Moberly–Jourdain incident has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
November 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the gardens of the
Petit Trianon were
once thought to be haunted? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some nice work you've done here Majorly. :) Leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff...and it'll be your first GA? Yay! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Much of this article has been taken directly from Seriously Weird True Stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.74.8 ( talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article appears to be much based on a potboiler of shaky scholarship written by a credulous alcoholic journalist. A more scholarly and far-reaching account of the story is given by Terry Castle ("Contagious Folly: An Adventure and Its Skeptics", Critical Inquiry, volume 7, number 4, pages 741-772, 1991), a reputable scholar whose facts may be relied upon although her feminist interpretations now bear a quaint 20th century air. I have tried to make the article more balanced although it really needs to be rewritten on the basis of Castle's account rather than Farson's. Castle also deals with important material relating to the subsequent lives of the two women and which casts doubt on their story. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
It is not generally known that there have been further sightings at the Palace of Versailles of people who dressed and behaved as aristocrats at the time of the French Revolution. These were not actors, as they appeared and disappeared more like apparitions. The witnesses claimed to have no knowledge of the original Moberly and Jourdain account. None of these cases are as comprehensive as the original account, however they do lend some credence to the Moberly and Jourdain case. The explanation could lay in the nature of time itself. I have to admit that I have experienced a timeslip into the future. These are much rarer than retro timelips but they do occur. They share a certain characteristic with a retro timeslip in that they focus on one particular place. The future time slip is even harder to explain. The past could have left a recording that can then be replayed under the right conditions, but the future is supposed to be unwritten -but is it?
62.254.173.34 (
talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't one of the two women revisit Versailles several years later, this time going to the Hameau de la reine? It was in late fall or sometime in winter. She heard violin music but couldn't figure out where it was coming from, and when she asked staff about music being performed at Hameau de la reine, they said no musician(s) performed there in winter months. -- RThompson82 ( talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The source given in the article is Joan Evan's book, not the Phillipe Julian biography of de Montesquiou. If the 1967 translation of the latter does include the entire phrase "gatecrashed a gay fancy dress party", then obviously it goes in. As I don't have a copy, can someone confirm that this is what it says? Ghughesarch ( talk) 13:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:== Moberly–Jourdain incident == "Gay fancy dress party" is not a direct quote. "Gay" had a totally different meaning in the old times "happy, cheerful" and readers might incorrectly assume the modern meaning of the word. The characters were not being described as gay in the modern sense on the word. Slight Smile 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Intriguingly, Marcel Proust could well have been among the revellers. He was a close friend of de Montesquiou, a fellow homosexual and, as is well known, an eager hangaround at private parties and dress balls like these. 83.254.150.36 ( talk) 03:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Moberly and Jourdain's book An Adventure is historically notable book primarily known as an example of early 20th century mysticism. However, the present article presents this topic as an "incident" written in the context of a "paranormal incident/unsolved mystery" with a heavy Fortean spin. It's clear the anonymous book and its claims came first, the paranormal fringe context came much later. I've already copyedited the lead to reflect this. Suggest moving the article to a new title: An Adventure (book) and rework it as a book article discussing An Adventure in its proper literary context. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that our most reliable sources have thoroughly debunked the supernatural claims and conclude that the story was a literary fantasy, it's surprising that our article takes the women's tale at face value and even presents the supernatural explanation as equal to skeptical ones. A book article is more appropriate and encyclopedic than the present misguided "paranormal incident" format. Rather than a section consisting of "Some explanations" as if it were a UFO sighting, a "Reception" section would better cover response to this book, e.g. some felt it articulated a form of mysticism, others thought it was a lesbian Folie à Deux, the Society for Psychical Research speculated it was a hoax, etc. Seriously, this article can be much improved. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any objections of raising a formal discussion on this through Wikipedia:Requested moves? - Location ( talk) 22:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Moberly–Jourdain incident. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Xxanthippe: Syntax has nothing to do with it. Per WP:JOBTITLES, in Wikipedia we do not capitalize "principal". We don't even capitalize "pope" or "king". Please undo your change. Chris the speller yack 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Anbody who does not see that that is a bad, bad section title should read WP:WEASEL.
Anybody who does not see that time travel is not an "explanation" - since it just replaces one riddle by another one - should read WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As there is no real agreement as to what the supernatural even is, claiming that explanations that have been offered for this story may be "non-supernatural" is, essentially, original research. If you can find a reliable source which indicates that these critiques are explicitly those which are not supernatural, I would like to see it. The sources I am reading simply say that these are the explanations. Full stop. jps ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I previously replaced this GA icon that was removed from the article. As this article is currently a GA, I feel that the GA icon should be kept. If there is concerns about whether this article does pass GA or not, then this article could have another Good Article Reassessment. However, I feel that this GA icon shouldn't be removed unless this article is delisted. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Moberly–Jourdain incident has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
November 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the gardens of the
Petit Trianon were
once thought to be haunted? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some nice work you've done here Majorly. :) Leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff...and it'll be your first GA? Yay! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Much of this article has been taken directly from Seriously Weird True Stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.74.8 ( talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article appears to be much based on a potboiler of shaky scholarship written by a credulous alcoholic journalist. A more scholarly and far-reaching account of the story is given by Terry Castle ("Contagious Folly: An Adventure and Its Skeptics", Critical Inquiry, volume 7, number 4, pages 741-772, 1991), a reputable scholar whose facts may be relied upon although her feminist interpretations now bear a quaint 20th century air. I have tried to make the article more balanced although it really needs to be rewritten on the basis of Castle's account rather than Farson's. Castle also deals with important material relating to the subsequent lives of the two women and which casts doubt on their story. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
It is not generally known that there have been further sightings at the Palace of Versailles of people who dressed and behaved as aristocrats at the time of the French Revolution. These were not actors, as they appeared and disappeared more like apparitions. The witnesses claimed to have no knowledge of the original Moberly and Jourdain account. None of these cases are as comprehensive as the original account, however they do lend some credence to the Moberly and Jourdain case. The explanation could lay in the nature of time itself. I have to admit that I have experienced a timeslip into the future. These are much rarer than retro timelips but they do occur. They share a certain characteristic with a retro timeslip in that they focus on one particular place. The future time slip is even harder to explain. The past could have left a recording that can then be replayed under the right conditions, but the future is supposed to be unwritten -but is it?
62.254.173.34 (
talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't one of the two women revisit Versailles several years later, this time going to the Hameau de la reine? It was in late fall or sometime in winter. She heard violin music but couldn't figure out where it was coming from, and when she asked staff about music being performed at Hameau de la reine, they said no musician(s) performed there in winter months. -- RThompson82 ( talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The source given in the article is Joan Evan's book, not the Phillipe Julian biography of de Montesquiou. If the 1967 translation of the latter does include the entire phrase "gatecrashed a gay fancy dress party", then obviously it goes in. As I don't have a copy, can someone confirm that this is what it says? Ghughesarch ( talk) 13:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:== Moberly–Jourdain incident == "Gay fancy dress party" is not a direct quote. "Gay" had a totally different meaning in the old times "happy, cheerful" and readers might incorrectly assume the modern meaning of the word. The characters were not being described as gay in the modern sense on the word. Slight Smile 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Intriguingly, Marcel Proust could well have been among the revellers. He was a close friend of de Montesquiou, a fellow homosexual and, as is well known, an eager hangaround at private parties and dress balls like these. 83.254.150.36 ( talk) 03:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Moberly and Jourdain's book An Adventure is historically notable book primarily known as an example of early 20th century mysticism. However, the present article presents this topic as an "incident" written in the context of a "paranormal incident/unsolved mystery" with a heavy Fortean spin. It's clear the anonymous book and its claims came first, the paranormal fringe context came much later. I've already copyedited the lead to reflect this. Suggest moving the article to a new title: An Adventure (book) and rework it as a book article discussing An Adventure in its proper literary context. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that our most reliable sources have thoroughly debunked the supernatural claims and conclude that the story was a literary fantasy, it's surprising that our article takes the women's tale at face value and even presents the supernatural explanation as equal to skeptical ones. A book article is more appropriate and encyclopedic than the present misguided "paranormal incident" format. Rather than a section consisting of "Some explanations" as if it were a UFO sighting, a "Reception" section would better cover response to this book, e.g. some felt it articulated a form of mysticism, others thought it was a lesbian Folie à Deux, the Society for Psychical Research speculated it was a hoax, etc. Seriously, this article can be much improved. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any objections of raising a formal discussion on this through Wikipedia:Requested moves? - Location ( talk) 22:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Moberly–Jourdain incident. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Xxanthippe: Syntax has nothing to do with it. Per WP:JOBTITLES, in Wikipedia we do not capitalize "principal". We don't even capitalize "pope" or "king". Please undo your change. Chris the speller yack 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Anbody who does not see that that is a bad, bad section title should read WP:WEASEL.
Anybody who does not see that time travel is not an "explanation" - since it just replaces one riddle by another one - should read WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As there is no real agreement as to what the supernatural even is, claiming that explanations that have been offered for this story may be "non-supernatural" is, essentially, original research. If you can find a reliable source which indicates that these critiques are explicitly those which are not supernatural, I would like to see it. The sources I am reading simply say that these are the explanations. Full stop. jps ( talk) 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I previously replaced this GA icon that was removed from the article. As this article is currently a GA, I feel that the GA icon should be kept. If there is concerns about whether this article does pass GA or not, then this article could have another Good Article Reassessment. However, I feel that this GA icon shouldn't be removed unless this article is delisted. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)