Buddy is also very close with older brother Willie, who calls her "Peaches".
 * In the pilot, eldest daughter Nancy Lawrence Maitland catches her husband, Jeff Maitland (recurring guest star John Rubinstein) in bed with another woman. They divorce between seasons one and two. Nancy moves into the family guesthouse with her young son, Timmy (Michael and David Shackelford) and enrolls in law school.
 * In season 4, eleven-year-old Andrea "Annie" Cooper (Quinn Cummings) is adopted by the family after her biological parents, Kate and Doug's college friends, are killed in a car accident. Annie excels academically and strives to fit in with her new family and classmates at school, not always with success.

Storylines were often topical. In the first episode, Nancy walks in on her husband Jeff having sex with one of her friends. Other storylines include Kate's possible breast cancer and Buddy's dilemmas about whether to have sex; she always chooses to wait. In 1976's "Rites of Friendship", Willie's childhood friend is arrested in a gay bar, while 1977's "We Love You, Miss Jessup" deals with Buddy's friendship with a lesbian teacher. Family also contends with alcoholism (Doug's sister; Buddy's friend) and dementia: a 1979 episode directed by Joanne Woodward guest-stars Henry Fonda as Doug's father, James Lawrence, who is beginning to experience cognitive decline. Two years later, Fonda won an Academy Award for playing a similar character in On Golden Pond.

Episodes and production details
The initial showrunners of Family were Nigel McKeand and Carol Evan McKeand, who previously had been writers for The Waltons. After the fourth season, the McKeands departed and were replaced by Edward Zwick, who went on to produce the acclaimed series thirtysomething, My So-Called Life and Once and Again.

Exterior shots of the Lawrence family home were filmed at 1230 Milan Avenue in South Pasadena, California.

Critical reception
Family attracted widespread critical acclaim during its original run. TV critics called the show a rare quality offering in ABC's schedule, which included Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley and other Spelling-Goldberg productions such as Charlie's Angels and Fantasy Island.

Despite its occasional adult themes, the National Parent-Teacher Association consistently praised the series. In February 1979, the PTA said Family contained "good parenting lessons" and "slightly controversial" but "excellent" content, recommending it for viewing by teens and older.

In the fourth season, some critics took issue with the show's direction. In February 1979, Noel Holston of the Orlando Sentinel called Family "ABC's most prestigious program" but claimed "the producers' crisis-of-the-week approach is starting to strain the series' credibility." Some critics complained that Family, like many TV shows of the period, had become too reliant on sex-related plots. In spring 1979, ABC shifted the show to Friday nights at 8 p.m. Eastern, and its previously solid ratings dropped to the bottom of the chart.

Although Family earned solid ratings and a loyal following, ABC was criticized for failing to promote the show; the network never aired summer reruns, which could have expanded its audience. In an interview before Family's final season, star Sada Thompson called the network "capricious" and the lack of repeats "most unusual". In December 1979, former showrunners Nigel McKeand and Carol Evan McKeand said, "We worked on that show for 4 1/2 years and there wasn't a day during that time that we felt the network (ABC) gave a damn."

Seven years after the series ended, it was widely reported that a Family Reunion TV movie was planned for the 1987–88 season. At least one report indicated that if the movie's ratings were strong enough, the series would be revived for the current ABC schedule. The plot was to involve the Lawrence children gathering for Kate's remarriage. (James Broderick had died of cancer in 1982.) But the 1988 writers' strike halted production, and the project was abandoned.

title: Family (1976 TV series)


text:
Talk:John Wilkes

Prank
So what was the prank that wound up the Hellfire Club? Cutler 11:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) --- According to a book I own, Wilkes introduced a baboon at one of the Hellfire Club orgies, and frightened many of the members present, who mistook the monkey for Satan. Cyanne234 19:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To do
Date discrepancy: The statue photo in this article and a statue in Wilkes-Barre show his year of birth as 1727. The article has the YOB as 1725. Barney AZ 11/24/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney AZ (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a job to do here of tidying up the events surrounding publication of No 45 of the North Briton, which includes Entick v. Carrington and a number of other court cases. Cutler 00:30, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

-

what is an MP?

When John Wilkes separated from the Hell Fire Club, John exposed their orgies and evil ways. When the Earl of Sandwich told John that he would die either on the gallows or the pox, John reportedly said "That, Sir would depend on whether I embrace your mistresses or your principles."

An MP is a Member of the Parliament. John won an election by a huge landslide but the seat was given to the second place winner. John helped America's Freedom of Speech, Bill of Rights, Search Warrant requirements and other rights to protect the people from a tyrannical system of government. Things like the Stamp Act, Tea Act that had brought about the Boston Tea Party caused people to argue about taxation without representation. Taxes were supposed to be a voluntary gift of representative assemblies. "Wilkes, Liberty and 45" was referring to Psalm 119:45 when he was not afraid to speak out against a King in The North Briton. Number 45 is the verse that speaks about liberty in the King James Verson of Psalm 119. It is also referred in James 1:24 stating the Law of Liberty.

John Wilkes was married to Mary Meade having one daughter named Mary (Polly) who died in 1802. He had two other children named John Wilkes and Harriet Wilkes. His descendants are scattered in Canada and the United States. I know this because he is my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather. I was born in 1953 in Aurora, Illinois, USA. My mother is Ruth Wilkes (1928), daughter of Thomas Coleman Wilkes (1886), son of Henry Charles Wilkes (1834), son of John Aston Wilkes (1807), son of John Wilkes and Ann Aston Wilkes, Ann is the daughter of John Wilkes (aka Jack Smith) and MP John Wilkes's first mistress Catherine Smith. John Wilkes's second mistress was Amelia Arnold who had a girl named Harriet. MP John Wilkes (1727-1797) who was married to Mary Meade and had no children. The dates may be incorrect because the print on the family tree was not too legible.

John Wilkes was close with members of the Whig party from Britian to the 13 Colonies on the American Continent. His Great Nephew was Admiral Charles Wilkes who founded Antarctica where it is named Wilkes Land during the Seven Seas Exploration in 1838-1842. They would not have had the same views if they lived in the same century.

I, Sandra [Lacy, Bouman] Bouchard daughter of Ruth Wilkes and George Bouchard used other internet sources from the writings by a British writer, Marjie Bloy on her Victorian Web, "The Age of King George III"; "International Law Matters, Part XXII: March of Folly" column on the web by William Brinton published on March 11, 2003; "Wilkes Liberty and Number 45" in the Colonial Williamsburg Journal on the web by Jack Lynch and other web sites on John Wilkes. According to literatute that I read about King George III when he lost to America, King George III said that America is lost and the powers of Kingdoms is novel posing a thought that if we "adapted to the real evils of the presnt moment, it would be dreaded ones of the future." SJB

Some of these dates are all screwed up. A lot of the stuff that's said here to have happened in 1769 happened in '68, and while some of the dates themselves are correct (save for the year), a few are just completely off. I've been working with the Gentleman's Magazine "Historical Register" publication from the time period as part of a non-WP project, but I can go through and sort out the problems sometime in the future. Since Gentleman's was a contemporary monthly summary of events, I have little doubt that it's at least right on the dates. Fearwig 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the dates are wrong. Like I said they were hard to read. The family tree was written by FC Douglas Wilkes who lived in Oakville, Canada. Their local paper had another article about John Wilkes' direct descendants. They would have more accurated birth and death certificates along with the family tree. Mr. E. Dean Wilkes on George Street in Oakville has the original artifacts of his portraits and sketches. Dean Wilkes is also a direct descendant of John Aston Wilkes, descendant of Lord Mayor John Wilkes. This could help verification. SJB

What is the best way to supply a live reference to "Essay on Woman", rather than the dead hyperlink currently in the article? Presumably the reader will want something like http://keithblayney.com/Blayney/Essay.html Cameron Laird (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Confident/Confidant
Under the section on radical journalism it says "his confident, Lord Bute". Surely it should be "confidant"

JW and JWB.
This article states that John Wilkes Booth was related to John Wilkes. The John Wilkes Booth article states that Booth's family claimed to be distantly related to him. Anyone have the real scoop? (I wouldn't be surprised if JWB was simply named after JW, who was a hero among the revolutionary crowd. See, e.g., Wilkes-Barre, PA, named after JW and another MP who was pro-independence.)

 * That whole section "Triva" [sic] was a drive-by somewhat low-quality edit by an anon yesterday. It needs cleanup. The article also needs to decide whether the section headings are all H1 or H2 (one = or two). David Brooks 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Omissions
The biggest problem with this article is that it leaves out much that is signficant about Wilkes. He was influential among many men who became active in the movement for American independence, including the Lee brothers of Virginia and Caron de Beaumarchais, who was instrumental in providing the early supplies of arms and munitions for the colonists' war effort and in convincing the French to ally with the Americans.

More importantly, however, Wilkes' election to Alderman, sheriff, and MP all indicated an upswelling of popular political participation that signaled a new era in British politics.

Somewhere in there someone needs to work in the word "Wilkesian," too, since someone might do a search for that word and come up empty. The word meant one who supports Wilkes and his politics.

On the other hand, "Wilkite" is the more commonly accepted term for the idea expressed above.

There is a Council building in Enfield, a Borough of North London, named after John Wilkes ('John Wilkes House'). It offers a service dealing with all manner of housing issues to residents of Enfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.230.230 (talk) 11:17, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Portrait
There is a very charming painting of Wilkes and his daughter in the National Portrait Gallery in London. I gather that it was quite rare at that time for public men like him to be portrayed with their families. Cranston Lamont 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reworked article
I've reworked a lot of article in the last few days, if I've left anything out or been a bit biased anywhere (I think I probably have) please feel free to change anything. The Intro needs rewriting, and probably the early life section too. If anyone has any other suggestions that would be great. M A Mason 15:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

misattributed exchange with Lord Sandwhich
I had this in my quote file as an exchange between Gladstone and Disraeli so I did some more research and it appears that we have the correct answer already recorded in wikipedia. :) "It was the Earl of Sandwich and the English actor and playwright Samuel Foote who had the exchange 'I think, that you must either die of the p-x, or the halter.' 'My lord, that will depend upon one of two contingencies;--whether I embrace your lordship's mistress, or your lordship's principles.' The Yale Book of Quotations traces this to an 1809 source. Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributed the exchange to Sandwich and John Wilkes, based upon a 1935 book."The Yale Book of Quotations published in 2006. I am removing this exchange from this article since Wilkes was not involved. --Danny Rathjens 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reason John Wilkes fled to Paris at the end of 1763 (as soon as he could travel) "The Commons debate of 15 November, moreover, had resulted in a pistol duel the following day in Hyde Park between Wilkes and an MP, Samuel Martin, who had impugned his personal courage. Wilkes was so badly wounded in what many thought a plot against his life that he was unable to attend any further legal or parliamentary proceedings. Before the end of the year he had fled from justice: he crossed to France on 25 December and took up residence in Paris. Pleading ill health, he refused to attend either parliament or the law courts." source - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddaido (talk • contribs) 08:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Yale Book of Quotations is wrong (although they may mean 1835, which is within living memory of the exchange). This search includes two sources, one from 1840 - and claiming to have it at second hand, and another from 1828. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1757 he was elected MP for Aylesbury
I'm adding "1757 he was elected MP for Aylesbury" to the article because without that fact all the unseating mentioned later makes little sense. Nitpyck (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing redundancy
There's a confusing redundancy between the sections Radical Journalism and Outlaw, both of which describe the Massacre of St. George's Field in different contexts, giving the reader the impression that this was two separate events. 128.148.235.58 (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

as a reader...
...I know nothing about John Wilkes. The article says a good 10-15 times that he was a 'radical' but never specifies exactly what was radical about his ideas. since I know nothing about him, hence my consulting the article, I am not able to make these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.206.106 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know the following Wilkes anecdote?
In a college lecture on this period of English history, the professor told us the following anecdote as indicative of how far Wilkes had fallen in his old age:

As he is coming out of some club in London, a poor old lady recognizes him and begins to cry "Wilkes for Liberty! Wilkes for Liberty!", perhaps approaching him for money. Whereupon he kicks her back into the gutter and says something very like, "Shut up, you old bitch, that's all over now."

I had always assumed this was a famous anecdote, and because it seems so telling, expected to find it here. But not only is it not here, it doesn't seem to be anywhere on the Internet. Maybe it's not so famous, maybe it's not true, maybe it doesn't belong here. But now I have to know. Can anyone cite any version of this story? Thanks.

Mandrakos (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wilkes. 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/20131020124623/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/mansion-house/Pages/history-of-the-mayoralty.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/mansion-house/Pages/history-of-the-mayoralty.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Footnote 18 is broken / misdirected
It links to answers.com instead of the cited material about the Essay on Woman. 96.242.83.40 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wilkes. 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://archive.is/20140221041029/http://www.joinersandceilers.co.uk/history/amorialbearings.asp to http://www.joinersandceilers.co.uk/history/amorialbearings.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wheble and Thompson
Here's a source on Wilkes' role in the rial of Wheble and Thompson and attempts by parliament to suppress the reporting of its debates:, from which "He ignored an order to appear [before the House] on 20 March, after which no further effort was made to force him to attend the chamber." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Wilkes


text:
User talk:Diana Davalillo

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * Contributing tutorial
 * Copyrighted material should not be contributed
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Niteowlneils 20:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diana Davalillo


text:
Talk:Panic of 1837

POV cause does not cite accurate source
The following sentence is not properly sourced and is a distraction to the article: "It should be noted, however, that most mainstream academic economists in the United States do not accept all of the conclusions of the Austrian school." Seems evident the intent of this sentence is discredit the Jacksonin democrat theory. (What is the definition of a mainstream economist, anyway? Which specific 'mainstream' economist(s) does not accept the theory?  And why does that matter here?). Furthermore, the cited material is relevant to the article but does not support the claim. This sentence should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.216.173 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Causes should be edited
Reference to Austrian School theory is little accepted outside of strident libertarian circles, and mention of such fringe theory puts the entire article in question. (Really, does EVERYTHING on the internet need comment from Ron Paul supporters?) The citation of Mexican bimetalism doesn't make sense -- wouldn't it have pushed gold out of circulation? That's what Greshem's Law says. Einsteingreco (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Effects and Aftermath Page Needs to be Rewritten
It seems that economists have made numerous mistakes in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837 by not correcting GNP numbers for deflation. I already posted a quote from economist and de facto historian Murray Rothbard that GNP, when corrected for deflation, actually increased from 1838 to 1843.

I saved the new edited version:

According to most historical accounts, the economy did not recover until 1843. Most economists also agree that there was a brief recovery from 1838 to 1839, which then ended as the Bank of England and Dutch creditors raised interest rates. However, economic historian Peter Temin has argued that, when corrected for deflation, the economy actually grew after 1838. According to economist and historian Murray Rothbard, between 1839 and 1843, real consumption increased by 21 percent and real gross national product increased by 16 percent, despite the fact that real investment fell by 23 percent and the money supply shrank by 34 percent. Apparently, the economy was able to grow due to price flexibility, a result of minimum union control and no government intervention.

 * I have clarified that Murray Rothbard is an Austrian economist. Austrian economics is not well-viewed by actual economists, and Wikipedia itself notes that it is heterodox. I have also removed the claim that he is a historian, because that falsely leads the reader to assume he has some credentials in that regard (you yourself qualify the term here with *de facto*, but did not do the same in the article I notice). Anyway, I have left Rothbard's claim as is for now, but I would feel much better if the same claim came from an orthodox economic historian.Eniagrom (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Old talk page post
Needs some vulgarity cleaning at the ends of the two major sections Paragraph one - I believe 'specie' is not (paper money) - this clouds the entire artoicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.229.38 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource the Shepard text
As I said, a text dump does not belong in an article, articles that were started from other sources notwithstanding -- this is ancillary and redundant material to say the least. (An article that needs a "narrative history" is not a good article.) More problematically, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATT (some of these claims will be impossible to properly source). It is better that we put this public-domain text on Wikisource, and cite it as a reference. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's also rubbish, from an economics POV. The author does not understand economics and his explanations are simply incorrect.  This material does not belong in a wiki article.  Toby Douglass 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming a central bank would have alleviated the money supply contraction that lead to the Panic of 1837 is fallacy. It was the powerful Bank of England stock holders and their American lackeys retaliating against the Jackson administration for not renewing the charter of the privately held Second Bank of the United States that led to the panic through a massive and orchestrated restriction of the money supply.

The bank was formed in 1816. It was capitalized by the US government depositing 20% of the assets. The bank board members then lent themselves the funds to purchase the remaining 80% of the shares using fractional reserve banking. Thus with no cash investments, the bank directors began issuing treasury bonds, collecting the interest and manipulating the money supply to their advantage and the advantage of their English banking patrons such as Nathaniel Rothschild. Jackson fought against and ended the banks charter due to money supply manipulation and massive corruption.

This is incorrect. Nathaniel Rothschild hated the US bank because it represented US industrial interests against his British ones. Your stating typical Jewish talking points. Shame on you. Jackson's "pet banks" were supported by fathers of Wall Street in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.183.129 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Central banks have a proven economic history of money supply manipulation to enrich the private share holders of these organizations. The boom and bust "Business Cycles" that central banks are claimed to prevent are actually prevalent under central banking systems. They are almost always named in a deceitful manner to give the appearance of being a government institution, i.e. The Federal Reserve, The Bank of England, etc.UC-kid 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. It was the Bank of England that pushed Jackson to get rid of the national US bank so they could control US money supply through their Rothschild/Astor handler. Jackson was a known British supporter as were all southerners. It was the Rothschilds who triggered the revolutionary war through forcing specie on the colonial scrip and after Jackson comes to power, shows up in American records for the first time. Your stating a lie. Abolish your post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.183.129 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, is there any reason not to delete the Shepard text dump?Cromulant (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons mentioned above (clear POV, redundancy, inaccuracy) I have removed the Shepard text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.215.198 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

American Bias
The financial crises occured in the Canadian colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada as well collapsing the meek banking system that was still in its infancy. It had financial effects which lie at the heart of the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in 1838. I would appreciate at least SOME mention of this. 65.95.241.195 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto the effect on Texas in its attempts to secure European loans. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, how did Baring Bros. become an 'Anglo-American' banking house? Having a handful of foreigners on the board does't usually change the nationality of a company. Aside from those board members, I can't find anything to suggest that Barings was anything other than an impeccably British instituion.
 * My goodness, can you imagine the Yankee whining if having Europeans on the current boards of blue chip American companies - GE or GM for example - turned them into a 'Franco-American powerhouse' or a 'Swiss-American behemoth'?
 * There really is no credit, however thin, that the true American will not attempt to acquire.2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:DC7D:D977:5E79:92BB (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Cartoon Useless
The "Whig cartoon showing unemployment" is too hard to read and seems to lend nothing to the article. Maybe it's just my eyes? -65.169.210.66 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's readable if it's full size, but as it's shrunken down in the article, no one can read it. It does lend something to the article, however, because it exemplifies the Whig point of view at that time. Alexanderaltman (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just your eyes and even enlarged it's pretty illegible. Contra Alex above, it doesn't add the Whig POV since it doesn't seem to blame anyone (unless the New Era broadsheet and wall silhouette are supposed to add context, in which case they need clarification.) Atm, it is just an unemployed man with his complaining dependents.

On the other hand, it is better than nothing, until a better cartoon, portraits of principle actors, or wildcat currency images are added. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Speculation section removed
The earlier version's explanation of land speculation helped convey the mechanics of the collapse. Why was it removed? it should be put back in. Right now, the article is simply uninformative -- a panic happened, Van Buren got blamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.214.33 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"British Central Bank"?
The Causes section refers several times to the "British Central Bank". Is this the institution usually known as the Bank of England? If it is, why not give it its usual name? Maproom (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs Rewrite
The theory that reserve rates remained relatively stable in the 1830s seems to ignore the fact that these rates were set by state governments and enforcement was very uneven. John Kenneth Galbraith described the resulting situation in "The Age of Uncertainty" (p. 184):

"The smaller local banks were to remain free from serious restraint in many of the states for a century. Once Biddle's hand had been lifted, these state banks exploded in number.  To have a bank in the eighteen-thirties became, almost literally, a human right.  Many were well managed.  But for many the more remote the cross-roads, the deeper the forest, the more desolate the swamp, the more attractive the location.  For a remote or obscure address diminished the likelihood that the notes issued by the bank would ever find their way back for collection.  There was state regulation, but it was far from reliable.  In Michigan, where the history is better than elsewhere, the banks were required to maintain a reserve of gold and silver against their notes.  Boxes of coins were sent around through the forest just in front of the commissioners who were sent out to enforce the law.  As an act of economy, a thin layer of gold was once found to be covering a thick deposit of broken glass. In conservative Massachusetts in these years a bank failed. Against notes of $500,000 outstanding, it had cash reserves of $86.48. By the time of the Civil War some 7000 different kinds of bank notes were in circulation in the United States; to these, numerous artists with access to a printing press had added another 5000 that were counterfeit. Legal or bonus, the purchasing power was often about the same, meaning null."

The article should be re-written to mention the lack of a stable currency following the collapse of the Second Bank of the United States. The theory that proliferation of dubious currency had no effect on the speculative bubble is unproven and should not be included.

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Panic of 1837
It certainly gives the impression to me (formerly taught at the university level) of plagiarism with lengthy quotes in no way, at least directly, acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstraten (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV
"Of course, the initial Government intervention in the market had been part of the cause of the problem ..." What do we mean, "Of course"? Is this a matter of natural law, like the sun rising in the east? If so, shouldn't it at least be cited? This really needs to be toned down, even if it involves adding weasel words. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That entire phrase - not just the "of course" - reads like a Republican manifesto, especially in light of the 2008-2009 economic picture and government efforts to confront the situation. It might be that the writer means that the government's specie policy caused the problem, but that isn't what the sentence says. Unless someone can provide a credibly neutral source to support that statement, it ought to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.182.167 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for edit
Reading the article, I was struck by the mention of Mexican bimetallism and the citation of Gresham's law as an explanation for the flow of Mexican silver to the north, since Gresham's law would have predicted a northward flow of gold and, if anything, a southward flow of silver in response to bimetallism. Reading the text by Murray Rothbard cited in the article though, I learned that Mexico at the time did not adopt bimetallism (in the usual sense of a linked silver and gold standard) but instead issued debased copper coinage. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2012 (

Paragraph one - I believe Specie is not (paper money) - makes the article seem, well wrong! Mike24.98.229.38 (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Significant POV of a single person
_____________________________ This page has been edited by Stephen W. Campbell as mentioned below. Which does signify his special interest in this page. The reason why I am leaving this here is because this article could possibly have one man's strong opinion (For no self interest necessarily)

http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2014/improving-wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the allegations of POV are false, insulting and in violation of WP:BLP rules. Debasish Dey invented claims of POV and has been unable to provide a single example. Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Perhaps without intent, Dey has pointed out an excellent example of what Wikipedia is all about. Because Mr. Campbell's contributions this article is in much better shape. Moreover, his openness about the way he went about it, is not simply what we would want from all editors, but is also an example of how to improve an article while also respecting other people's contributions. It is exactly because of this approach that I do not see any significant POV here. The other way around. The editor made sure his views will not overtake his editing, which is what we all should do.  Historian (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings
I just reverted what I assume was a good-faith effort at improving the article by capitalizing "Aftermath" in the subheading, "Effects and aftermath." The WP MoS requires sentence-style capitalization of headings. Yopienso (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed minor vandalism
There was a minor vandalism in the first line of the article. "Panic! of 1837" was changed to "Panic of 1837" I believe it may have been in one other place but I could not find it in edit mode. If there was a reason for this please feel free to change it back. This may have been done by a bot, but I don't have time to check the edit history right now. Guy who couldn't get a username (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a prank based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic!_at_the_Disco I don't think they exclaimed it like that back in 1937 though. Popish Plot (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Recession or Depression?
Both terms are used in the article. From what I have read most economists and historians use the term "depression." But whichever term is employed we should work towards uniformity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The slave economy
I don't know how to edit Wikipedia well, so here is a summary of some needed edits. The role of the slave economy in the crises of 1837 and 1839 is mostly ignored in the article. This is significant because: This is laid out in detail in pages 270-280 of To support others in editing, here is a too-large quote from this source: "For decades before the financial crisis of 2008, most economists dogmatically insisted that the behavior of the market and its actors was inevitably rational. Yet a few brave souls insisted that the history of bubbles, booms, and crashes showed a clear historical record of mass irrational economic behavior. Throughout history, in fact, when three conditions occur at the same time, an asset bubble—irrationally high prices for some category of asset—usually emerges. Thomas Harrison was observing all three. The first such condition is the elimination of market regulation. By 1836, Jackson’s administration had destroyed the B.U.S., and replaced it with nothing. Nor did states try to control how much money banks printed and lent. Meanwhile, the national Whig Party, once the champion of the B.U.S., now tried to eliminate regulation altogether by passing the Deposit Act of 1836. This act shifted public land revenues from western banks to eastern ones, allowing the latter to increase their lending. The Whigs also doubled the number of pet banks. 19
 * The vast majority of cotton production in the Southern US was through slave labor.
 * Huge increases in the quantity and productivity of slave labor contributed to the preceding increases in cotton production and stagnation in cotton prices.
 * Along with land, the primary asset of most enslavers was their slaves. Enslavers were highly leveraged in part because of their ability to mortgage their slaves to raise capital for expending their operations.
 * Leading up to the panic of 1837, slave prices were still climbing quickly even when cotton prices stopped climbing, breaking the pattern of the prior years in which slave prices were very closely tied to the price of cotton.
 * Following the panic, when banks tried to collect on their debts owed by the enslavers, what that meant in practice was often auctioning off slaves, and slave prices dropped precipitously.

Lending by US banks had also increased dramatically since 1833 because of the second cause of bubbles: financial innovations that make it easier to expand the leverage of borrowers. C.A.P.L.-style bonds provided distant in- vestors with opportunity to purchase shares in the income flows of thousands of slaves—to speculate, in effect, on future revenues generated by cotton and slaves. These securities drew cash into the southwestern region, inflating the value of all kinds of assets, especially enslaved “hands.”

But one more factor makes a bubble run wild, and that is the euphoric belief that the rules of economics have changed, that somehow “this time is different” and asset prices will not return to their mean. “We can see nothing in the prospects of the Country to make it likely that [positive forecasts] will be disappointed,” wrote merchants Byrne Hammond and Company in March 1836."

Moreover, the panic of 1839 was enabled by the Southern state banks agreeing to back new loans to enslavers after the panic of 1837. Here is another useful quote from Baptist (2016) on the aftermath of the panic of 1837: "Yet, “In Missi.[,] there has been no absolute loss of capital,” wrote Stephen Duncan. Enslavers still held the assets—the men, women, and children who produced the commodity around which the entire Atlantic financial economy revolved. But without enough credit to lubricate the circuits of American trade, bales made in 1837 might well sit on the levees and docks until the wind ripped their burlap wrappers into flags. So over the next twelve months, southern entrepreneurs asked investors to sink more long- term capital into their region, and to do so on the basis of slavery- backed securities. States and territories on slavery’s frontier issued at least $25 million in new bank debt, most of it state- backed, between 1837 and 1839. The world financial community responded. Alabama’s state bank attracted massive quantities of capital from the Rothschilds, perhaps the wealthiest family in the world, proprietors of a powerful merchant bank headquartered in London and Paris. The new issues of bank securities, in turn, allowed banks to loan out more money to southwestern borrowers. Which they did. By 1841, the residents of Mississippi would owe twice as much money—$48 million—to the state’s banks as they had at the beginning of 1837."

Capitalization in caption
I'm moving this from my talk page:

Balaam

With regard to [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panic of 1837&diff=1228602055&oldid=1228594696 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panic_of_1837&diff=1228602055&oldid=1228594696], I don't know if you eventually saw, but while the LOC presents the title in lower case letters as a generic textual summary, the image itself displays the title in all caps below the cartoon frame. [Https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.15775/ https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.15775/]. I can live with the updated, Modern title styling you have since applied if you feel that it is best. ShoneBrooks (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I moved your comment from my user talk page to the article talk page so other users can see and possibly comment. Yes, I did see that at the LOC, the title at the bottom of the cartoon is in all caps. This was probably not done by the LOC, but by the cartoonist or an editor back in 1837. An all-caps title on a newspaper cartoon doesn't, in my mind, dictate how we capitalize the title in a caption. I found this at MOS:TITLECONFORM: An entirely boldfaced, all-caps, underlined, neon-green, or otherwise stylized title in the source material is not interpreted as a form of emphasis. This includes partial titles; e.g., a newspaper might have an in-house convention for all-caps in the first part of a title and all-lowercase in a subtitle: something like "JOHNSON WINS RUNOFF ELECTION: incumbent leads by at least 18% as polls close" should be rendered on Wikipedia as "Johnson Wins Runoff Election: Incumbent Leads by at Least 18% as Polls Close" or "Johnson wins runoff election: Incumbent leads by at least 18% as polls close", depending on title-case or sentence-case for periodical sources in the citation style used in the article. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panic of 1837


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googliboop

Inane meaningless stoner ramblings. SPEEDY DELETE.DS 20:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. PS A speedy delete happens here, but I'm not sure if this is a candidate see here. JFW t@lk 21:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made up term, patent nonsense.  - TB 20:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and commission author to write a British Children's television series. --bodnotbod 21:02, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creator is a 14 year old newcomer, so gently. JFW has left a good message on his talk page. IMO this would qualify for speedy, which doesn't need to go through any process at all, a sysop can just do it, but IMO it's best for this to go through VfD. Also some maintain that once listed on VfD the process must be concluded, I think that should be case by case but again appropriate here. Andrewa 21:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. I've been rather grumpy today - my rabbit died yesterday, he was barely a year old - so I used a harsher tone than necessary. Also, I retract my insinuation that the article's creator uses illegal drugs. He was just being goofy, I'm sure. DS 23:45, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Huh? Everyking 21:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:13, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: jaredwf 06:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry, I'm the user who wrote it. My friend got on and started messing around. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again... User:Ariel Horwitz