Talk:Voltaire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Slavery

Jimjilin, this[1] is an allegation and your citation is hardly a one liner about Voltaire's view on slavery, can you arrange something better? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided two quality sources, what's the problem? Jimjilin (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How he was aware of Voltaire's view about slavery? He has provided no citation for such info. You had added a quote, I had replaced with the correct one, in which Voltaire is trying to tell that climate almost no effect on race. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My second source goes into more detail: Jimjilin (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reinserted it. I have read that he had mixed views about slavery, I would probably write about it too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Jimjilin (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire on religion

I reorganized the section about Voltaire's philosophy, splitting it in two. It basically focuses on his views of various religions. Someone had added this sentence and I didn't know what to do with it:

Voltaire admired the Scottish Enlightenment for its uniquely practical branch of humanism: "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation".

I feel that Islam still gets an overkill of treatment, mostly negative, but I didn't know what to do about it, so my edit was largely just moving subsections around. But I just heard from Bladesmulti that the section had been transwikied from French Wikipedia and in fact cites unreliable sources.

Someone added stuff about Voltaire's influence on Edward Gibbon saying that Christianity contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Don't know if this is true or even relevant. Qzekrom (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It cited unreliable citations before, later they were changed by some of the other users. Your analysis is probably correct if this change[2] is not about whole Christianity but only Roman Empire. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Voltaire is not primarily notable for his views on religion, and much less for his views on Islam. Focusing more than a line or two on this is clearly undue weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually had [3]-[4], and they recovered it. Section used to look much worse in those days, full of primary citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Voltaire most definitely is widely known for his views on religion. Most of his political authorship focuses to the greatest extent on criticism of religion, Catholicism in particular, but all intolerance and prejudice stemming from religion in general. Alongside aristocracy, he saw the hierarchy of religion as the main proponent of ignorance and oppression in his days, and he was himself widely read in theology. In Peter Gays classic work on The Enlightenment, Voltaire is the person featured most prominently in the first volume (which deals with Enlightenment philosophes views on religion). Also he does frequently mention Islam. In his Treatise on Tolerance he mentions Islam favourably compared to Catholicism. The same occurs in his Philosophical Dictionary. It was not necessarily meant to be taken seriously, as it was one of his favourite dialectical methods to compare what was then considered barbaric with what was then considered civilised, often in favour of the former, to shock his readers into reconsider what was thought as of established truths. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus, Voltaire's Candide ridicules religion, theologians, governments, armies, philosophies, and philosophers. Of these elements, Voltaire's ridicule of religion is perhaps universally understood by all readers, regardless of experience. Most peoples interaction with Voltaire's written work is via Candide. 96.28.43.27 (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jettison section - The Drama Mahomet

Move the section "en bloc" to a new section in Main article:Mahomet (play). 96.28.43.27 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Manichaeism & Atheism & Humanism

An IP editor has put a lot of effort into adding a section entitled "Manichaeism & Atheism & Humanism" to this article. However upon inspection of the sources, it seems that it is actually a piece of original research. The theory of Voltaire and Manichaeism is put together by using primary and non-related secondary sources by the editor in question and is not something that has been proposed by any notable scholar on the subject (at least not any that is cited in that section).

I have deleted of the entire section on account of the blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations it constitutes. If the editor in question insists on including the information about the theory of Voltaire and Manichaeism, Atheism and Humanism, they will need to find some reliable secondary sources that explicitly sources the claim that that was Voltaires opinion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Freemason in the lead

I took out the word "freemason" in the lead's first sentence. It currently reads: "Voltaire was a French Enlightenment freemason writer, historian and philosopher..," which is awkward. The phrase makes it sound that he was either an Enlightenment freemason or a freemason writer, neither of which makes sense.. His status as a freemason does not seem important enough to be placed so early in the article.Purplethree (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Modified edit summary

After deleting some material from the main article i wrote in the edit summary of my edit: the source says that Voltaire's letter to the Pope offering to dedicate Mahomet to him was not an act of standing by his work but a bid to win admission for himself to the French Academy.

This edit summary should have been: the source says that Voltaire's letter to the Pope offering to dedicate Mahomet to him was a bid to win admission for himself to the French Academy (the source does not say that it was an act of standing by his work). Soham321 (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Voltaire's remains

I just deleted this edit from the main article: A widely repeated story, that the remains of Voltaire were stolen by religious fanatics in 1814 or 1821 during the Panthéon restoration and thrown into a garbage heap, is false. Such rumours resulted in the coffin being opened in 1897, which confirmed that his remains were still present.

The reason for the removal is that the 1967 book of Will Durant titled Rousseau and Revolution is explicitly contradicting the assertion of the 1898 NY Times article. In the section Voltaire and Rousseau in the main article, the last sentence is this one: In May 1814, during the Bourbon Restoration, the remains of Rousseau and Voltaire were secretly retrieved from the Panthéon by some religious fanatics, and buried in a dumping ground near Paris; the remains are now untraceable.[146] Soham321 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Candle and the sun

This source says that Voltaire once said, "They are fools ... who light a candle to look at the sun." Where will it fit here? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, where will it fit? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, but definitely not in the 'Appreciation and Influence' section. Secondly, your source is a magazine article written by a journalist. We are not informed from where this journalist is taking this quote from. Is it from some book or article by Voltaire? Some letter? Something said in a conversation? To keep high standards for the encyclopedia, sources used for historical figures like Voltaire should be authoritative. Like a historian, for example. Preferably an eminent historian who is considered an authority on the subject. Soham321 (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange editing by Abdecare

Abecedare has been doing some strange editing on the main article. First he removes reference to the Seeber book which was claiming that the letter supposed to have been written by Voltaire endorsing slave trade has been challenged as a forgery ( diff1 ) . By doing this he is undermining the overall balance of this section of the article by giving only one side of the controversy. Note that reference to the Seeber book had *not* been inserted by me. Second, he removes the OR note which had been inserted by me( diff2 ). In the edit summary he says that this is a false OR note. However, the edit summary and the removal of the OR note are unjustified. Note that it is the mention of Voltaire's supposed comment on blacks on page 86 of Cohen's book ("More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites") which is being challenged here on the ground that Cohen is attributing a view to Voltaire without referring to Voltaire's writing or referring to any other authority. I am leaving this note for the use of future editors. Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To explain:

1. Here is the edit in which you added the false and OR note: unless you have a secondary source making such a claim about Cohen's (highly respected) scholarship, there is nothing further to discuss about this. You had earlier changed the claim cited to Cohen, and I'll leave it other editors more involved with this article to decide if the previous version was preferable.
2. Here is the edit in which you added the qualifier that the claims of Voltaire's views on the slave trade are based n a "possible forgery" (later you even removed the word "possible"). Can you cite the source for this claim that you added? I checked the three, other, sources cited at the end of that sentence and they don't support your addition (quite the opposite in fact). The only remaining source is the 1937 Seeber book, which may or may not support the addition you made. In any case, such outdated and much criticized work cannot be used to balance or undermine more modern scholarship especially given that it is not even talking about the same sources of evidence for Volataire's views on race and slavery (see WP:SYNTH).

You have stated at your AE appeal that My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim;however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". I believe that in your efforts to "defend" Voltaire, you are indulging in OR, selective citation of outdated and primary sources, and misrepresentation of scholarship as was the case at India related articles that led to the topic ban. I urge other editors involved with the page to review your edits more thoroughly to weed out other instances of such issues. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC) (AE links added. Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC))

Let's discuss this step by step. First, i examined Cohen's book and i went to the page where the following quote of Cohen was being used as a source for this article: "More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites". There was no reference to either Voltaire's writing or to any other authority when Cohen made this statement. So the note that i placed was not OR; it was stating something factual. In my opinion, had i drawn any inferences in my note i could have been accused of OR; but not for stating something factual. When a scholar makes allegations of racism against historical figures who are not around to defend themselves he can't just come up with anything he wants to and then expect the reader to swallow whatever he is saying. Second, with respect to the forgery claim, this is what happened: someone before me had put the fact that this letter of Voltaire endorsing slave trade has been challenged as a forgery. They had also given the reference. But they had placed this as a note below the main article ( i think the note was inserted within the reference). I moved this to the main article since i thought it would provide balance to the controversy. Soham321 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

i would like to clarify that the reason for the India topic ban, which Abecedare refers to, was not my editing which has been described as being of "the highest class" by a senior editor, but because i was perceived to be unnecessarily rude to another editor. (People who defended me in the Arb discussion claimed i had been provoked and that a content dispute was somehow turned into a conduct dispute. More about this here: diff ) Secondly with respect to the claim that "outdated" sources should not be used i will address this by referring to something i have written earlier: diff1. Soham321 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And with respect to the allegation that i have some kind of an agenda vis a vis Voltaire's alleged racism, i have given my response here: diff Soham321 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A clarification regarding the "OR" note removal by Abecedare

In removing my "OR" note from the main article Abecedare had left the following edit summary: "rm false and OR note; find a secondary source that makes this criticism of Cohen's scholarship." Two points in response to this note. First, Cohen refers to Voltaire's "racism" on three separate occasions on pages 86 and 88 of his book. The second time (on page 88) he gives a paragraph length supposed quotation from Voltaire without giving any reference. This is simply slipshod scholarship. The third time he gives a reference to a supposed letter written by Voltaire. But it is the earlier mention to Voltaire's comment on blacks on page 86 ("More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites") which is being challenged here on the ground that Cohen is attributing a view to Voltaire without referring to Voltaire's writing or referring to any other authority. This is a link to the book of Cohen the relevant sections of which are viewable on google books: Link. One can see that Cohen does not give any reference when he makes the claim that is being challenged.

Secondly, i had placed a similar "OR" note in the lead of this page: Sur les femmes. According to the senior Admin Moonriddengirl, who has expertise in handling copyright issues, this does not constitute OR although such a note could be put on the talk page of a main article. She gives her views here: Link.

The "OR" note i had placed next to Cohen's quote was this:

In his book Cohen does not give any reference to Voltaire's writing to substantiate his claim that "More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites".

Soham321 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

...which is being challenged here...: challenged by whom? If it's just you, and not s secondary source, it is not includable in the article. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have given the page number of Cohen's book where he makes the claim and have also given a link to the book on google books from where one can easily ascertain that what i am saying in the "OR" is the truth. Soham321 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Speculative

There are a lot of points in this article where it loses objectivity and begins speculating without actually contributing information. One example is this: The reasoning of which may be summed up in his well known quote, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

There are other instances as well such as saying that he may have been present at Isaac Newton's funeral. Other instances abound but it would be excessive to list them all here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scardinoz (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pompadour and Great Britain

The section titled "Great Britain" mentions Voltaire going there in 1726, then has a sentence or two on Madame Pompadour, who did not arrive on the Paris social scene until the mid 1740's. I propose taking out the sentence, even though it has a source, because Pompadour did not meet Voltaire until long after he had gone to Britain.Princetoniac (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfair Criticism?

The Views on Race and Slavery section contains the following material:

According to William Cohen, like most other polygenists, Voltaire believed that because of their different origins blacks did not entirely share the natural humanity of whites.

In my opinion Cohen's view should be removed from the main article on the ground that Cohen is not substantiating his claim by giving reference to Voltaire's writing when making this claim. We can re-add Cohen's claim if relevant reference to Voltaire's writing can be given. It is also significant that Cohen seems to be the only writer making a serious charge of "racism" against Voltaire. Had Voltaire been a "racist" one would have expected other writers to make note of this. But that does not seem to be the case. Soham321 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Cohen is right. Voltaire expressed some very racist views. For example, from his Essai sur les moeurs:

"[Ε]t ils n’ont d’homme que la stature du corps, avec la faculté de la parole et de la pensée dans un degré très éloigné du nôtre. Tels sont ceux que j’ai vus et examinés." (And they are not men, except in their stature, with the faculty of speech and thought at a degree far distant to ours. Such are the ones that I have seen and examined.)

and this from Romans:

"C’est une grande question parmi eux s’ils [les africains] sont descendus des singes ou si les singes sont venus d’eux. Nos sages ont dit que l’homme est l’image de Dieu: voilà une plaisante image de l’Être éternel qu’un nez noir épaté, avec peu ou point d’intelligence! Un temps viendra, sans doute, où ces animaux sauront bien cultiver la terre, l’embellir par des maisons et par des jardins, et connaître la route des astres il faut du temps pour tout." (It is a serious question among them whether they [Africans] are descended from monkeys or whether the monkeys come from them. Our wise men have said that man was created in the image of God. Now here is a lovely image of the Divine Maker: a flat and black nose with little or hardly any intelligence. A time will doubtless come when these animals will know how to cultivate the land well, beautify their houses and gardens, and know the paths of the stars: one needs time for everything.) Carlstak (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not permitted to yourself give references to Voltaire's writings to show that he was a racist. As per WP guidelines you have to use secondary sources (which in turn refer to Voltaire's writings) if you wish to show him to be a racist. This is necessary so as to avoid the Fallacy of quoting out of context. I have a lot more to say on this; will get back to this argument soon. Soham321 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken, Soham321. This page is not the article, and primary sources may be used there with discretion to illuminate references to secondary sources. Voltaire's racial attitudes have been a subject of much discussion among scholars. Here are several refs that substantiate Cohen's point:

"Of all the major Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire was virtually alone in maintaining unequivocally that “the race of Negroes is a species of men different from ours... The Negro race," he writes, "is a species of men as different from ours as the breed of spaniels is from that of greyhounds."

"Thus Voltaire said of blacks that their intelligence was "far inferior," that "they are incapable of great attention," and that they had only "a few more ideas than animals."

"By the time that Voltaire composed this text in 1734, his fixist, polygenetic view of humankind was already set in stone. During the next three decades, however, Voltaire would be forced to think through this stance on multiple occasions as developments in the life sciences explicitly tested his convictions."

"Both Bennett and Bloom want African, Hispanic, and Native Americans to cherish and study the works of Western philosophy, yet Bloom and Bennett are asking us to ignore Voltaire's racist viewpoint:

"If their understanding is not of a different nature than ours it is at least greatly inferior. They are not capable of any great application or association of ideas, and seem formed neither for the advantages nor the abuses of philosophy." Carlstak (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right about having the right to use the primary source on the talk page. I was pointing out that you can't make racism claims in the main article by relying on primary sources. I have more to say on this. Will ping you when i make my comment. Soham321 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

H. dryad pleased stop deleting my additions without explanation. Why do you object to the quote I added?69.127.248.215 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have no objections H. dryad, I'll add the quote.69.127.248.215 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

References

References

Requested edit

I am working on a project with the Voltaire Foundation in Oxford University as part of which I will be creating articles about some of Voltaire's works. I notice that this article has no mention of the Foundation, nor of the Voltaire Institute & Museum. I think an academic project to translate, annotate and publish Voltaire's complete works and correspondence deserves a mention in this article, so I suggest the following addition to the Legacy section. I won't make the article edit myself due to possible COI.

In the 1950s, the bibliographer and translator Theodore Besterman made it his life's mission to collect, transcribe and publish all of Voltaire's writings. He founded the Voltaire Institute and Museum in Geneva where he began publishing collected volumes of Voltaire's correspondence. On his death in 1976, he left his collection to the University of Oxford, where the Voltaire Foundation became established as a department. The Foundation has continued to publish the Complete Works of Voltaire, a complete chronological series which is expected to reach completion in 2018, reaching around 200 volumes, fifty years after the series began. It also publishes the series Oxford University Studies in the Enlightenment, begun by Bestermann as Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, which has reached more than 500 volumes.

With this para in place, you can remove Voltaire Foundation from See also links. Please also add the Foundation's complete listing of current published editions of Voltaire's works to the external links section. Thanks in advance for any help. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done This is a fairly substantial change, but I think it merits inclusion. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Voltaire's views on religion

The section Voltaire an religion could add Voltaire's famous quote Si Dieu n'existe pas,il faudra necessaire pour lui invente (If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him). I have not scrutinised this article yet, but I hope it does not attribute that quote which is frequently but erroneously attributed to Voltaire - I disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to your death your right to say it - to Voltaire (there is no evidence he ever said that).Vorbee (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Congratulations Wikipedia - I have had a somewhat more thorough look at the article tonight, and I see that,under the section entitled PROSE,it does say that the afore-mentoned is often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians. Vorbee (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Voltaire on Hinduism

Commenting on the sacred texts of the Hindus, the Vedas, Voltaire observed:

The Veda was the most precious gift for which the West had ever been indebted to the East.

He regarded Hindus as "[a] peaceful and innocent people, equally incapable of hurting others or of defending themselves". Voltaire was himself a supporter of animal rights and was a vegetarian. He used the antiquity of Hinduism to land what he saw as a devastating blow to the Bible's claims and acknowledged that the Hindus' treatment of animals showed a shaming alternative to the immorality of European imperialists.

Voltaire was highly critical of religious superstitions and deployed the Hindu practice of Sati in his novel Zadig to condemn self-immolation when it is done "to gratify vanity and in deference to religious prejudice". Voltaire, however, held that suicide can be just and reasonable when an individual suffers from incurable disease or expects to experience great pain.

References

Given above are Voltaire's views on Hinduism as currently found in the main article. My comments:

• Last paragraph: Voltaire was unequivocal in his condemnation of Sati, and has done so in great detail in his 'Philosophical Dictionary' (Dictionnaire philosophique). A good secondary source should be used to expand upon Voltaire's criticism of Sati in the main article for the sake of clarity.
• Last paragraph: Voltaire's views on euthanasia are not pertinent to Hinduism and have no relevance to his condemnation of Sati. So the words "Voltaire, however, held that suicide can be just and reasonable when an individual suffers from incurable disease or expects to experience great pain" needs to be removed from the main article, at least from the 'Voltaire on Hinduism' section.
• Second paragraph: The words "He used the antiquity of Hinduism to land what he saw as a devastating blow to the Bible's claims and acknowledged that the Hindus' treatment of animals showed a shaming alternative to the immorality of European imperialists" are being taken from a Guardian article which is not telling us the primary source (which work of Voltaire) from where it is obtaining this information. This makes it unsuitable as an encyclopedic reference about Voltaire about who many scholarly references are available. So these words should be removed from the main article. I have no objection to a similar edit being reinserted later in the main article if used citing a much better reference (some scholarly book or journal paper for example).
• Second paragraph: The words "Voltaire was himself a supporter of animal rights and was a vegetarian" seem to be using a primary source and that too in French. Not permissible to do this. Must use a secondary source. So these words needs to be removed. They may be replaced with a similar edit using a good secondary source.
• Second paragraph: The words "He regarded Hindus as "[a] peaceful and innocent people, equally incapable of hurting others or of defending themselves"." seem to be using a dubious reference. The author Ramananda Chatterjee, who founded the Modern Review is not known for his scholarship on Voltaire. Chatterjee is not a modern scholar; he died in 1943. The reference is saying 'University of Michigan' for some reason, but there seems to be no connection between University of Michigan and Chatterjee. A better source(s) needs to be used for Voltaire's views on Hindus.
• First paragraph: Voltaire has given his views on the Vedas in the Philosophical Dictionary, but a better secondary source should be used for this instead of the one being used currently: Max Muller's 1861 and 1863 lectures.
• The fact that Voltaire ridiculed certain aspects of Hinduism, for instance in his story 'The Good Brahmin', needs to be included in the section on Hinduism. Soham321 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Voltaire writing about Hinduism and Hindus in his Philosophical Dictionary (this is an abridged version of this book; in the complete 5 volume book there is a separate chapter on Sati, and possibly scattered references to Hinduism or Hindus elsewhere in this book): https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter94.html
• Voltaire has also written about Hinduism and Hindus in this book: http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/ocv/ocv_questions.ssiSoham321 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Voltaire. 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/20150217150230/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/voltaire.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/voltaire.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanmason.com/didntARC.ihtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608153319/http://www.deism.com/voltaire.htm to http://deism.com/voltaire.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/voltaire.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Query re: revert of Châtelet edit

User:Deor: Could you explain the reason you revert this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltaire&type=revision&diff=808964347&oldid=808888067. What would have made this a better edit? I am continually reverted when I edit and it tends always happen around issues related to including women. I this a technical issue or a subjective concern? Please clarify. I am also a NYCWikimedia member. If this is a NPOV issue, it would be much more useful to leave info about the issue as an administrator. If we are trying to be inclusive of good faith edits, reverting paragraphs of work, should reveal a reason that justifies an edit by an administrator. Esp. when dealing with marginalized knowledge. Look forward to your response. sheridanford (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Voltaire. 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/20160304073631/http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_us/History-of-VF.pdf to http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_us/History-of-VF.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306043806/http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/newsEvents/VoltaireFoundation_RevueDeuxMondes_Eng.pdf to http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/newsEvents/VoltaireFoundation_RevueDeuxMondes_Eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101202058/http://www.memo.fr/dossier.asp?ID=629 to http://www.memo.fr/dossier.asp?ID=629
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160523173331/http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/ocv/Best_avail_editions.pdf to http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/ocv/Best_avail_editions.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405172359/http://www.harrymaugans.com/2006/03/30/voltaires-candide/ to http://www.harrymaugans.com/2006/03/30/voltaires-candide/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405172443/http://www.harrymaugans.com/2006/04/18/worldly-and-personal-influences-on-voltaire%E2%80%99s-writing/ to http://www.harrymaugans.com/2006/04/18/worldly-and-personal-influences-on-voltaire%e2%80%99s-writing/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voltaire. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://app.libraryofliberty.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3804&Itemid=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101202057/http://www.livres-et-ebooks.fr/auteur/Voltaire-738/ to http://www.livres-et-ebooks.fr/auteur/Voltaire-738/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Religious Sections Obviously Motivated By Bias W/ Dubious References

If you need any further proof than that you just need to look at how the Christian section uses much more recent and easier to follow references for it's statements. Not only that while trying to come across as unbiased makes a point to show any positivity he showed towards that religion. When you go to the section on Islam is emphatically negative w/ much harder to follow references that are much much older (thus making people less able to question) and not any attempt to look at any positives he may have said even from historians which in the Jewish section (and Voltaire was an anti-Semite) they do by going to 1967 to do so. Need any more evidence that this article is one-sided look at The_Donald subreddit using Voltaire as their beacon. I mean for crying out loud it doesn't even talk about his views have a certain point dealing with Islam. Seeing as how there are direct defenses of Islam in both the treatise on tolerance and Essay on the Manner of Nations. Both of which come later than his attacks shown in this article. Almost as if they wanted to leave out the parts contrary to their view. In fact older versions of this article did have the part about the treatise on tolerance but it's been removed.

This is a historical figure that not a lot of new information is being found on every month and yet over 50 edits have been happening to this page every month since the elections or basically since the phenomenon of troll and bot armies to spin history and present to a certain narrative began. You don't even see this many edits on a very famous current event or figure. If we are going to accept references from 1967 and even earlier as fact then why are these edits allowed? As I go through the history what do I see? "edit on Christianity, edit on views on race and slavery, edit on Islam..etc" Over and over and over ad nauseum. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a reddit debate. I mean I have to click on the "older 500" feature to even get through a year in this history of this article, much less get back to a place where this article actually had encyclopaedic value. This is happening all over Wikipedia and as someone is constantly going to historical articles since this place started as a lover of history it's getting more and more pronounced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaqenHghar80 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Propagandistic church history?

Something the article doesn't mention about Voltaire's views is how his bias shapes his narratives of religious history. In fact, historians have labelled Voltaire's understanding of Christian history as "propagandistic". Voltaire is also partially responsible for the historical Credo quia absurdum misattribution to the church fathers. This is notable and should be added.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If trustworthy that Voltaire took a nickname as a lastname then an etymology of thereof the aforesaid is asking for it.

Therein the article it reads: "François-Marie Arouet (French: [fʁɑ̃swa maʁi aʁwɛ]; 21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778), known by his nom de plume Voltaire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.191.127 (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Roué (a débauché)

A French word explaining another French word. Very helpful. 94.191.152.8 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

In theory, contributions to the English Wikipedia should be in English. Translations are easily available in the computer system. I agree, basically, with the original remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.237.28 (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Article on Voltaire as a Whole

I think we can forgive the author(s) for breaking a few Wikipedia guidelines. What a fascinating read. This concise biography is a chronological rollercoaster ride, with few weasel-words and and the odd dubious entry only served to keep this reader glued to the page. At least most of the information here has factual sources. This is learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason P Jackson (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Puffery

This article reads like a Voltaire fan page as opposed to an encyclopedic article. Voltaire was highly criticized during his time but yet the "Impact and Reception" has paragraphs upon paragraphs without a single critical quote.89.248.248.2 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Conflict on belief of origin

Hello! I'm not sure if it's just me...but I find the following kind of conflicting:

in the section Religious views there is a sentence that states,

Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?"

and then in the next section Views on race and slavery there is a sentence that says,

Voltaire rejected the biblical Adam and Eve story and was a polygenist who speculated that each race had entirely separate origins.

...did i interpret this wrong in my brain..? or do any of you guys find this confusing too..? Thank you Wah lao eh... (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Incorrect age for Voltaire

While Voltaire's baptismal date is November, his likely birthdate of February means that at his death he was 84 years old, and not 83 as asserted in the sidebar on the front page.

Anyone object to repairing the age and the sidebar assertion of a November birthdate? Changing Birth to Baptismal date, or alternatively reverting from November back to February as a Birth date would resolve the issue. Merci, tous. DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object. All the official records say he was born on 21 November 1694. The baptismal date is 22 November not 21 November. The baptismal record states that he was born the day before. You're putting undue weight on the myth that Voltaire created around his birth. DrKay (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Free speech activist?

The article claims Voltaire was a free speech activist (and also includes him in the category), yet the article also debunks the infamous quote misattributed to him, without substituting some other quote. Is there any evidence that Voltaire was a free speech advocate beyond freedom of religion? If so, there should be some citations. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Height

I would like Wikipedia to state Voltaire's height. Although it is not certain, there are estimates he was 1.75 m tall or 5'9. Below is my reference to justify my point. His height should also be stated in his personal details such as his birthday, death-date, resting place, occupation etc. https://notednames.com/Writers/Poet/Voltaire-Birthday-Real-Name-Age-Weight-Height/ 2001:8003:D43D:6301:6DF4:9DA7:22B9:17A4 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Irrelevant, uncertain and poorly sourced. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Voltaire's views on politics

Voltaire had quite a few opinions on politics, but none of that appears in this article. Instead, his views on various religions is given more attention then it is due — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedEyedTreeFrog2357 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Kiemjenny2 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Dictator of Letters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dictator of Letters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#Dictator of Letters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Vedas

Much of Voltaire’s knowledge about Vedas was based on the 'Ezour-Vedam', a so-called "lost" Veda. Ezourvedam was later proven to be a forgery by a French man. Nothing related to real Vedas. that needs to be mentioned Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)