Talk:Marquis de Sade/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Marquis de Sade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I’m cleaning up edits from this user that I believe to be false, and that I have already previously sourced in the article. I left Edd a message on their talk page on April 28, 2022 to discuss this issue and the sources. It appears they haven’t logged in since then. If any body else wants to discuss this issue of sourcing, please feel free to reply here. Though please also read my post on Edd’s talk page first. PNople (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this at my talk page. I will say that with some overseeing, the claims of Sade's kidnapping of six children and molesting them for six weeks is largely sensationalized, although it is also imperative that the information regarding the Keller incident and the six servants held for theatrical performances may very well hold grounds. Sade's rape, pedophilia, and other antisocial indulgences are well-acknowledged, but admittedly, are vague in description and proof aside from the court documents which pertain to his 1763 and 1768 imprisonments. The name of the prostitute he was alleged to have demanded whipping by as he masturbated with a crucifix while stomping on another shouting blasphemies is mentioned in an academic source. If this portion is removed, I will make sure to reinstate it with the proper sources next time, along with more sources to back up the already existing claims which are well-acknowledged by countless credible and, some, already cited sources.

Kind regards,

--Edd Wesson (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Edd Wesson, you didn’t address my claims on your talk page (you did not make any reply on there). Everyone please refer to my messages on Edd’s talk page. Your added sourcing is not adequate to my knowledge, they seem to be outdated and lack empirical verification. Please read the Marquis de Sade section of “Demanding the Impossible” thoroughly. Let me know when you have done so. It contains additional sourcing. They dispute the allegations you’re adding to this wikipedia page. We need to be empirically responsible here. If you have any disagreements with what is stated in “Demanding the Impossible”, about De Sade, please state specifically what they are and have legitimate sourcing with precise quotes. While you do that, please delete any allegations of criminal conduct for De Sade. I noticed that you added some. We can’t have any unfounded criminal allegations of De Sade on here. PNople (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I now see your reply on your talk page. However, my concerns are still not met. Please thoroughly read the De Sade section of “Demanding the Impossible”, and we can proceed from there with specific empirical verification. Thank you! PNople (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As you are aware, I had responded. The claims of outdated sources are out of the question, in contrast with Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (1991) and Gorer's The Revolutionary Ideas of the Marquis De Sade (1935) which had been last revised in 1964. That being said, although all the sources I have given in regard to the Keller incident and other scandals were from 1992 or later, the accounts are notably contrary to Gorer's account, which entail that although she was forced to strip naked and harshly beaten with a whip before her escape through the window, Keller's claims of being cut with a small knife are unlikely as she had failed to show evidence of her cutting wounds after two days of reporting the alleged abuse.

The accounts of incisions made and wax being poured onto Keller's back are merely insinuated by court documents. They are not outright stated, and as you know, the President de Maupeou was the chief judge in this trial. That would be one of the prime enemies of Sade's father-in-law at the time, therefore having much to benefit from debasing Sade. Gorer states in p. 32 (which also covers the Keller incident) that Sade references this judge in an indirect manner in a later writing, and interestingly enough, seemingly acknowledges the beating of Keller, but makes no mention of incisions or wax being poured onto her back. To conclude, I agree with you that the Schaeffer biography, New York Times article, and Dean publication are relying on the sensationalized accounts presented in the former court documents in regard to the Keller incident. Though there was, no doubt, "abuse" (according to the societal constructs of then and today's moral structure) inflicted on Keller by Sade, the only proven phenomena seems to be somewhat harsh flagellation.

I also personally believe that Sade's alleged sexual assault and torture of Keller is contrary to his nature, as though he forced Testard to blaspheme at the point of a scabbard, he did not engage her with the whip, nor did he sodomize her, despite his insistence that she consent to these abuses. This shows, that at least to some degree, Sade had sometimes possessed self-control to not sexually assault or torture his captives at their request. In regard to the winter of 1774 and 1775, Sade had just been released from prison as the death of Louis XV invalidated his lettre de cachet; one of the maidservants in particular had made serious allegations against Sade during the height of his infamy. According to Gorer, Sade's wife (whom the maidservant had not nearly described as deviant in behaviour as Sade) had her falsely arrested for theft under a lettre de cachet and placed in a convent, before her father confronted them. Though several of Sade's servants had accused him of rape and other capricious feats with no evidence, this maidservant had been impregnated by Sade.

At the end of 1776, Gorer writes of a father of another chambermaid named Justine who had come to retrieve his daughter and whom had attempted to shoot Sade. His account conflicts with the (currently unsourced) current article's claim that the gun misfired; Gorer reports that although the gun fired, he had missed Sade. So although several of Gorer's accounts conflict with more recent sources on Sade's life, I would opine that it is not the case that the later publications (Schaeffer [1999], Dean [1992], Lever [1993], and various Washington Post and New York Times articles) are incorrect in their portrayal of events, but rather, heavily influenced by the sensationalist testimonies against Sade by false or misguided witnesses at the time of his various trials.

The Marshall publication is a source that I largely dismiss on account of its general coverage of a broad variety of subjects with seeming surface-level understanding. I find the Gorer source (which is also consistent with your standpoint) to be much more credible and trustworthy, in contrast. I will address this publication in a second reply, likely tomorrow. Likewise, thank you for your efforts, and I will make sure to mention the questionable nature of Sade's "abuses" on Keller and correct it accordingly.

Kind regards,

--Edd Wesson (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I appreciate all the info. And I very much appreciate your reading the “Demanding the Impossible” section, and for citing to Gorer. Just FYI, Demanding the Impossible was released as a new edition in 2008, and I believe Marshall chose not to revise the Sade section. I only read that most recent edition. And thanks for revising the edits. I’m just curious, where did you learn all that information about Sade? I don’t need you to cite to everything here, as I’m not contesting it. I’m curious where you got all that info. If it’s from a particular text I’d like to know about it. Also, there continue to be lots of unverified additions and graffiti on this page. It would be helpful if you could join me in keeping an eye out for that and in making corrections. I think we’re in full agreement now regarding De Sade, but if I find anything I disagree with I’ll let you know. Hopefully, you’ll continue to be interested in source and empirical verification. I appreciate it a lot. PNople (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if it was you or someone else who made the edit initially, but the claim of De Sade poisoning people non-consensually with an aphrodisiac is contrary to the De Sade section in “Demanding the Impossible”. Same with him threatening Keller at knifepoint non-consensually. To your knowledge, how much empirical verification do we have for these two claims? If you’re aware of any quality sourcing, please let me know so I can review them on my own. Thanks again. PNople (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say, those two claims are still there on this page. PNople (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to myself, I am beyond frustration at this point, and will concise my previously very, very extensive and long reply (which was completely removed thanks to my accidental pressing of the power button on my chrome laptop) to a brief summary. Sade is described as an anarchist one portion of Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism but is described in the index and end of the section as a libertarian. There is also positing of him being the "first reasoned socialist" in the end of the section.

I find this to be very grasping and reductive in regard to a self-described libertine who had actually historically been documented to have wavered in regard to ideology as he witnessed the increasing brutality of the revolutionary tactics. There is also another excerpt which I take fault with, as I find it to be a miry attempt to "better" Sade's reputation and temperament in the morally constructed sense:

It is extremely difficult to follow de Sade in his fantasies of torture, murder and arson but at least he had the courage and frankness to recognize the existence of such desires and tried to sublimate them.

If extirpating prurient passions such as Sade's is to do so by means of strapping one to a bed and beating them extensively with a whip for two days until bloodied, then by all means, I suppose he has grounds to claim this. However, I do not believe Sade needs a means of justification for any perceived "wrong" as by his own account, there is no right or wrong, specially so if done in the name of libertinage. As such, Sade did not sublimate his desires, rather, he channeled them into what he wanted as was expedient to his lubricity and lusts at the time.

The proof for the Keller beating may be found in p. 32 of Gorer's publication accessible above, as well as p. 34 of the publication which details the accidental poisoning of the prostitutes. The Schaeffer, Dean, Lever, and news publications all paint Sade otherwise as guilty of beating, raping, torturing, cutting, and holding captive the German widow Rose Keller. I can assure you, that if you are looking to erase (or correct) Sade's reputation as a rapist and sadist, then to rely on these well-acknowledged sources (which far outweigh Gorer and Marshall) is to cement his grisly mark on history as such.

I do not believe Sade is obligated to defend himself in this regard, however, as even by his own philosophy, there is nothing wrong with such doings so long as they are done in the name of satisfying the prurient passions of one's conscience. In Schaeffer's book in p. 52, it is posited that Sade tied down Keller, whipped her extensively, and stabbed her buttocks according to Keller's accusation. However, in p. 92 it details the physical examination of Keller by Pierre-Paul Le Comte, a local surgeon. He found no evidence of incisions or cutting or any kind, nor burning, although there were traces of wax on her back.

It also details Sade's denial of having threatened to murder Keller, as well as cutting, burning, or raping her. He claimed her undressing was solely consensual, and that she was lying. The only thing that had been consistent with her testimony were the marks of extensive whipping, slight beating, and a bloodied back. In the Dean source, Sade is described as having raped, tortured, cut, and burnt Keller in p. 140. In one of the New York articles, Maurice Lever's account is taken, positing that Sade indeed raped, tortured, and excoriated Keller. Evidence suggests Sade did not, although, it should also be noted he was accused of similar conduct by a variety of pubescent maidservants and a boy servant throughout the former half of the 1770s.

In any case, Sade was not indifferent to such indulgences as that of murder, rape, and torture, but should one take time to look into the empirical verification as you put it, the physical evidence seems to only suggest Sade enjoyed psychological torture as his most extreme points of the libertine practice. Perhaps I will include the Pierre-Paul Le Comte examination as well, as the majority of sources would seem to posit that the torture of Keller was actual in its validity.

Kind regards,

--Edd Wesson (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I’ve read it all. My request to you is to have shorter replies so we can analyze this for empirical verification, until we can use proper sourcing to conclude the best we can what actually happened. A lot of what you said here is non-factual/non-empirical opinion, which I don’t mind hearing, but we need to stick to empirical facts and analysis so we can put the best information on this Wikipedia page.

So my first question is, what sources are you using that recount these events besides Gorer and Marshall? You state last names, but I’m not sure what texts they correspond to. The newspaper articles likely are not empirically valid enough as those usually lack sourcing for past events. I believe you mentioned before that we shouldn’t trust them anyways. There’s also the issue of some of them not being available to the public for empirical analysis by everyone. This last issue is one that must be solved first. Please share your thoughts and answer my question the best you can. Thanks again. PNople (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Neil Schaeffer's The Marquis de Sade: A Life, Carolyn Dean's The Self and Its Pleasures, and Maurice Lever's Sade: A Biography. I do not remember stating this, although I may have. You may access p. 140 of the Dean source available here, Schaeffer here (p. 91) which notes Sade's denial, and Lever's which is contained in one of the news articles' coverage. Edd Wesson (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any issues broadly with the factual veracity of any of those three books?

So the 2 factual claims I’m contesting here are that Sade threatened anyone by knifepoint non-consensually, and that he non-consensually poisoned anyone with an aphrodisiac. Marshall’s “Demanding the Impossible” supports my claim. Can you please point to the instances in those three texts that state Sade did these two things? Page numbers are enough for me. And also in Gorer’s text if you’re aware (if there are any). PNople (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

In Schaeffer's biography, it is pointed out that Keller is the only one who claimed Sade had threatened to kill her with a knife. Gorer claims that he forced her to strip in p. 32, although it does not specify by what means she was forced. Dean's seems to document the accusations of binding and rape by knifepoint as factual, but also clarifies there are multiple versions of this event in p. 140. As for Lever, he is only cited by the news articles which contain sensationalized accounts of the Arcueil scandal. As for his non-consensual poisoning of the prostitutes? There are no claims to suggest his poisoning was anything but accidental. By almost all accounts, Sade was intent on making the prostitutes sexually potent by means of an aphrodisiac, not by poisoning to murder the prostitutes. That is what they suspected, until it was made evident that Sade was innocent in this regard. Nevertheless, he was charged with sodomy by the same judge he had in the Keller case. Despite the prostitutes withdrawing their complaint, this judge persisted in maintaining the notion that Sade poisoned them. In the featured article, it is not insinuated that Sade intentionally poisoned the prostitutes, but rather, that he accidentally made them ill from the laced chocolates under the belief they would become stimulated by the contents thereof.

Kind regards,

--Edd Wesson (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. By your account and summarization of these resources, it appears we should remove all factual mention of De Sade threatening anyone at knifepoint and non-consensually poisoning someone with an aphrodisiac throughout Sade’s wikipedia page. Do you agree? PNople (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, although the accidental poisoning is most definitely central to his biography as he was charged with attempted murder and sentenced to death for sodomy as a result of the events that had taken place thereby.

--Edd Wesson (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The poisoning was not poisoning. He was simply giving them an aphrodisiac of spanish fly to make them have flatulence because he was into it. See How to Read Sade, by John Phillips (2005), p. 17. This will clear up all your mistakes!

And you and everyone help me clean up this page! It has been vandalized by tons of falsity why I was away. I need everyones help. PNople (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Please help correct the scores of misinformation on this page. I’ve provided factual sources in the past couple years, but here’s another one: How to Read Sade, by John Phillips (2005). This is published by W.W. Norton! One of, if not the, most prestigious academic publishers currently. W.W. Norton would not publish factual inaccuracies. The criminal allegations are thoroughly addressed on page 17 of the book: “there is no reason to believe that any of this behavior involved compulsion.” And the alleged poisoning of prostitutes was actually factually “merely giv[ing] the young women pastilles with spanish-containing Spanish fly, a well-known aphrodisiac which also caused flatulence - an effect the Marquis found sexually arousing” (lower on p. 17). He never held anyone hostage nor confined them without their consent. Everyone please help fix these issues ASAP! And continue to reverse the inaccurate defamation on Sade’s ethical character! We need the true empirical facts about him. Thank you. PNople (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The following two sentences are completely contradictory to me:

"While Sade mentally explored a wide range of sexual deviations, his known behavior includes "only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes—behavior significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism".[6][7] In 1774, Sade also forcibly held five adolescent girls and a teenage boy hostage in his chateau while forcing them to commit various sexual acts for six weeks."

the first sentence states he was not as sexually deviant in real life as in his books- known to "only" beat a housemaid and attend one orgy, which is immediately contradicted by the second sentence which describes him commiting a sex act that is as deviant as those in his books. so which is it?

could it be possible to remove the word "only" to make the sentence flow better? or remove the first part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy rot (talk • contribs) 10:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, not only that but the "no legal charge" is also contradicted later by the citations of him being repleatedly charged with different crimes, convicted and imprisoned in some cases. Mcc1789 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

False!

See How to Read Sade, by John Phillips (2005). This is published by W.W. Norton! One of, if not the, most prestigious academic publishers currently. W.W. Norton would not publish factual inaccuracies. All his criminal allegations are thoroughly addressed on page 17 of the book: “there is no reason to believe that any of this behavior involved compulsion.” And the alleged poisoning of prostitutes was actually factually “merely giv[ing] the young women pastilles with spanish-containing Spanish fly, a well-known aphrodisiac which also caused flatulence - an effect the Marquis found sexually arousing” (lower on p. 17). He never held anyone hostage nor confined them without their consent.

Now please correct all the misinfo that you and others have added here. It’s really your duty now, considering it’s been your recurrent mistake. Thank you. PNople (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I believe you improperly the information I posted on de Sade yesterday. There is large consensus among the empirically verified academic sources of the truth of this information. You really shouldn’t take sourced information like this down- you did absolutely nothing to refute it. I genuinely believe you didn’t even read the pages I sourced.

So please state your case. And the empirically verified sources you have.

And you really shouldn’t have taken down this information in this way. If I put up properly sourced information and you take it down, I’ll probably report you for violation of TOS. PNople (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I deleted your contribution because it is not an accurate reflection of the sources you cite and is also contradicted by other sources. Also it doesn't belong in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, not a separate mini article with new information and citations. See MOS:LEAD.

1) You added: "While Sade explored a wide range of sexual deviations through his writings, his “known behavior includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes- significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism.” You cite Marshall, Gorer and Phillips to support this.

It is clear from Marshall's text and footnotes that he draws his statement entirely from Gorer. So it isn't an independent source. Marshall was an expert on anarchism, not Sade.

This is what Gorer says: "This [The Marseilles Affair] is the only known account of de Sade’s actual sexual behaviour. Too much weight cannot be placed on the evidence of his behaviour on a single day, for de Sade was certainly exploring conscientiously all imaginable extensions of sexual pleasures, from which he was to draw his theories and illustrations at a later date; but his behaviour departs very greatly from the clinical picture of active sadism, On this occasion his behaviour was predominantly masochist."  P32

So Gorer is only talking about the Marseilles affair, not all of Sade's known behaviour. Gorer's book was last revised in 1963, well before a flood on new information came to light, including details of the Keller affair.

Phillips is a better source but it doesn't really support your content. Phillips states, " "[Sade's] acts included the flagellation and buggery of prostitutes and, allegedly, the sexual corruption of young women, although there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion."

So Phillips has added the sexual corruption of young women. And states that this might have been consensual. The problem is that there are plenty of reliable sources which state that there is every reason to believe that Sade's behaviour was not consensual and that he took pleasure in inflicting pain on his victims (which sounds like Sadism to me). You should especially read Dworkin, Seaver, Shattuck, Bongie, Lever and Du Plesssix Gray on this. We can only say that there is "no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion" if we assume that Sade was always telling the truth and the women who lodged complaints against him were always liars. As Dworkin points out, that's a very misogynistic assumption. If we believe only half of the accounts of the women who lodged complaints, Sade was guilty of false imprisonment (locking them into rooms), death threats, sexual assault (sexual acts without consent), statutory rape (sex with underage girls) and administering noxious substances (most sources agree that Sade recklessly gave an overdose of Spanish Fly knowing it could cause poisoning and death). So what was his known behaviour? It depends on who we choose to believe and nowadays most commentators do not automatically believe rich powerful aristocratic men over sex workers, servants and women reduced to begging. If you read the discussion of the relevant incidents in the article I think you will find that they are presented from a neutral point of view and reflect the consensus of reliable sources.

2) You added: "Sade was a proponent of free public brothels paid for by the state: In order both to prevent crimes in society that are motivated by lust and to reduce the desire to oppress others using one’s own power, Sade recommended public brothels where people can satisfy their wishes to command and be obeyed." Your source was Marshall but once again he is only repeating Gorer. The relevant pages of Gorer are 142-43 and 167.

The problem with this is that Gorer is not quoting Sade but one of his fictional characters, Le Chevalier. As Phillips points out, you can't assume Sade's characters speak for the author. Sade is often using parody and satire. In the same speech Le Chevalier states that murder should be legal. So should we say, "Sade endorsed free public brothels and the right to commit murder?" Furthermore, as Dworkin points out, Gorer neglects to mention that Le Chevalier was proposing forced sex slavery for women in these public brothels.

I am happy to discuss this further on the Talk page of the article. In the meantime I am again reverting your addition. Please note that under policy you should not add it again without seeking consensus on the Talk page. Bold, revert, discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You have a lot of text here, but no real justification for removal of this verified information. As I already stated. And where is the aricle on the talk page to seek consensus? You haven’t made one, nor linked to one here- so do so if you want the consensus stated there and not here. I’ve already discussed these issues months ago/years ago with others on the De Sade talk page, and we reached consensus to add these two sentences. Though those discussions aren’t there any more (did someone delete them somehow? I doubt it, I assume they was archived and now not publicly available?)

And if you end up not being ok with me adding the two sourced semtemces in the intro again, then you need to make proposed alternative statements of what to put in the intro that incorporates at least some of the knowledge I stated. Full removal of my 2 sentences will not do.

We need empirical verification, not consensus. Consensus does nothing to validate whether a given fact is true: In fact, this is the pure violation of appeal to the population (ad populum) logical fallacy. Thoroughly research the subject of critical thinking and logical fallacies if you’re still skeptical. We must carry out all Wikipedia policies so they do not violate any logical fallacies or valid empirical methods. Let me know if you’re still skeptical about what I said in this paragraph, and I will guide you step-by-step so you aren’t skeptical but knowledgeable.

When you state any author as a resource, simply sating the name without the year/work and page numbers does not contribute well to a discussion. So if you state text resources as evidence in the future, be specific: to the very proposition that is stated.

So you used Dworkin to counter my second sentence added. Though you didn’t cite anything Dworkin has stated. Please be specific from now on in our discussion. So state specifically where Dworkin “points out” this.

I’m not going to address every single of your propositions in this particular reply. Especially considering you don’t have specific citations. But I can address all of them as we discuss.

So in addition to the Dworkin reply I wan from you, I also want all of the specifics of “the flood on new information [which] came to light, including details of the Keller affair.” What are all the specifics of this flood of new information? And what are all the cited primary sources?

As I’ve stated, I provided a very recent (2005) resource published by W. W. Norton (see the publisher’s academic reputation if you’re unfamiliar). Which states “there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion." If there is no compulsion, there are no violent sex crimes/acts (acts are the more empirical valid term as they cite to universal ethics, not law, which is arbitrarily made by the punitive-state which forcefully controls the jurisdiction the act was committed in). And this resource (& Marshall’ last revision in 2010) undoubtedly came out after this flood of new information you vaguely cited to. PNople (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to understand how wikipedia works. You can't write something as a fact using the wikipedia voice if there is serious conflict in the reliable sources. So we can't write as fact: "his known behavior includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes" Sure, Marshall says this, but most others disagree because it isn't true. (By the way, if you get sexual pleasure from beating a housemaid isn't that sadism?). For example, Dworkin states, "Sade’s biographers attempt to justify, trivialize, or deny (even though records confirming the facts exist) every assault Sade ever committed against women and girls. Especially, tireless efforts are made to discount the kidnapping and torture of Rose Keller, Sade’s first non-prostitute victim of record." It's Dworkin (1981) p3. (You can find the full citation in the article.) Then read this wikipedia article in its entirety and you will see that multiple people testified that Sade's behaviour went beyond what Marshall states. As I said before, most reliable sources nowadays don't simply accept that everything Sade said was true and everything his victims said were lies.

Similarly, you can't say "Sade advocated public brothels" because he didn't. It was one of his fictional characters. If you don't believe me read the novel, it's Philosophy in the Bedroom. Then read the Phillips book you quote, especially pages 10-11, 16 where he warns against attributing Sade's real views from his fiction.

If you insist, we could add somewhere in the article (but not the lead) some neutral POV content such as, "Marshal states that Sade's known behaviour ...etc." However, Dworkin states that Sade's biographer's...etc." But it seems much better to just leave the article as it is, as it already expressly states that the term Sadism is derived from the behaviour of Sade's characters, not necessarily Sade's.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Everyone else than us 2, please contribute to this discussion if you believe you have valid arguments.

I understand how Wikipedia works in the ways that are relevant here. The claim I am making is that there is consensus among the reliable sources. I am discounting the opposite sources as unreliable. We do this through critical thinking, avoidance of logical fallacies, and empirical methods- as I already stated.

You need to cite much better than this. Cite to this direct testimony from the alleged victims. Be as specific and numerous as as your understanding allows.

As I understand it, the main issue is that judges and officials of the punitive-state made claims about Sade that were untrue and put him in prison. We can’t cite claims by officials of the punitive-state as testimony, because it’s not first hand experience. The same with Dworkin. And the same with the Wikipedia article itself, of course.

Also consider that W.W. Norton (for How to Read Sade, by John Phillips; notably John Phillips also wrote the A Very Short Introduction book on De Sade, also published in 2005 by Oxford University Press, another very academically reliable publisher- though I haven't read any of it) a much more reliable and academically quality publisher than the publisher of Dworkin’s 1981 book. Plus Norton’s book is published in 2005, while Dworkin’s book is published 24 years prior: If we are to choose the factual claims of one book over the other based solely on publisher, then W.W. Norton’s 2005 text is the proper choice, hands down. As I stated before, this 2005 book states “there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion." on page 17. This fully supports my first sentence.

As for my second sentence, I will argue for it afterwards if you still wish to discount the claim then.

And both sentences should absolutely be included in the intro to the Wikipedia article, they are ethically and empirically paramount to discount the widely prevalent misunderstandings about De Sade’s actual behavior. So there’s no valid argument that they should instead appear elsewhere in the article.

And you’re misreading the quote in the first sentence by Marshall, it doesn’t just say sadism. It says clinical sadism. Clinical sadism is different because there is a requirement for it to be unethical (i.e. nonconsensual/compulsory). Consensual sadism is ethical and is thus not clinical sadism. The necessary practices of consent amongst the BDSM community show us this. PNople (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For everyone else unfamiliar, these are the two sentences in the intro that we are discussing. I (PNople) added them and Aemilius Adolphin removed them:

While Sade explored a wide range of sexual deviations through his writings, his “known behavior includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes- significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism.”^[1][2][3] Sade was a proponent of free public brothels paid for by the state: In order both to prevent crimes in society that are motivated by lust and to reduce the desire to oppress others using one’s own power, Sade recommended public brothels where people can satisfy their wishes to command and be obeyed.^[4] PNople (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin: You haven’t replied here for awhile and are contributing to Wikipedia when you should have responded to this first. So technically you’re conceding my claims until you reply. Whenever there’s happens I’m justified in adding the two sentences we’re discussing. So make sure you respond here much more promptly.

No one besides you has attempted to dispute my two sentences with arguments. So you are the only user who is in the way of consensus, and consensus is the aim you stated you wanted. PNople (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier by way of compromise, I have moved your additions to the body of the article and have added some contrary views published in reliable sources. Once again I urge you to read relevant policy before we discuss further, particularly MOS:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:verify. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You should not have removed this content from the lead. It follows all the policies you cited. These two sentences are neutral, valid, & clear up important misconceptions about De Sade. I already stated and successfully argued that they absolutely belong in the lead. So of course I won’t compromise them being moved to a different section.

You need to reply to my substantive points here. Technically you have conceded all my arguments until you have posted valid counterarguments. Reply to every one of my arguments, provide adequate citations and sourcing.

Do not alter my contributions until you address all my arguments with valid citations. Also you never provided the identification, dates and citations of “the flood on new information [which] came to light, including details of the Keller affair.” This was several replies ago, and you specifically chose to ignore this request in your substantive reply.

Reply to all my substantive arguments. Provide adequate, valid citations. Do not alter my contributions until you do. PNople (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As I explained, I moved the content to the main body of the article. Please see my comment above and the policy I cited. To be specific, you are stating two seriously disputed assertions as fact, aren't writing in a summary style and are giving undue weight to one side of one controversy. To quote policy:

1) "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." WP:VOICE

2) "The lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." MOS:LEAD

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I already explained why the two sentences belong in the lead and should not be moved. You did not respond to that explanation.

You are discussing and editing in bad faith here. You still have not responded to my arguments, as I repeatedly asked you to. I should not have to ask you even once. You are deliberately ignoring my arguments, and thus you have no justified claim to edit or remove the two sentences. Until you actually do engage in such substantive discussion, you must not remove these two sentences in the lead that I will post again.

As for the policies, I already assured you that my two sentences and the location in the lead follows them. Additionally:

1. The two sentences are not stating seriously contested assertions. It only relies on the reliable sources. So your cited policy under 1 is fully met.

2. Your cited policy under 2 is also fully met. These two sentences summarize not only one of the most important points, but probably the most important point concerning Sade. This is not a less important controversy, but it clears up one of the most important controversies about Sade.

You must prove to me and everyone that you’re discussing and editing here in good faith, because up to now you have failed to do so. PNople (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you willing to compromise, in any way, on your opinion that these statements should remain in the lead exacty as you wrote them with no alterations? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but only if you discuss in good faith. You need to reply to all of the arguments & requests I made. You’ve deliberately ignored them across several replies, including this one. And you’re proving to me and everyone that you’re not discussing in good faith. PNople (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have already responded to all your arguments and have expressly stated why your additions to the lead are not in accordance with policy. It is up to you to justify your insertion of information which is not written from a neutral POV, is not an accurate summary of the article and which uses the wikipedia voice to states seriously contested assertions as fact. If you don't do so it might be considered disruptive editing. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are lying, you have not responded to most of my arguments & requests. I already justified the two sentences, and the two sentences follow all the requirements you just stated. You are already engaging in disruptive editing.

You are a bad faith interlocutor and editor who just blatantly lied to me and everyone. PNople (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead from a NPOV. In the meantime calm down or I will have no alternative to reporting you for disruptive behaviour. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am calm. You have no case for reporting my behavior, though I have a case for reporting your bad faith and lying. It’s above for all to see. PNople (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have deleted wholesale my attempt at compromise wording in the lead. I have asked for a third party opinion on the issue of whether the lead, as you have written it, is an accurate summary of the article, written from a neutral POV. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense at this point in the discussion. I’ve kept your description of the dispute, but more thoroughly fleshed it out in a couple more sentences. PNople (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

While we are waiting for the 3rd opinion, there's nothing stopping us from trying to reach a compromise. First, I apologise for removing your initial contribution which was properly sourced and should not have been removed. It was in the wrong place (the lead) but I should have moved it to an appropriate place in the article, rewritten it from a neutral point of view, and added properly sourced contrary views. I eventually did this. I then placed a summary of the new information in the lead here. You were wrong to then remove my lead summary wholesale. It is properly sourced with reliable sources and is written from a neutral POV. Can you please explain why you removed it? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I already explained why. You still haven’t addressed my arguments nor provided the primary sourcing necessary, & you blatantly lied. I believe you’re likely just unable to have critical discussions, so I don’t trust you for discussion or compromise. You need to wait for the third party. Thanks for your patience. PNople (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I’m sorry for saying you’re engaged in bad faith and lying here, and for saying you’re a bad faith interlocutor and editor. I believe you were stating a false statement (about your replying to my arguments), but I realize I can’t assume your motives. I, myself, should have requested a third party to help instead of stating those things. PNople (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm responding here from a request for a third opinion (3O). I am declining the request because I do not think the lightweight, voluntary process of 3O is suitable for resolving this dispute at this time. In particular, 3O depends on civil discussion and assumption of good faith, neither of which have been maintained here, in the article editing history, or the edit summaries. I encourage everyone to review the guidelines at WP:TALK#USE for a reminder on the expectations for discussion of article improvements. From there, I think the best path forward would be the following:

1. Abandon the thread above, which is irredeemably toxic.
2. Start a new, tightly-worded, WP:TALK-compliant discussion, focusing solely on article content (as opposed to editors) and citing relevant content policies and guidelines including but not limited to WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:SECONDARY.
3. If there is still an impasse, try an alternative dispute resolution method such as WP:RFC or WP:DRN. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit to add: for questions about source reliability, the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN is a great resource. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you VQuakr! Most of the toxicity came from me, which I apologize for. This is an important factual issue to me. I appreciate all the guidance, especially the links. PNople (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr Thanks again for your help with this. The other editor and I have agreed that the thread doesn't show either of us in our best light and might put off other editors who might wish to contribute. Do you have any objections if I delete it? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. No objections from me. I’ve copied all the information provided by VQuakr so I have it to help in the future. PNople (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be archived rather than deleted. The current archive is Talk:Marquis de Sade/Archive 2. VQuakr (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any source for what he died of, and on what day? The death section simply jumps from him dying to the conditions of his will without going into much detail. Real Catholic Theologian (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello all I have corrected some errors and replaced the garbled version of Sade's early life with a more accurate one. I have removed some tangential and dubious information with unreliable sources and replaced it with more relevant information with more reliable sources such as the major biographies by Lever and Schaeffer. I have renamed the section so it better reflects the content. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello All

I have significantly expanded this to add more context to the previous bare summary of scandals. I have also replaced incorrect or garbled accounts of the scandals with more accurate information with reliable sources. I have relied mainly on the major biographies by Lever and Schaeffer. I have provided sub-headings to make the text easier to follow. The section might now be too detailed and I am happy to discuss whether some of the detail could be moved to child articles later on. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have removed unsourced information from this section and moved the rest to the Legacy section where it more logically belongs. The Life section already includes information about the family history and Sade's modern descendants and their relationship to the Sade legend are best discussed in the legacy section. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have expanded this section in order to better reflect this important phase of Sade's life. I have replaced some incorrect information with accurate information from more reliable sources, particularly the scholarly biographies of Sade by Lever (1993) and Schaeffer (2000). I have simplified the name of the section. I have also added a few sentences better linking this section to the following one.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have expanded this section to give a fuller account of Sade's last 14 years. I have replaced incorrect information with more accurate information. Once again, I have mainly relied on the scholarly biographies of Sade by Lever (1993) and Schaeffer (2000). I have also moved one linking sentence from the previous section to this section.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have divided this into two sections. The section "Political, religious and philosophical views" gives a clearer overview of Sade's ideas. I have removed some poorly sourced information (eg blogs) and replaced it with citations to works by renowned scholars published by reputable publishers. I have significantly expanded the content. I have added another section "Critical reception" which gives an overview of how Sade has progressed from a pariah to part of the French literary canon. I have also added some more comments by supporters and critics of this canonization.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have rewritten the lead to better summarize the revised content of the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a separate mini-article with different content and sources. I have also removed some incorrect information. For example, Sade was never a member of the National Convention and was formally charged with several crimes (sodomy, blasphemy, seduction, kidnapping, libertinage etc.)

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have combined the previous sections on "Influence" and "Cultural Depictions" into one section. I have removed repeated information, poorly sourced information and excessive detail on works that aren't by Sade and which are full covered in the main article on "Sade in popular culture". Rather than giving a potted history of such works, I have summarized the views on Sade's cultural influence presented by a few key Sade scholars.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

The "Writing" section was mostly poorly sourced original research reflecting an editor's point of view and undue emphasis on minor works. For example the section Literary Criticism was actually as essay on the Gothic novel. I have replaced most of the previous content with more reliable sourced content reflecting critical consensus and a more accurate coverage of the range of Sade's writing. I have relied mostly on the scholarly work of Phillips (2005), Bongie (1998) and Gray (1998). I have also deleted the redundant Bibliography section which had no content.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have added a Works Cited section in order to make the Harvard short citation system work better. I have removed duplicate items from the Further Reading Section. I have placed the works listed in this section into order of publication, which was the original intention.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have placed a Use American English template on this article for the following reasons:

1) There are no strong national ties to the topic: see MOS:TIES

2) Although American English has not been universally used, it has been established as the dominant in the article. MOS:CONSISTENT. For example, before my first edit there were three examples of behavior v none for behaviour and no -our spellings for nouns at all. There was 1 x offense v 0 for offence. Five examples of -ize verbs v none for -ise verbs. Two traveled v none travelled.

I have retained dd-mm-yyyy dating as this is an established usage.

Where British spellings occur, I have standardized these to American spelling except when they appear in a quotation.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)