Talk:Let them eat cake

A let-them-eat-cake effect in psychology

The rich consider other people to be richer than they are, which I'd call the "let-them-eat-cake effect".

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/07/16/0956797615586560.abstract

~~Rolf Degen~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.230.205 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

History forgery

This sentence is a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:1454:918A:93BC:9EC6 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I confirm it's forgery, and it's well known by historians when it started. But this article is totally ignorant of all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

She was from Austria

If she really said,she would speak in in Deutsch,as "Wenn sie kein Brot haben, sollen sie doch Kuchen essen.",not in french. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.16.151.215 (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

She didn't say it in any language, but she did speak French as well as German. --Macrakis (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's totally absurd what you say. First, all the royal court spoke French, at this time. Second, she won't speak German with French in France.

Could actually be a good advice.

I heard that at times when this phrase was said, the bread prices (50% of food, remember) were fixed by the government. This in turn made bakers mostly bake expensive luxury recipes and but ignore simple cheaper sorts of bread that commoners could afford. So, the actual meaning of the phrase supposedly was reference to another law introduced against this effect: if a commoner entered baker store, asked for a cheap bread, and was said that bread is out of stock, he then was entitled to take any other bread for the said cheap price. So, yeah, they allegedly had rights to eat cakes paying for cheap bread, if baker did not want to bake enough of it. 85.90.120.180 (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this seemingly far-fetched theory? --Macrakis (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I understood it to be an artillery phrase

I have heard that "Let Them Eat Cake" is also an old artillery phrase from muzzleloading days.

When loading, first to go in would be the powder, then the wadding (also known as Cake because of it's appearance, like a single layer cake), then the shot or ball. If you were on a naval vessel you would add an additional "cake" after the shot/ball to compensate for the pitch of the ship and to keep the shot from rolling out.

Therefore, when the phrase was attributed to Marie, she was speaking to the problem of the famine and the people's discontent that would eventually lead to the French Revolution. When told about the problem, she supposedly quipped "If they are hungry, let them eat cake" meaning that French artillery could clear the streets.

FloridaMichael (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this seemingly far-fetched theory? --Macrakis (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This theory fails, because she never pronounced this sentence.

Don't this mean let them eat the food the rich are eating?

In response to shortage of bread, so... let them eat our food? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSukMadik (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Currently inconsistent within article

The top states that this wasn't attributed to MA during the revolution, the bottom suggests that somebody might have used it as a libel. "Might" is a weasel word, and should be backed up or chucked out. Libels were printed, is there one which makes this claim? If not, the top seems to rule. Midgley (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bad translation: who wrote it for the first time?

"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation, but it's not even a good translation. A "brioche" is not a cake.

"Let them eat cake"

When I took Art History in college, I was curious about this very quote, so I asked my professor to explain why Marie Antoinette, who lived extravagantly off the backs of the peasants while they starved, would suggest feeding them cake. Was she actually a kind, caring, misunderstood queen? The professor explained that the meaning of the word "cake" in the context of that quote was the burnt scrapings from the insides of ovens. Now that would explain why she lost her head!

I've worked in bakeries, and there aren't any burnt bits to be scraped off of the oven's floor. Your professor clearly didn't know what he was talking about. JDZeff (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Coal miners should “Learn to Code”

The quote is from President Joe Biden however he is not properly referenced 73.107.239.171 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

In the intro or about section, the phrase "it is prior to the French Revolution" should be changed to either "it precedes the French Revolution" or "it originated prior to the French Revolution". The current phrasing is grammatically incorrect. 141.226.192.228 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Rousseau Confessions date innacuracies

In the section under "origins", it is stated that the first six books of confessions were written in 1765. In the "Attribution to Maria Theresa of Spain" section last paragraph states they were completed in 1769. The main page for the confessions states that the first 6 were written between 1765-1767. The dates on this page should be updated to match the 1765-1767 dates from the main page after confirmation that the main page is indeed correct. The claimed age of Marie will need to be updated to match these dates as well. 64.58.248.226 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nine out of ten historians agree

@GOLDIEM J:

If we say "historians do not agree..." why does that need to be taken to mean that some of them believe otherwise?

Because that's what a large portion of readers will understand. If you say that historians do not agree on something, this suggests there is some disagreement about it. After all, if they did agree that she is unlikely to have said it, that's what you would write rather than stating that they don't, right? The sentence is confusing because the placement of negation matters a lot. Additionally, it sounds like a toothpaste advertisement and immediately raises a question: who are the historians? What we should report here is whether or not she said it, especially when there is no disagreement about it. Bluntly and to the point, with an appropriate citation at the end. Unnecessary editorializing only muddles the message. – MwGamera (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Aurore Bergé

The source you are using in the article Let them eat cake specifically debunks the claims you are using it to support. You cannot use a source which says "X didn't actually say Y" to support the claim "X said Y indirectly". The remainder of your edit to that article is a coatrack of attacks and original research where you stitch together a random hodgepodge of complaints about Macron that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t debunk the claim : « On a eu notamment le sujet du métier des éboueurs qui a été extrêmement important ces derniers temps dans l’actualité. C’est un métier qui est pénible. En vérité, peu de Français auraient envie de faire ce métier-là, c’est un difficile, pénible, de première ligne, sans doute pas assez rémunéré. […] Les éboueurs, heureusement, ils ne partaient déjà pas à 62 ans, ils partaient avant. Et peut-être même que la question, c’est pas qu’ils partent à 57 ans en étant éboueurs, c’est peut-être qu’ils soient mieux formés de manière à pouvoir changer, évoluer de métier. »

I also know peronsally example which prove you can’t depart sonner in that case if you get disabled because your of such job is wrong. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:0:0:63AA:8BA4 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits as a WP:BLP vio. Please do not reinsert them without consensus on the talk page. You cannot use a source which states that this person didn't actually say anything that could be constructed as "let them eat cake" and that the claims were twitter nonsense to support adding this to the article "let them eat cake". 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a violation as per WP:BLP#Public figures. Only you is bringing the article claims she never said anything like that. « It’s maybe that they get better teatching in order to evolve, change from their job » 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:0:0:63AA:8BA4 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone is a public figure it doesn't mean you can add claims that they said things to articles with sources saying they didn't actually say them! You need to read the sections on balance, attack pages and the uses of sources.

This content really doesn't belong in that article at all, as it's a twitter nontroversey of no real significance, but if it is included you need to accurately reflect what the sources say, i.e. that it was claimed that she made these comments and those claims spread around twitter, but that she didn't actually say them. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The source says that she in reality said : « On a eu notamment le sujet du métier des éboueurs qui a été extrêmement important ces derniers temps dans l’actualité. C’est un métier qui est pénible. En vérité, peu de Français auraient envie de faire ce métier-là, c’est un difficile, pénible, de première ligne, sans doute pas assez rémunéré. […] Les éboueurs, heureusement, ils ne partaient déjà pas à 62 ans, ils partaient avant. Et peut-être même que la question, c’est pas qu’ils partent à 57 ans en étant éboueurs, c’est peut-être qu’ils soient mieux formés de manière à pouvoir changer, évoluer de métier. »

So the tweet is wrong is true but that neverless, she did mean it and thus the meaning of the tweet remains true. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:0:0:63AA:8BA4 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP carefully. Wikipedia articles is written on the basis of published reliable sources. You cannot perform your own analysis and interpretations. You need to fairly and accurately represent what those sources say. Biographical information about living persons is treated with extra care and need to be written perfectly in line with policy. The source here is a debunking piece, which states that while these remarks went viral on social media the tweet was fake and she didn't actually say those things. You cannot just use the bits of the source you like and leave out all the information about the tweet actually being fake - you need to include both sides.

The remainder of your edit to the article about the French political elite restricting access to education and how disabilities pensions are below the poverty level etc does not belong in this article - it is not a neutrally worded summary, it is not related to the topic of the article and it is not particularly related to the tweet that went viral. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not oringal research as the sentence does appear on the source https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/aurore-berge-a-t-elle-dit-si-les-eboueurs-trouvent-leur-metier-penible-il-faut-quils-fassent-une-formation-pour-changer-de-metier-20230420_G674TCWL2RDY7BLT3DJJFGF2ZU/. Please learn the language instead of claiming the article says the tweet is completely wrong whereas it’s only the wording which is wrong. I wrote indirectly explained in the article to highlight this.

Reminding the local context is also usefull much like the article explains why not taking Brioche instead of bread was a wise advice (more expansive or rather rarer because of price controls). 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:0:0:63AA:8BA4 (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've asked for additional feedback at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I still feel that your edit is inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy, the major issues being:

• You are misrepresenting the content of the sources by leaving out major pieces of information that are essential to provide context, such as the tweet that went viral being fake.
• Your edit is not neutrally worded and in an encyclopaedic tone.
• You appear to be performing your own research and analysis, rather than reflecting the content of the sources.
• Most of the content added is unrelated to the topic of "let them eat cake", and is instead a rant about Macron, the French political elite and worker's rights.

163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I came here from BLP/N, and support the removal. The material should not be reinserted without a clear and convicing case, which has not yet been made. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also coming from BLPN, I would say if you want more feedback translation of the quotes above would probably help. Since it's likely important subtleties in wording matter here, it's unlike machine translation will be sufficient even if it's quite decent for French to English. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would add that even if we were to add something, this [1] is clearly unacceptable as it includes a long argumentative "explanation" in wikivoice when we can be confident almost none of that can be sufficiently sourced to be mentioned in wikivoice. As an aside, even if we were to keep it, it probably should be in a footnote and not inline. Worse, when we read this explanation

(disabilities pensions for that category in France are below the local poverty level but well above the typical level for being able to claim food assistance from charities for non families) while other parts of the government is maximizing the local popular « élite républicaine » policy for restricting access to education to a top elite as small as possible.

it's easy to see despite its length it just confuses matters more. I.E. WTF does the disabilities pensions have to do with anything? There's no mention of the disabilities pension before this. And what "category" is it referring to? (My guess is it's claimed that the minister was referring to the disabilities pension when they said people could retire, but this isn't explained so readers will just have to guess like me. But also even if this is all true, this doesn't actually dispute what the minister said. They are still seemingly correct that people could retire in whatever circumstances are being referred to, simply that they would be forced to live a life below the poverty line which would is a problem but not something unique to new people who might be forced to retire this way but instead all people forced to retire on the same disability pension.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Learn to code removed

I removed the 'learn to code' thing [2] as the sourcing was extremely weak. Neither source supports there being a poorly received set of articles. Instead we have single article which seems to be mostly focused on what a small number of coal miners did do and unsurprisingly doesn't say it (or other such articles) were poorly received. The other source Think Progress goes further in challenging the existence of such articles. I considered re-wording this to only focus on what Think Progress said but considered it problematic to use only a single source which is partisan and a source some have suggested is at best a weak RS (per WP:RSPS). Further, if we focus on what Think Progress said, this barely fits on this page. It's something which certain far-right people have used in a similar manner but which was largely based on stuff that was never actually said. I'm not going to look through the history, but I'm guessing someone originally added claiming it was something similar without any proper sources, someone then added the Think Progress stuff to try and balance it out and we ended up with the mess I removed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate that the let them eat cake (or even the original French phrase) is also something which probably wasn't actually said and definitely not by the person who it's attributed to, but the difference is it's something that has entered the popular lexicon. By comparison, all we know for the "learn to code" thing from the only source we have is it's used by the far-right possibly even mostly in the US. That's a far more restrictive use and so potentially not something we have to document and definitely not IMO if the only source if Think Progress (as the lack of RS coverage suggests it's WP:UNDUE. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The Emperor Hui sentence seems much more directly comparable, though ideally I would like some better sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)