![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 13, 2010, July 13, 2011, July 13, 2013, July 13, 2015, July 13, 2019, and July 13, 2021. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sj.will.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Mysogyny |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
At a quick skim, the recently linked Marat, premier de Corday looks like historical ("Marat, first of Corday"), by Gilles Marchal (in French) looks like it may be historical fiction. I gave it about 2 minutes and couldn't be sure. My French is not good enough for me to make a proper evaluation quickly. Could someone with good French please have a look at this and let us know just what it is (the title is by no means self-explanatory) so we can work out whether it should be linked? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
It has been re-added, again anonymously. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. Remove? - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance . Adrienne93 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This article says Marat had a lot of Girondists arrested in 1789. This seems very unlikely - too early a year, and I don't think Marat was in a position to order anyone arrested. The Girondists article doesn't mention this either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chelydra ( talk • contribs) 13 July 2006.
The Girondins were actually arrested on 31 May 1793! :) Lizzie 202.137.86.129 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for every one for this article. I have a note: why there is internal or external link to two essential texts for this story, these are:
Thank you -- Thameen 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that the skull of Corday remained in the possession of the Bonaparte family and their descendents (via the royal marriage of Marie Bonaparte) throughout the twentieth century." Seems to me that if this is not promptly cited, it should be removed. At best it is curiosa, but uncited it is not even that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
All the facts seem to check out and it's well-cited. Congratulations, editors! Levalley ( talk) 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states, "In 1793, she was executed under the guillotine for the assassination of Jacobin leader Jean-Paul Marat, who was responsible for the Reign of Terror. "
I highly doubt this is accurate, since Marat was killed in July 1793 and the Reign of Terror didn't begin until September that year, at least according to Wikipedia.
Should I remove it?
Coralys | Talk 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
English-language historians, at least, universally refer to the period between September 1793 and July 1794 as the Terror. I have never heard of the fall of the monarchy and the September massacres being considered "another" Terror. In any case, even if there are two Terrors, the statement that Marat "was responsible for the Reign of Terror" is at best ambiguous and in dire need of clarification. 24.16.139.34 ( talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of Charlotte Corday |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am trying to find information about an old picture called "Charlotte Corday Before Her Execution (Victor Von Schubert)" I can be reached at (e-mail removed) Thanks hh You have posed a question in the Wikipedia. It is not usual to ask questions on the discussion page as you have done. Please remove the question when you have found the answer. Should you wish to do this again, please date your question. Otherwise it might linger for a long time. Also the e-mail address you have provided is invalid, so I have removed it. But in part, I will try to answer your question. The picture in question was probably made by Viktor Ritter von Schubert-Soldern, who was an Austrian/Czech artist and probably lived between 1834-1912. He has made many portraits of Ladies. If he painted Charlotte Corday it would have been long after her execution. He would probably have used a model. Maybe the painting is based on the etching that is in the article. Your best bet would be an encyclopedia of art history for that period. Or maybe a German language encyclopedia. |
Does the color of Charlotte Corday's hair need a special section [1]? It seems rather trivial.
Soon after her death, confusion arose surrounding the color of Corday's hair: the opening sentence makes it sound as if in July 1793, at the time the Terror was gaining momentum, France & the Revolution stopped going on with their business because in a state of confusion as to the color of the hair of a woman who had just been beheaded.
Then the story goes on with how Corday had hired a local coiffeur to straighten and lighten her hair, followed with the most important historical discovery: Although this story rapidly became popular in Paris at the time, there is no historical evidence to support that it actually happened.
So... what's the purpose of mentioning it in an encyclopedia?
The whole section is based on a rumour and, even if it was true, it has no importance in Charlotte Corday's role in the French Revolution. It would have only if the colour of her hair had changed the course of History.
As for the conclusion of the section: Part of the reason for the discrepancy in descriptions of Corday can be attributed to the stigma attached to powdered hair. At the time, only nobility and Royalty ever powdered their hair, and in a time of violent anti-royalist revolt, such association can be powerful in influencing popular opinion.[8].
"Only nobility and royalty ever powdered their hair"? How about Robespierre??? - one of the most elegant men in France, who powdered his hair, and who was to head the Committee of Public Safety that sent thousands of people like Charlotte Corday to the guillotine.
The section should be removed.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Frania W. that the section should be removed. Another argument would be that evidence is based on a painting. The artist might have painted her hair in a fashion that was in vogue at the time and not how her hair really was. If you look in the French Wikipedia (if you can read French and are interested in Corday, this is a very interesting article), there are already marked differences between the pastel and painting by Hauer. There can be many problems with paintings. If you look, for example, at Rembrandt's The Anatomy Lesson, a left arm is being dissected. This arm seems much larger than it should be and it could even be a right arm! A British Royal once viewed a portrait of a lady who was proposed as a candidate for marriage. His remark was that she could not be that attractive. One of his courtiers asked if he knew the lady in question, to which he replied: "No, but I know the court painter". Although this evidence is anecdotal and not fact, it illustrates that no conclusions can be drawn about Corday's hair based on a portrait. Beside which I agree with Frania W. that Corday's place in history and in the Wikipedia has no relation to her hair. Again, the section about Corday's hair should be deleted.
If you look at the picture of Corday being conducted to her execution, you will see that a man is carrying a red robe. She wore this, as she was instructed to wear red as was customary for murderers and assassins.
There are many other things that are much more interesting like a good translation and references, for the letter she wrote to her father about her actions, or some of her other quotes, like:
Or a good translation of her "Address to the French laws and friends of peace", her apology of her actions (this is a translation I found on Google, it should of course be "Address to the French friends of laws and of peace").
-- JHvW ( talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Corday, Charlotte Corday or Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont: A case in Wikilawyering and the MoS. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Question:
Reason for question:
-- Frania W. ( talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Answer:
-- Frania W. ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you now please tell me why we are having this discussion? Do you think that the first name should be restored and that she should always be referred to as "Charlotte Corday" and never simply as "Corday"? If so, why? Surtsicna ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Adresse aux Français amis des lois et de la paix. « Jusqu’à quand, ô malheureux Français, vous plairez-vous dans le trouble et dans les divisions ? Assez et trop longtemps des factieux, des scélérats, ont mis l’intérêt de leur ambition à la place de l’intérêt général ; pourquoi, victimes de leur fureur, vous anéantir vous-mêmes, pour établir le désir de leur tyrannie sur les ruines de la France ? « Les factions éclatent de toutes parts, la Montagne triomphe par le crime et l’oppression, quelques monstres abreuvés de notre sang conduisent ces détestables complots […] Nous travaillons à notre propre perte avec plus de zèle et d'énergie que l'on n'en mit jamais à conquérir la liberté ! Ô Français, encore un peu de temps, et il ne restera de vous que le souvenir de votre existence ! « Déjà les départements indignés marchent sur Paris, déjà le feu de la discorde et de la guerre civile embrase la moitié de ce vaste empire ; il est encore un moyen de l'éteindre, mais ce moyen doit être prompt. Déjà le plus vil des scélérats, Marat, dont le nom seul présente l'image de tous les crimes, en tombant sous le fer vengeur, ébranle la Montagne et fait pâlir Danton, Robespierre, ces autres brigands assis sur ce trône sanglant, environnés de la foudre, que les dieux vengeurs de l'humanité ne suspendent sans doute que pour rendre leur chute plus éclatante, et pour effrayer tous ceux qui seraient tentés d'établir leur fortune sur les ruines des peuples abusés ! « Français ! vous connaissez vos ennemis, levez-vous ! Marchez ! que la Montagne anéantie ne laisse plus des frères, des amis ! J'ignore si le ciel nous réserve un gouvernement républicain, mais il ne peut nous donner un Montagnard pour maître que dans l'excès de ses vengeances […] Ô France ! ton repos dépend de l'exécution des lois ; je n'y porte pas atteinte en tuant Marat : condamné par l'univers, il est hors la loi. Quel tribunal me jugera ? Si je suis coupable, Alcide l'était donc lorsqu'il détruisait les monstres ! [...] « Ô ma patrie ! Tes infortunes déchirent mon cœur ; je ne puis t'offrir que ma vie ! et je rends grâce au ciel de la liberté que j'ai d'en disposer ; personne ne perdra par ma mort ; je n'imiterai point Pâris (le meurtrier de Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau) en me tuant. Je veux que mon dernier soupir soit utile à mes concitoyens, que ma tête portée dans Paris soit un signe de ralliement pour tous les amis des lois ! que la Montagne chancelante voie sa perte écrite avec mon sang ! que je sois leur dernière victime, et que l'univers vengé déclare que j'ai bien mérité de l'humanité ! Au reste, si l'on voyait ma conduite d'un autre œil, je m'en inquiète peu : Qu'à l'univers surpris cette grande action, Soit un objet d'horreur ou d'admiration Mon esprit, peu jaloux de vivre en la mémoire, Ne considère point le reproche ou la gloire. Toujours indépendante et toujours citoyen, Mon devoir me suffit, tout le reste n'est rien, Allez, ne songez plus qu'à sortir d'esclavage !... « Mes parents et mes amis ne doivent point être inquiétés, personne ne savait mes projets. Je joins mon extrait de baptême à cette adresse, pour montrer ce que peut être la plus faible main conduite par un entier dévouement. Si je ne réussis pas dans mon entreprise, Français ! Je vous ai montré le chemin, vous connaissez vos ennemis; levez-vous ! Marchez ! Frappez ! »
« Pardonnez-moi, mon cher papa, d’avoir disposé de mon existence sans votre permission. J’ai vengé bien d’innocentes victimes, j’ai prévenu bien d’autres désastres. Le peuple, un jour désabusé, se réjouira d’être délivré d’un tyran. Si j’ai cherché à vous persuader que je passais en Angleterre, c’est que j’espérais garder l’incognito, mais j’en ai reconnu l’impossibilité. J’espère que vous ne serez point tourmenté. En tout cas, je crois que vous auriez des défenseurs à Caen. J’ai pris pour défenseur Gustave Doulcet : un tel attentat ne permet nulle défense, c’est pour la forme. Adieu, mon cher papa, je vous prie de m’oublier, ou plutôt de vous réjouir de mon sort, la cause en est belle. J’embrasse ma sœur que j’aime de tout mon cœur, ainsi que tous mes parents. N’oubliez pas ce vers de Corneille : Le Crime fait la honte, et non pas l’échafaud ! C’est demain à huit heures, qu’on me juge. Ce 16 juillet. » -- Frania W. ( talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"First of all the book continually refers to Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont as Charlotte Corday and not Corday, so I do not understand the point." On the pages 182-185, it refers to "Corday". "Also if the article needs to be wikipediazed why not refer to Charlotte Corday by her first name, it will give the article a much more intimate feel." Because the article is not supposed to have an "intimate feel". It is supposed to have an encyclopaedic feel. None of us had a coffee with Corday and none of us was intimate with her. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says that "it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." The article may have other issues, but its prose and tone are not less important than those issues. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
On page 182, Cordelia Scharpf (the author) refers to Corday as Corday eight time and then cites a letter in which the subject of the article refers to Corday only once and thus, naturally, calls her "Charlotte Corday".
The situation is the same in the rest of the book. If you need to cite all five pages in order to prove my point, I will do so. Do I have to? "In the French Wikipedia Corday is named Charlotte Corday, Miss Corday or Citizen Corday, but never Corday. So is it better to be consistent with the manual of style or with sister Wikipedia's?" Is this even a serious question? Of course consistency with the manual of style is far more important than consistency with "sister Wikipedia's". Otherwise we'd refer to Pál Schmitt as Schmitt Pál. The example is not mine. The example was given by the community. Besides, he is referred to as Leicester when talking about events that took place after he was created Earl of Leicester. The Manual of Style explains why: "Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use 'Robert Dudley' or 'Dudley' when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564." "Robert the Bruce was officially King Robert I of Scotland, but he is generally known as Robert the Bruce, so calling him that in an article would not get any complaints." Relevance? "Is readability for foreign language speakers not also an issue? Many foreigners contribute to this Wikipedia." Readability for English language speakers should be the only issue. I doubt someone who does not speak English would read a text in English. "Are we going to abolish calling the Pope our Holy Father?" Do we call him "Holy Father"? I haven't seen any reference to a Holy Father in the article about Pope Benedict XVI. The reason is simple - he is not everyone's holy father. Not mine, for example. But what is the point of this argument? "Some of the readers do not understand the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute. Are contributors going to have to write in 'postman Pat' English?" I am not a native speaker of English. Could you please explain to me how the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute is relevant to the Corday vs. Charlotte Corday dispute? "'The Simpsons' occupy many pages in the Wikipedia. The main characters have their own pages and these pages are sometimes considered showpiece articles. Is this is what being serious means in the Wikipedia? These are cartoon characters! And are we going to call Bart Bartholomew because that is what the manual of style says? When he is generally known as Bart, which is claimed to be an anagram of brat?" Another comment whose relevancy I can't see. I was not aware that Bart Simpson was a person. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names discusses persons, not cartoon characters. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
|
The discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Charlotte Corday. Surtsicna ( talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this whole debate happened a long time ago for Ada Lovelace (Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace). Ada Lovelace is referred to as "Lovelace" in her article and Charlotte Corday should be referred to as "Corday". It doesn't matter if the pseudonymous surname was part of their real name or not, nor does it matter if they lived in the 20th Century or the 15th Century, nor does it matter if they had a more famous husband. The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this now, so I'm not sure why there is so much confusion and controversy about it. Kaldari ( talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte Corday's final resting place. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Like those of many of the victims of the Terror, her remains are at the Paris Catacombes with access Place Denfert-Rochereau in the 14th arrondissement: Charlotte Corday was buried at the Madeleine cemetery [4] & remains transferred first to the ossuaire de l'ouest in 1844, then to the Catacombes in 1859 [5] -- Frania W. ( talk) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC) This is correct. Charlotte Corday was buried in the Madeleine cemetery, as were many victims of the Terror decapitated on the Place de la Révolution: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, -- Frania W. ( talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Would you mind telling me what "Wikipedia guidelines" Frania W. is not respecting... while she "correctly states" ? -- Frania W. ( talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Bizarre, comme c'est bizarre !", dixit Jouvet. |
"While Charlotte was a young girl, her mother, Charlotte Marie Jacqueline Gaultier de Mesnival (1837–1882) and her older sister died." These 19th-century dates cannot be correct for the mother of someone who was executed before the end of the 18th century. 71.246.234.242 ( talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"Corday is also known to be an ancestor of the pioneering French photojournalist Henri Cartier-Bresson ... she was found to be virgo intacta (a virgin)" -- one of these is wrong, but which one? Given the lack of mention of a husband/marriage, I'm going to guess M. Cartier-Bresson is mistaken. Before I remove him from this article, does anybody have more definite knowledge? Biblioteqa ( talk) 00:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
At the end of "Political influence" it says Marat was a "Montagnard", while in the first sentence of the next section "Marat's assassination" it says Marat was a "Jacobin". I'm really not interested in whether one statement is correct and the other wrong, or whether they may both be correct. I just want to make the point that this is confusing for casual readers not intimately familiar with the political details of the time and needs a correction or explanation. -- BjKa ( talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the first time that I see this "discussion has been closed" construction. I feel the more usual archiving mechanism would improve the usability of this page. (Whole lotta scrollin' goin' on.) -- BjKa ( talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel that there can be some improvement to this page; as it relates to the influence that her actions had on society. Women during that time had specific roles, and her stance changed some views. Also, her bibliographical information is not that extensive, I'm hoping to find more information about who she was as an individual instead of just the act she was known for.
Kindleberger, Elizabeth R. “Charlotte Corday in Text and Image: A Case Study in the French Revolution and Women's History.” French Historical Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 1994, pp. 969–999., www.jstor.org/stable/286725.
Thomas, Chantal. “HEROISM IN THE FEMININE: THE EXAMPLES OF CHARLOTTE CORDAY AND MADAME ROLAND.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 30, no. 2, 1989, pp. 67–82., www.jstor.org/stable/42705725.
Sj.will ( talk) 04:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
What's the relevance in the beginning of the Biography section for saying her parents were cousins? Especially among the nobility and people from small towns/villages, practically everyone married a cousin of some degree or another. So why even mention it? To try to make it sound like there was something nefarious, incestuous going on? 76.202.192.102 ( talk) 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 13, 2010, July 13, 2011, July 13, 2013, July 13, 2015, July 13, 2019, and July 13, 2021. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sj.will.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Mysogyny |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
At a quick skim, the recently linked Marat, premier de Corday looks like historical ("Marat, first of Corday"), by Gilles Marchal (in French) looks like it may be historical fiction. I gave it about 2 minutes and couldn't be sure. My French is not good enough for me to make a proper evaluation quickly. Could someone with good French please have a look at this and let us know just what it is (the title is by no means self-explanatory) so we can work out whether it should be linked? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
It has been re-added, again anonymously. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. Remove? - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance . Adrienne93 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This article says Marat had a lot of Girondists arrested in 1789. This seems very unlikely - too early a year, and I don't think Marat was in a position to order anyone arrested. The Girondists article doesn't mention this either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chelydra ( talk • contribs) 13 July 2006.
The Girondins were actually arrested on 31 May 1793! :) Lizzie 202.137.86.129 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for every one for this article. I have a note: why there is internal or external link to two essential texts for this story, these are:
Thank you -- Thameen 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that the skull of Corday remained in the possession of the Bonaparte family and their descendents (via the royal marriage of Marie Bonaparte) throughout the twentieth century." Seems to me that if this is not promptly cited, it should be removed. At best it is curiosa, but uncited it is not even that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
All the facts seem to check out and it's well-cited. Congratulations, editors! Levalley ( talk) 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states, "In 1793, she was executed under the guillotine for the assassination of Jacobin leader Jean-Paul Marat, who was responsible for the Reign of Terror. "
I highly doubt this is accurate, since Marat was killed in July 1793 and the Reign of Terror didn't begin until September that year, at least according to Wikipedia.
Should I remove it?
Coralys | Talk 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
English-language historians, at least, universally refer to the period between September 1793 and July 1794 as the Terror. I have never heard of the fall of the monarchy and the September massacres being considered "another" Terror. In any case, even if there are two Terrors, the statement that Marat "was responsible for the Reign of Terror" is at best ambiguous and in dire need of clarification. 24.16.139.34 ( talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of Charlotte Corday |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am trying to find information about an old picture called "Charlotte Corday Before Her Execution (Victor Von Schubert)" I can be reached at (e-mail removed) Thanks hh You have posed a question in the Wikipedia. It is not usual to ask questions on the discussion page as you have done. Please remove the question when you have found the answer. Should you wish to do this again, please date your question. Otherwise it might linger for a long time. Also the e-mail address you have provided is invalid, so I have removed it. But in part, I will try to answer your question. The picture in question was probably made by Viktor Ritter von Schubert-Soldern, who was an Austrian/Czech artist and probably lived between 1834-1912. He has made many portraits of Ladies. If he painted Charlotte Corday it would have been long after her execution. He would probably have used a model. Maybe the painting is based on the etching that is in the article. Your best bet would be an encyclopedia of art history for that period. Or maybe a German language encyclopedia. |
Does the color of Charlotte Corday's hair need a special section [1]? It seems rather trivial.
Soon after her death, confusion arose surrounding the color of Corday's hair: the opening sentence makes it sound as if in July 1793, at the time the Terror was gaining momentum, France & the Revolution stopped going on with their business because in a state of confusion as to the color of the hair of a woman who had just been beheaded.
Then the story goes on with how Corday had hired a local coiffeur to straighten and lighten her hair, followed with the most important historical discovery: Although this story rapidly became popular in Paris at the time, there is no historical evidence to support that it actually happened.
So... what's the purpose of mentioning it in an encyclopedia?
The whole section is based on a rumour and, even if it was true, it has no importance in Charlotte Corday's role in the French Revolution. It would have only if the colour of her hair had changed the course of History.
As for the conclusion of the section: Part of the reason for the discrepancy in descriptions of Corday can be attributed to the stigma attached to powdered hair. At the time, only nobility and Royalty ever powdered their hair, and in a time of violent anti-royalist revolt, such association can be powerful in influencing popular opinion.[8].
"Only nobility and royalty ever powdered their hair"? How about Robespierre??? - one of the most elegant men in France, who powdered his hair, and who was to head the Committee of Public Safety that sent thousands of people like Charlotte Corday to the guillotine.
The section should be removed.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Frania W. that the section should be removed. Another argument would be that evidence is based on a painting. The artist might have painted her hair in a fashion that was in vogue at the time and not how her hair really was. If you look in the French Wikipedia (if you can read French and are interested in Corday, this is a very interesting article), there are already marked differences between the pastel and painting by Hauer. There can be many problems with paintings. If you look, for example, at Rembrandt's The Anatomy Lesson, a left arm is being dissected. This arm seems much larger than it should be and it could even be a right arm! A British Royal once viewed a portrait of a lady who was proposed as a candidate for marriage. His remark was that she could not be that attractive. One of his courtiers asked if he knew the lady in question, to which he replied: "No, but I know the court painter". Although this evidence is anecdotal and not fact, it illustrates that no conclusions can be drawn about Corday's hair based on a portrait. Beside which I agree with Frania W. that Corday's place in history and in the Wikipedia has no relation to her hair. Again, the section about Corday's hair should be deleted.
If you look at the picture of Corday being conducted to her execution, you will see that a man is carrying a red robe. She wore this, as she was instructed to wear red as was customary for murderers and assassins.
There are many other things that are much more interesting like a good translation and references, for the letter she wrote to her father about her actions, or some of her other quotes, like:
Or a good translation of her "Address to the French laws and friends of peace", her apology of her actions (this is a translation I found on Google, it should of course be "Address to the French friends of laws and of peace").
-- JHvW ( talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Corday, Charlotte Corday or Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont: A case in Wikilawyering and the MoS. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Question:
Reason for question:
-- Frania W. ( talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Answer:
-- Frania W. ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you now please tell me why we are having this discussion? Do you think that the first name should be restored and that she should always be referred to as "Charlotte Corday" and never simply as "Corday"? If so, why? Surtsicna ( talk) 22:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Adresse aux Français amis des lois et de la paix. « Jusqu’à quand, ô malheureux Français, vous plairez-vous dans le trouble et dans les divisions ? Assez et trop longtemps des factieux, des scélérats, ont mis l’intérêt de leur ambition à la place de l’intérêt général ; pourquoi, victimes de leur fureur, vous anéantir vous-mêmes, pour établir le désir de leur tyrannie sur les ruines de la France ? « Les factions éclatent de toutes parts, la Montagne triomphe par le crime et l’oppression, quelques monstres abreuvés de notre sang conduisent ces détestables complots […] Nous travaillons à notre propre perte avec plus de zèle et d'énergie que l'on n'en mit jamais à conquérir la liberté ! Ô Français, encore un peu de temps, et il ne restera de vous que le souvenir de votre existence ! « Déjà les départements indignés marchent sur Paris, déjà le feu de la discorde et de la guerre civile embrase la moitié de ce vaste empire ; il est encore un moyen de l'éteindre, mais ce moyen doit être prompt. Déjà le plus vil des scélérats, Marat, dont le nom seul présente l'image de tous les crimes, en tombant sous le fer vengeur, ébranle la Montagne et fait pâlir Danton, Robespierre, ces autres brigands assis sur ce trône sanglant, environnés de la foudre, que les dieux vengeurs de l'humanité ne suspendent sans doute que pour rendre leur chute plus éclatante, et pour effrayer tous ceux qui seraient tentés d'établir leur fortune sur les ruines des peuples abusés ! « Français ! vous connaissez vos ennemis, levez-vous ! Marchez ! que la Montagne anéantie ne laisse plus des frères, des amis ! J'ignore si le ciel nous réserve un gouvernement républicain, mais il ne peut nous donner un Montagnard pour maître que dans l'excès de ses vengeances […] Ô France ! ton repos dépend de l'exécution des lois ; je n'y porte pas atteinte en tuant Marat : condamné par l'univers, il est hors la loi. Quel tribunal me jugera ? Si je suis coupable, Alcide l'était donc lorsqu'il détruisait les monstres ! [...] « Ô ma patrie ! Tes infortunes déchirent mon cœur ; je ne puis t'offrir que ma vie ! et je rends grâce au ciel de la liberté que j'ai d'en disposer ; personne ne perdra par ma mort ; je n'imiterai point Pâris (le meurtrier de Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau) en me tuant. Je veux que mon dernier soupir soit utile à mes concitoyens, que ma tête portée dans Paris soit un signe de ralliement pour tous les amis des lois ! que la Montagne chancelante voie sa perte écrite avec mon sang ! que je sois leur dernière victime, et que l'univers vengé déclare que j'ai bien mérité de l'humanité ! Au reste, si l'on voyait ma conduite d'un autre œil, je m'en inquiète peu : Qu'à l'univers surpris cette grande action, Soit un objet d'horreur ou d'admiration Mon esprit, peu jaloux de vivre en la mémoire, Ne considère point le reproche ou la gloire. Toujours indépendante et toujours citoyen, Mon devoir me suffit, tout le reste n'est rien, Allez, ne songez plus qu'à sortir d'esclavage !... « Mes parents et mes amis ne doivent point être inquiétés, personne ne savait mes projets. Je joins mon extrait de baptême à cette adresse, pour montrer ce que peut être la plus faible main conduite par un entier dévouement. Si je ne réussis pas dans mon entreprise, Français ! Je vous ai montré le chemin, vous connaissez vos ennemis; levez-vous ! Marchez ! Frappez ! »
« Pardonnez-moi, mon cher papa, d’avoir disposé de mon existence sans votre permission. J’ai vengé bien d’innocentes victimes, j’ai prévenu bien d’autres désastres. Le peuple, un jour désabusé, se réjouira d’être délivré d’un tyran. Si j’ai cherché à vous persuader que je passais en Angleterre, c’est que j’espérais garder l’incognito, mais j’en ai reconnu l’impossibilité. J’espère que vous ne serez point tourmenté. En tout cas, je crois que vous auriez des défenseurs à Caen. J’ai pris pour défenseur Gustave Doulcet : un tel attentat ne permet nulle défense, c’est pour la forme. Adieu, mon cher papa, je vous prie de m’oublier, ou plutôt de vous réjouir de mon sort, la cause en est belle. J’embrasse ma sœur que j’aime de tout mon cœur, ainsi que tous mes parents. N’oubliez pas ce vers de Corneille : Le Crime fait la honte, et non pas l’échafaud ! C’est demain à huit heures, qu’on me juge. Ce 16 juillet. » -- Frania W. ( talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"First of all the book continually refers to Marie-Anne Charlotte de Corday d'Armont as Charlotte Corday and not Corday, so I do not understand the point." On the pages 182-185, it refers to "Corday". "Also if the article needs to be wikipediazed why not refer to Charlotte Corday by her first name, it will give the article a much more intimate feel." Because the article is not supposed to have an "intimate feel". It is supposed to have an encyclopaedic feel. None of us had a coffee with Corday and none of us was intimate with her. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says that "it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." The article may have other issues, but its prose and tone are not less important than those issues. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
On page 182, Cordelia Scharpf (the author) refers to Corday as Corday eight time and then cites a letter in which the subject of the article refers to Corday only once and thus, naturally, calls her "Charlotte Corday".
The situation is the same in the rest of the book. If you need to cite all five pages in order to prove my point, I will do so. Do I have to? "In the French Wikipedia Corday is named Charlotte Corday, Miss Corday or Citizen Corday, but never Corday. So is it better to be consistent with the manual of style or with sister Wikipedia's?" Is this even a serious question? Of course consistency with the manual of style is far more important than consistency with "sister Wikipedia's". Otherwise we'd refer to Pál Schmitt as Schmitt Pál. The example is not mine. The example was given by the community. Besides, he is referred to as Leicester when talking about events that took place after he was created Earl of Leicester. The Manual of Style explains why: "Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use 'Robert Dudley' or 'Dudley' when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564." "Robert the Bruce was officially King Robert I of Scotland, but he is generally known as Robert the Bruce, so calling him that in an article would not get any complaints." Relevance? "Is readability for foreign language speakers not also an issue? Many foreigners contribute to this Wikipedia." Readability for English language speakers should be the only issue. I doubt someone who does not speak English would read a text in English. "Are we going to abolish calling the Pope our Holy Father?" Do we call him "Holy Father"? I haven't seen any reference to a Holy Father in the article about Pope Benedict XVI. The reason is simple - he is not everyone's holy father. Not mine, for example. But what is the point of this argument? "Some of the readers do not understand the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute. Are contributors going to have to write in 'postman Pat' English?" I am not a native speaker of English. Could you please explain to me how the difference between a mistress, a lover and a prostitute is relevant to the Corday vs. Charlotte Corday dispute? "'The Simpsons' occupy many pages in the Wikipedia. The main characters have their own pages and these pages are sometimes considered showpiece articles. Is this is what being serious means in the Wikipedia? These are cartoon characters! And are we going to call Bart Bartholomew because that is what the manual of style says? When he is generally known as Bart, which is claimed to be an anagram of brat?" Another comment whose relevancy I can't see. I was not aware that Bart Simpson was a person. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names discusses persons, not cartoon characters. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
|
The discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Charlotte Corday. Surtsicna ( talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this whole debate happened a long time ago for Ada Lovelace (Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace). Ada Lovelace is referred to as "Lovelace" in her article and Charlotte Corday should be referred to as "Corday". It doesn't matter if the pseudonymous surname was part of their real name or not, nor does it matter if they lived in the 20th Century or the 15th Century, nor does it matter if they had a more famous husband. The guidelines are actually pretty clear about this now, so I'm not sure why there is so much confusion and controversy about it. Kaldari ( talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Charlotte Corday's final resting place. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Like those of many of the victims of the Terror, her remains are at the Paris Catacombes with access Place Denfert-Rochereau in the 14th arrondissement: Charlotte Corday was buried at the Madeleine cemetery [4] & remains transferred first to the ossuaire de l'ouest in 1844, then to the Catacombes in 1859 [5] -- Frania W. ( talk) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC) This is correct. Charlotte Corday was buried in the Madeleine cemetery, as were many victims of the Terror decapitated on the Place de la Révolution: Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, -- Frania W. ( talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Would you mind telling me what "Wikipedia guidelines" Frania W. is not respecting... while she "correctly states" ? -- Frania W. ( talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Bizarre, comme c'est bizarre !", dixit Jouvet. |
"While Charlotte was a young girl, her mother, Charlotte Marie Jacqueline Gaultier de Mesnival (1837–1882) and her older sister died." These 19th-century dates cannot be correct for the mother of someone who was executed before the end of the 18th century. 71.246.234.242 ( talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"Corday is also known to be an ancestor of the pioneering French photojournalist Henri Cartier-Bresson ... she was found to be virgo intacta (a virgin)" -- one of these is wrong, but which one? Given the lack of mention of a husband/marriage, I'm going to guess M. Cartier-Bresson is mistaken. Before I remove him from this article, does anybody have more definite knowledge? Biblioteqa ( talk) 00:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
At the end of "Political influence" it says Marat was a "Montagnard", while in the first sentence of the next section "Marat's assassination" it says Marat was a "Jacobin". I'm really not interested in whether one statement is correct and the other wrong, or whether they may both be correct. I just want to make the point that this is confusing for casual readers not intimately familiar with the political details of the time and needs a correction or explanation. -- BjKa ( talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the first time that I see this "discussion has been closed" construction. I feel the more usual archiving mechanism would improve the usability of this page. (Whole lotta scrollin' goin' on.) -- BjKa ( talk) 07:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel that there can be some improvement to this page; as it relates to the influence that her actions had on society. Women during that time had specific roles, and her stance changed some views. Also, her bibliographical information is not that extensive, I'm hoping to find more information about who she was as an individual instead of just the act she was known for.
Kindleberger, Elizabeth R. “Charlotte Corday in Text and Image: A Case Study in the French Revolution and Women's History.” French Historical Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 1994, pp. 969–999., www.jstor.org/stable/286725.
Thomas, Chantal. “HEROISM IN THE FEMININE: THE EXAMPLES OF CHARLOTTE CORDAY AND MADAME ROLAND.” The Eighteenth Century, vol. 30, no. 2, 1989, pp. 67–82., www.jstor.org/stable/42705725.
Sj.will ( talk) 04:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
What's the relevance in the beginning of the Biography section for saying her parents were cousins? Especially among the nobility and people from small towns/villages, practically everyone married a cousin of some degree or another. So why even mention it? To try to make it sound like there was something nefarious, incestuous going on? 76.202.192.102 ( talk) 21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)