Talk:Bastille

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBastille has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 11, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 14, 2004.
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bastille/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

This is a very detailed and informative article. It is written in clear, helpful and pleasant prose which engages the attention and carries one along. I suspect that little work will be needed to get this to meet GA criteria. I think the main time taken will be in background reading to ensure that the coverage is appropriate (all main points covered, and balanced, etc). Some quibbles regarding the lead - I feel that a brief mention of the storming of the Bastille could be made in the first paragraph, as this is a significant part of the Bastille's notability for the general reader; some mention of its location in Place de la Bastille, and that there are some remains in the nearby Boulevard Henri IV; the lead has five paragraphs, and four is preferred; there are some slight wording quibbles: "The seven remaining prisoners..." they hadn't previously been specifically mentioned, so this might be better as "Seven remaining prisoners...", though I am uncertain about the word "remaining"; "In the following years..." - as the previous dates mentioned are a sentence and a half back in a different paragraph this phrase catches a bit. Perhaps - "In its lifetime..."? SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an impressive article. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Still got some background reading and sources to check. Also to be considered is the depth of material. Is it too detailed in places? I don't think so - I think it is well judged as being informative with being excessive, though it's something I'm still thinking about. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a section devoted to a description of the design and layout of the castle. There is information present, though it is scattered. I find no mention at all of the moat. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see "ditch" in the first paragraph of the main body. I did a search for "moat". Was it a ditch or moat? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be made clearer for the general reader that the Bastille was originally built as a gate. The text makes it sound as though it was originally intended as a castle: "Prior to the building of the Bastille, the main royal castle in Paris was the Louvre..." SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass[edit]

This is an excellent article, well written, very informative and well supported by adequate sources. It comfortably meets GA criteria. There are areas of discussion regarding how better to present and weight information, but that would be for ongoing development, and I indicate a few areas above where discussion may start. I feel the article would benefit from some clarity regarding the main points that a general reader would be looking for. The article as it was before the recent, admirable expansion by Hchc2009, was quite pitiful, however it does have some value in indicating quite simply and clearly those points that a general reader would wish to know. There is always the sense that each Wikipedia article is in fact two articles - the "popular" article for the general reader who wishes to know the basic, important facts in a clear, simple and memorable manner, and the more detailed and expansive article for the reader who wishes to be informed more about a specific aspect of the topic (a particular period of history (the revolution), or usage (as a prison), or origin, or architecture and layout), or has time and inclination to wish to learn more overall. The "popular" article is the lead section, and the more detailed article is the main body. If I have an argument with this article it would be that the popular aspect needs attention. But overall I am impressed with the quality of the work, and have much respect and admiration for Hchc2009, and gratitude for the work done here and on other castle articles. The Foundation have been concerned recently regarding the decline in the amount of editors Wikipedia is attracting and retaining; however, experienced editors have been pointing out that it is not quantity we need, but quality, and while we can attract and retain writers of the standard of Hchc2009 then Wikipedia will improve. It's worth noting that Hchc2009 only joined us a little over two years ago and has been a massive asset since. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last revision...[edit]

Taksen, I've reverted the last edit because there's no source for this information - you need to show which book or article it came from (NB: I'm happy to help if I can). The other question I'd have is why this particular individual is important; there were hundreds of prisoners in Bastille over the years, so it might be worth explaining in a few words why he's worth mentioning here, e.g. "The notable writer Jean-Louis Favier was one of those extensively questioned." or something like that. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I started this article on Jean-Louis Favier; then someone wanted more links, because there were not any. Today I made three links where they would appropriate. Actually I missed a list of famous or interesting prisoners, so I could have added his name there. Now I had to put it somewhere in the text, which seemed to me "dense" and "finished". Actually I expected a revert would happen, and earlier today I was thinking of translating De la Boumelles from the German Wikipedia, than I would have added something interesting for you, but I was too tired after cleaning my windows.
Before yesterday I knew nothing of Favier, but he seems really interesting, not only because an empty link existed already. He is interesting, because he was friendly with Prince Henry of Prussia, who could have been appointed as king of the USA. Working on someone's biography gives me information on other people, I didn't expect.Taksen (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of the Bastille's design?[edit]

"The innovative design proved influential in both France and England and was widely copied." - This is an unusual assertion and at the least should be documented. Some examples would be nice as well.171.159.192.10 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look in the body of the main article for the examples and references. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the "Men with pickaxes" picture[edit]

I don't think this picture is really appropriate for the way its used, mostly because at this resolution the men with pickaxes are next to invisible, and not clearly people. the lines on the far left that are apparently people could be anything really. 74.134.235.157 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the caption slightly. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographies...[edit]

83.114.190.238, the bibliography in a Wikipedia article is used for works referenced in the article; as noted previously, Cottret, Monique (1986), La Bastille à prendre : histoire et mythe de la forteresse royale, is not used to support any the facts in the article, and so should not be in the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong. The 1986 book has influenced all further investigations. See Schama in particular. The chronology of research should also be taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.114.190.238 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have been confused by what I meant; in a Wikipedia article, the bibliography covers the works that are used in the specific Wikipedia article to support specific facts, for example in the in-line citations; Cottret 1986 is not used in any of the citations (have a look at the version before you added the additional work into the bibliography, and you'll see various citations to Cottret's 2010 chapter, but none to Cottret's 1986 book). If you're new to editing the wiki, take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources which gives more details on how to cite sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bastille. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs[edit]

Under Louis XV, around 250 Catholic convulsionnaires, often called Jansenists, were detained in the Bastille for their religious beliefs

Is not entirely true. Convulsionnaires were Jansenists, but not all Jansenists were Convulsionnaires. Convulsionarism moreover was not a belief, rather a practice. I copy this from the Wiki lemma on Convulsionnaires:

Strayer writes, "their tortures had crossed the line between the self-denial of spiritual mystics and sexual brutality. Increasingly, people viewed this strange blend of millenarianism, eroticism, torture, and hysteria as a medical problem rather than a religious phenomenon."[49] In 1735, a group of 30 Paris physicians proposed that "overheated imaginations" were the cause for the convulsions.[50]
Riyadi (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bastille Dimensions[edit]

Wikiwami (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)I do not believe the dimensions currently listed for the Bastille are correct. [The resulting structure became known simply as the Bastille, with the eight irregularly built towers and linking curtain walls forming a structure 223 feet (68 m) wide and 121 feet (37 m) deep, the walls and towers 78 feet (24 m) high and 10 feet (3.0 m) thick at their bases.[9] ][reply]

Footnote 9 mentions Schama, Viollet, and Muzerelle books. On the cited pages for Schama and Viollet, there is absolutely no mention of dimensions, nor to my knowledge anywhere in those books. The Muzerelle book has dimensions (IMHO, incorrect) listed on page 14; however, the author does not say how they were taken. On page 21 of Muzerelle's book there is a diagram, which one can locate in high definition. From that drawing, one can developed extended scales (duplicated and photo-shopped to add together) to measure the Bastille. The scale is in toises and pieds du roi, which must be converted to meters and feet. As well, one must mention how one measures the Bastille, as it was an irregular hexagonal building, not rectangular. I chose maximum footprint from the base (exposed foundation) which the engineers and architects all included in their drawings before the Bastille's destruction.

I have tried to post my findings that the Bastille, measured at its base, was 260 feet long, 130-150 wide (ends, middle), and 100 feet high. The base was 20 feet high, with walls being 80 feet, making the total height 100 feet. This maximum dimension takes into account the protrusions of the towers and their battlements, as well as the widened footings at the base. The building was irregular, more of a hexagon than a rectangle, hence the difference between middle and ends. It's possible that some would want to look for dimensions just at the interior; however, that itself was also irregular, with the addition of various additions and apartments.

I have cited page 29-30 of my book "George Washington's Liberty Key" as a source, as well as the original Bastille Drawings I have posted on www.bahrnoproducts.com/Extra_Supplements.htm which duplicates the pages from Schama, Viollet, and Muzerelle.

I believe I have now tried to post three times over the past several months, and each time my input has been refused. The information is not necessarily "original" with me. It is merely correctly measuring what's already available. I would respectfully request the rationale for Wikipedia's refusal of my input. Thanks! Wikiwami (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikwiwami, we can only use reliable, secondary sources on the wiki. The cited material in the article at the moment comes from Dutray-Lecoin, Élise and Danielle Muzerelle (eds) (2010). La Bastille ou 'l'enfer des vivants' à travers les archives de la Bastille., published by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Their national library can make mistakes, of course, but it is certainly a reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking. The alternative you're trying to replace it with was published by Ibex Systems a communications manufacturers' representative & reseller; this isn't a reliable publisher for French history, and the website you've linked to is self-published - again, a real issue on the wiki. It's effectively original research. I'd strongly advise trying to get your research published in a reviewed journal or through an academic publisher first. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have thought about contacting Danielle Muzerelle, author of one of your references. I don't know that a "retraction" or modification from her would be enough, as you're looking for "published" works. However, I don't know why Wikipedia would continue citing Schama and Viollet, as neither of them even offers dimensions for the Bastille. Please let me know if you don't think "Smithsonian Magazine" is good enough for my publishing in a reviewed journal or an academic publisher. Respectfully, you may also want to consider deleting the whole section on dimensions, given what many eyes can see viewing the diagrams I've provided. Regardless, thanks again for your feedback. NB: When I started my research there was nothing on Wikipedia as regards the Bastille dimensions, and the information about the Bastille was minimal. My congratulations on the improvements and putting together an excellent page! Wikiwami (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Always worthwhile reaching out to academics - they're usually pretty happy to get queries on their subjects. Muzerelle is still based in based in Paris I think. In terms of a reliable journal, the key feature I'd normally be looking for is peer review - i.e. articles or chapters being sent out to neutral specialists on the subject, who then feed back commentary and ensure quality control. I don't know if the Smithsonian Magazine does this or not, but they could probably tell you. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of prisoners[edit]

Here it says eight: on the Storming of the Bastille page seven. I have come across the latter figure elsewhere - can the discrepancy be corrected? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These were the guests of the Bastille at the moment of their 'liberation'

  • Jean Bechade la Barte, Bernard Laroche, Jean La Corrège, Jean Antoine Pujade (counterfeiters)
  • Tavernier, and count de Whyte de Malleville (both insane, one believed to be Cesar)
  • count Hubert de Solages (who had raped his daughter, and paid for his imprisonment, to avoid being tried)

For the historians of the revolution, in search of symbols, the harvest was embarrassing, as they had to lock up the counterfeiters again, and the three others (privileged prisoners) had to be sent to the asylum of Charenton. It was therefor decided to invent an eigth prisoner, the count de Lorges [1]. As this count never existed, he had been particularly badly treated, locked up for 32 years in a dark hole, half naked etc... Riyadi (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precise location[edit]

Currently the coördinates given point to the middle of Place de Bastille, a roundabout with a monument in the middle. However, for what I understand of its location, it was actually located where the Banque de France currently has its house. The distance is not huge, about 100 metres, but there's no reason the coördinates should remain incorrect. Especially with the current coördinates pointing to the centre of a "square" named after the Bastille, one is easily led to understand that the Place de la Bastille has been built precisely where the Bastille used to be. But, I might have understood the location incorrectly, so I'm not going to alter the location. Still, feeling /fairly/ sure I've got it right and somebody should thus probably correct the location. Dakkus (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok[edit]

Ok 196.219.109.228 (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informații[edit]

Informații despre Bastilia 79.118.134.95 (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bastille&oldid=1204110079"