Talk:Demimonde

Article splitting

There is little information in this article about the demimonde, though a wealth of information on those classified as demimondaine. It provides the illusion that the two were synonymous. I would recommend splitting the two articles, preferably after more content, and citations, were added to both.

Dak06 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

POV and Factual Accuracy

• Quote: It seems justifiable to me that this term might apply to any social grouping which generally corresponds to this scheme.

Anytime you see the word "me" in an encyclopedia article, you reeeeeeally have to question the POV. =P Also, 'Demimonde', as a dictionary term, refers to women of the 19th century on the fringes of 'respectable' society who were supported by wealthy lovers. Socially, they were viewed as barely more respectable than upper-class prostitutes, the word was essentially a polite term for 'mistress' or 'kept woman.' As this article is linked directly from the dandy article in an attempt to say that a demimonde was a female dandy, this is doubly problematic. Their link to the Bohemianism movement of the 19th century is debatable, the women of the bohemian movement can be just as easily shown to reject the lifestyle of a mistress or 'kept woman' as being degrading to the more intellectual aspects of Bohemianism. The lifestyle of a demimonde, a high-society mistress, is completely at odds with that of the Dandy this article is linked from, and the general artistic/intellectual counter-cultural outlook of 19th century Bohemianism. This article needs a serious re-write. Xaa 17:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to one definition of demimonde. Proplerly speaking, what you are referring to is actually the demimondaine. Demimonde is indeed the proper term for the world of the marginalized players in the bohemia of Paris in the 1880-1939 period. Dictionaries don't always take this usage of the term into account. Youuuuuu are splitting hairs with your POV argument. Go ahead, take the offending phrase "to me" out. It's hard to argue for POV when this is done. If that's all it takes, your contention seems silly. You have my permission as the original author. Incidentally, I had nothing to do with the link from dandy.--David Westling 28 Jul 05

• No, sorry. I am not just referring to one definition of demimonde. I am referring to the only definition of demimonde that applies. Cites: [1] [2] Again, the link you are attempting to make between the demimondaine and Bohemianism is highly debatable and is original research. Your article's summary of the meaning of the word has almost nothing to do with what the term actually means, and will require some citations. The POV assertion I am making is not based on just one sentence at the end of the article, it's based on the entire article which has taken a single word that was a polite term for 'mistress' in the mid 19th century and spun it into meaning a class of Bohemian women who traded sex for living a wealthy lifestyle - a lifestyle which is completely antithetical to the entire philosophy of the Bohemian movement. Moreover, you further go on to describe an entire counter-culture society without any citations of it's existence. I thought asking for a re-write was better than VfD, as your article was interesting. It lacks the overall style format of a Wikepedia article, it lacks proper citations, but it's still interesting. You have presented an opinion - you now need to present where that opinion came from. If that opinion is entirely your own, then this is invalid as it's original research. If you cannot or will not provide citations for your work, however, it may as well just be VfD'ed, I'm sorry. As a hypothetical example to make this more clear to you: If I write 2000-word article that defines prostitute as being a respectable term for the president of the United States, that doesn't make it so no matter how well I write the article - I'll have to provide some citations to prove that it's not just me saying it, it's actually the commonly accepted term. In short, what your article lacks is someone other than you who defines demimonde the way you do, and has written a book on it. Several someones, in fact, or at least one really prominent author. Note: I also acknowledge that another source of the problem may be that the article is simply written in a manner that is not presenting your point clearly enough to be understood by me - but again, this is a matter of format and style. I will attempt to elucidate the areas I am having problems with, here:
  • It gained currency in the late nineteenth century as a subset of the world of bohemia, the realm wherein, for example, young artists struggled against poverty to establish their vocations. - this needs a citation. Bohemians did not struggle against poverty, most willingly chose poverty as a rejection of the bourgoise values.
  • This "half-world" had a definite but tenuous relationship with the conventional world; most of its famous animus towards this world was, alas, only an inverted envy. - This needs a citation BADLY. Bohemians did not envy the bougiose at all.
  • Nevertheless, the demimonde was a real, and largely separate, society, with values that either openly scorned or simply ignored those of conventional society. - This needs a citation badly, particularly to show a separate society (or at least a definable counter-culture movement) existed. The dictionary definition is not of a counter-culture movement, the #3 definition is a term used to describe marginalized artists, writers and musicians - I.E. those who tried to succeed, and failed. This is directly opposing the definition you just gave, as such, you need a citation.
  • The demimonde is intimately associated with the Night (The Great Procuress, as Von Stroheim calls it); that part of the day in which those who populated conventional society did not move in with much aplomb. - Again, citation is needed - in this case, a bibliographical reference to the source of Great Procuress within Von Stroheim's writings, and a more detailed explanation of what it means in the context you are using it.
  • The demimonde perhaps reached its apex within the context of the French Symbolist movement, which flourished between 1880 and 1900, that offshoot of Romanticism which embraced more that was dark than merely the night. Cite? You again are asserting that the demimonde represent a movement, and are here asserting a connection with the French Symbolist movement. However, that's simply not what demimonde means, and you offer no evidence to back up either the existence of the Demimonde as an identifiably separate movement or their connection with French Symboilsm.
  • This is the realm of J.K. Huysmans' Against the Grain and Arnold Böcklin's Isle of the Dead, and can be viewed as the immediate precursor to Surrealism. - This is *almost* a good cite. Unfortunately, to understand what you're getting at, the reader actually has to read this books. That doesn't work. Moreover, I *did* read that book years ago (anyone who hasn't can find the Howard translation here), and I don't remember any description of a demimonde movement in it. I remember descriptions of people who had been marginalized by failure (and I remember it being so incredibly dull as to be physically painful to read), but that is not the same thing as a philosophical or ethical movement. And as far as the painting 'Isle of the Dead', that's really a stretch - you need some kind of citation to show how it relates to your assertion of a demimonde movement.
  • We are speaking here of the intensification of a shift in consciousness which rejected Rationalism, which trusted the passions above logic. This French Symbolist demimonde was the imperfectly realized result of the then-nascent theories involving the implementation of radical subjectivity. Again - citation, please? How do you come to this conclusion? If it's your conclusion, that's no good - original research. If it's someone else's conclusion that you have read in a book, you need to cite where it came from (chapter and verse, if possible).

I hope this helps to make things clearer. =) Xaa 01:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

xaa--you are out of your mind. A simple 5-minute browse through the internet yelded this definition of demimonde: 2. "A group whose respectability is dubious or whose success is marginal. (Example) The demimonde of ghost writers, hacks, and publicists."--dictionary.com. It's a perfectly common use of the term. There seems to be a whole class of would-be writers out there who just live for these high-octane outbursts. Get a life. I don't really care if you use your overweening influence with the awesome powers that be in wikipedia to ax the article. I'm not angling for the attention of some literary bigwig.--D. Westling, esq., July 29 05

Ummm... Okay. So I present seven specific sentences and detailed questions regarding them, and instead of replying to each, your reply is that I'm mentally disturbed. Err... Somehow, I fail to find this response appropriate.

1)You are making a claim that the demimonde represented a full-blown counter-cultural society that was a spin-off of the bohemian movement of the 19th century. You give one literary cite - J.K. Huysmans' Against the Grain. In this novel, Huysman does not use the word demimonde even once, nor does his novel describe the counter-cultural world you are proposing existed in this article. In fact, Des Esseintes, the protagonist, is basically the only character in the novel, everyone else is just background he interacts with. With respect, it takes more than one fictional lone recluse to actually form the foundations of a society - a society, by definition, requires the interaction of real humans with other real humans, and a commonly shared culture and/or set of beliefs. If your argument is that the fictional character of Des Esseintes represented a larger group of real human beings during the 19th century who, like the fictional Des Essientes, became jaded towards the bougiose society around them and intentionally marginalized themselves in search of a greater meaning of life as part of the larger movement of Bohemianism, you will need to provide some kind of citation to show this. If your argument is that the author, Huysman, was writing from and/or about this society, you again will need to provide some kind of citation to show this. And with respect, I'm afraid this will be particularly difficult, as all the biographical and literary citations I can find regarding Huysman show that he worked for the French Ministry of Interior during his life. As a professional bureaucrat his entire adult life, he was as mundane and bougiose as one can get. In every literary citation I can find, Huysman' Against the Grain is cited as an example of Decadent Literature, not as proof for the existence of a counter-cultural spin-off 'bohemian' society you propose.

2) Your other citation is a painting, and you give no citations from art historians to discuss it's background and your reason for believing that the painting proves the existence of the society you describe. With respect, Bocklin's Isle of the Dead does not prove the existence of anything other than Bocklin, himself. You need some kind of citation which details the background for the painting, and shows it originated from or was painted to illuminate the society you assert as having existed.

3)The example you give is one of the examples I cite, above, and is an example of usage of the word in a sentence. With respect, it is not proof of the existence of the society you claim existed, anymore than an example of using the term "Middle Earth" in a sentence is proof of the existence of hobbits. It is only an example of the word in a sentence. Your contention is that there was an entire counter-cultural society, but this does not comprise proof of the existence of that society in any way - it is not a historical essay, it is an example of grammar.

I am trying to work with you, here, and being as specific as I can in my objections so that you can re-work the article. Yet, your response is essentially to degrade me. I politely ask that you reconsider your remarks, and adress each of the seven points I raised above with specific citations of historical or literary works which reference and deliniate the society you have propounded in your article. Thank you. Xaa 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that it's hard to take anyone seriously on this that can't spell "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie". 89.247.86.166 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view

Hi all,

I come here from the posting at WP:3O, and a request for such an opinion on my talk page. I have read the article, and have read this talk page. I know nothing about this area, and so my outside view is that of a person wanting to be able to learn something from the article. My thoughts are these:

1. As the article stands, it is rather difficult to understand the terminology.
   • Expand on the terms and language that are used, with a good description of each of them or, at least, a summary of them and a link to the full article.
   • Add a 'context' or 'background' section so that it is possible to read the article without being an expert.
2. At present, the best verification that has been offered in support of either view is an online dictionary. That is insufficient for an encyclopedia article. I am sure this terminology, if in use in this way, can be found in respectable literature. We all know how unreliable online dictionaries and encyclopedias are.
   • The references in the article are given with little context: it would be helpful if you could say how these references do what they do.
   • Referencing is an essential part of writing articles, see WP:CITE for advice. Those who consider deletion of pages often err on the side of caution when dealing with possible original research: we need to be sure it is not original, or point-of-view before we include it. Make sure the references leave no room for doubt; at present there is too much room for doubt.
   • The original author claims that dictionaries often overlook the meaning given in the article: are there good sources that do not overlook this meaning that can be referenced here (they need not be available online)?
3. If there are, in fact, two usages of the word "demimonde" then I would encourage you to make a 'disambiguation' page that gives both meanings, and gives backing to both meanings.
   • It strikes me that the dictionary definition so far cited does not adequately support either argument, though this may be more a question of scope than content.
4. The final sentence I have removed, but it is worrying that it was ever there. It gives the distinct impression of original reseach (see WP:NOR), and the lack of authoritative referencing reinforces that impression.
5. Given that the article has faced claims of being original research, deal with those claims! Face them head on, provide authoritative sources (not merely the results of a Google search), expand on the points that are raised and prove them wrong. At the same time, be prepared to collaborate, and write about both usages if both are appropriate.

I do not think that the author's second response was a helpful way to proceed: it can be hard to see your article being criticised, but it is a healthy part of writing a good, thorough encyclopedia. Moreover, the comments were not criticisms, they were suggestions. However, User:Xaa might note the {{sofixit}} philosophy: if you see something you don't like, be bold and fix it. If you think this article can be turned into a good thorough reference work, go ahead and do it. You do not need anyone's permission! Ultimately, if you think it cannot be fixed and there is nothing to be had from the article, take it to VfD.

I would urge you both to get along with one another: you both evidently know something about the area, and a good article prepared jointly by knowledgeable people would have long term value to the project. -Splash 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Re: {{sofixit}} Alright, I'll give it some thought and see what I can come up with. =) Xaa 01:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. =) Regretfully, I couldn't just 'fix' the previous article - I can find no citations whatsoever to indicate the society the author proposed ever existed. So, I replaced it with an attempt at an article that defines the demimonde that DID exist, and can be cited. Xaa 02:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this is a good article now. Is the information about Cora Pearl taken from the memoirs, or some other source?
      • Memoirs and another book I forgot to add to the citations - I'll add it now. =) Xaa 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note to original author: this is a very different article to the one you wrote. If you can provide references etc. for the original version, I would encourage you to include them, along with your text, in the article, perhaps in a separate section. Do however, resist the temptation to simply replace the current version wholesale with yours. -Splash 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Change title and (hopefully?) soften debate

A question and a proposal.

(1) Why use the spelling "demimonde"? It seems that the correct spelling is "demi-monde". See for instance OED (which doesn't even offer "demimonde" as alternative spelling) or the next item, (2).

• http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=demimonde As you can see, the spelling is correct, it's just American. Demi-monde is Commonwealth spelling. By the current wikipedia rules, the spelling set (American or Commonwealth) that started the article should be carred through the rest of the article, so that articles don't end up with mixed spelling rules and look bad. If you feel it is important to include demi-monde, the best solution is a redirect from demi-monde to the existing article. Xaa 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(2) The term "demi-monde" happens to have a very well-defined, recent, traceable (and well-known!) origin: it is taken directly from a well-known play by Alexandre Dumas fils. Of course the meaning can have evolved since, but it seems more than a little ridiculous to argue endlessly about it without even mentioning (or knowing?) its origin... such "information" just reflects at best the POV (or prejudices) of the contributors.129.194.8.73 06:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• The heated debate you are so concerned about is over two years old. ;-) As for the origin of the term, I did not give it, simply because wikipedia is not a dictionary (they have Wiktionary for that). The article covers the meaning and the evolution of the meaning over time. If you feel that adding Dumas as an origin for the phrase would improve the article quality, go right ahead and do so. Xaa 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

I checked out this article because I wanted to link it to the "See also" section of another Wikipedia article. When I glanced over the first paragraph, it looked like it said that "demimonde" means "mistress," which of course it doesn't. The problem was that the first sentence of the article actually introduced "demimondaine" as meaning "mistress." I thought this was a really misleading way to write the artice, because a casual reader could take away from it that "demimonde" simply means all the mistresses of the 19th century (a bit more slanderous accusation than a correct definition, which would include anyone, male ofrfemale, who basically led a racy or non-conformist night-life among similarly-minded people during the 19th century- men who went to a disreputable cabaret to hear iconoclastic, bawdy poetry or people who met in a salon to talk very taboo politics were just as much part of the demimonde as a woman who was doing nothing notable besides sneaking around behind her husband's back with another man).

So I very gently re-wrote the first paragraph, especially the first sentence, to clear this up, and moved the "demimondaine" sentence from the first sentence of the article to a bit later on in the first paragraph- a much more appropriate place to introduce a related term, especially one that is spelled so similarly to the title of the article it appears in. I hope other Wikipedia contributors will also try to stay aware of the ways in which ignorance is likely to be spread, and least likely to be corrected/detected once they are out there, when they write. After all, we don't want a young student to quickly read this article, and then some time later when they are sitting in a professor's class and hear "demimonde," "demimonde," "demimonde," at different points in the lecture, to think the professor is saying "mistresses," "mistresses," "mistresses," when what she meant to communicate was "19th century counter-culture," "19th century counter-culture," "19th century counter-culture"- right? The professor may be trying to praise the demimonde or just say something neutral about it, but if Wikipedia is not clear enough, part of their audience could think that what the professor was praising was sex out of wedlock (and then in turn the professor's credibility or reputation could be hurt when the professor was in fact not at all trying to devote ten minutes of her lecture to championing cheating on one's spouse).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.104.225 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Penny Dreadful reference REMOVAL

So it isn't put back, I'm noting a removal from the fictional references section (does Wikipedia allow this now?) for Showtime's Penny Dreadful series that refers to a word that is actually something like Demi-Mundi (half-world) --184.63.132.236 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Countess of Castiglione

As far as I know, Countess Castiglione came from an aristocratic and wealthy family. I never read or heard that she was destitute and only when in Paris became wealthy. It seems very odd to me as she was wealthy herself, related to wealthy people, and part of the establishment before moving to France.

For this reason, I suggest that the paragraph related to her (pasted below) is modified. At the very least, a reliable source should be added confirming the fact that when she moved to Paris she was not wealthy.

"A famous beauty was Virginia Oldoini, Countess di Castiglione, who came to Paris in the 1850s with very little money of her own and soon became mistress of Napoleon III; after that relationship ended she moved on to other wealthy men in government, finance and European royalty. She was one of the most aristocratic and exclusive of the demimondaines—reputed to have charged a member of the British aristocracy one million francs for 12 hours in her company." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimalSymbolicum (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)