# Talk:Moberly–Jourdain incident

Firstly, a general note. All the internet refs need publisher info. Using {{cite web}}, this is the |publisher= field. Eg. for ref 19, add |publisher=IMDB
 Done Majorly (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"in the gardens of the Petit Trianon involving two school teachers" - might read better with a comma before "involving"
Added comma. Majorly (talk)
The see also section isn't really necessary
Removed. Majorly (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"At this point a feeling of depression and dreariness came over them." - you can't be *sure* of this. Better to say that "they claimed a feeling of..."
 Fixed Majorly (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"they were told to go straight on" - by who?
Clarified. Majorly (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"ourdain described it as a "tableau vivant", a living picture, much like Madame Tussaud's waxworks." - this needs a ref
It has a ref later on in the paragraph. Majorly (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"and they came across a man sat" - the "they" isn't necessary here
Removed. Majorly (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Moberly believed it was Marie Antoinette and later wrote.." - the quote after this is rather long. You might be quoting from a free work (so no copyvio issues) but it still doesn't seem...well...right to quote so much. Shorten it, and use more prose
 Done Majorly (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Jourdain thought she did." - "Jourdain replied that she thought so." (or similar)
 Fixed. Majorly (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"In doing so, they found that on 10 August 1792, the Tuileries palace was besieged, the king's Swiss guards were massacred, and the monarchy itself was abolished six weeks later." - can you source this? Shouldn't be hard considering there's a relevant article
Added ref. Majorly (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"The book with a claim that Marie Antoinette had been seen caused a sensation. However, critics did not take it seriously, describing it as a "weakness of the memory"." - refs needed
"and labelled as hysterics" - and again
There's one (good) reference that covers both of these. I suppose it would be better with more refs, but it is covered. Majorly (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Might want to duplicate that ref or something. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"However, the landmarks the ladies supposedly saw which were no longer around in 1901 are still unexplained." - Needs a bit of a reword, I think
It does? What's wrong with it? Majorly (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, it just didn't seem right to me. How about something like "However, no explanation has been brought forward for the landmarks the ladies claimed to see, which were no longer in 1901."...I dunno, that's not too great either... dihydrogen monoxide (H20)
"The events themselves were made into a feature film, Miss Morison's Ghosts in 1981" - comma after movie title
Added. Majorly (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Is Category:Time relevant here?
I think so. It's a time slip. Majorly (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
'specially since it's part of wikiproject time. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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)

And yes, good work Majorly, you've done a good job here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And passed! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:36, 25 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) 

As the main author of this article, I'll tell you you're wrong. I have never read/seen that book, and all the sources used are listed at the bottom of the article. Al Tally talk 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As the author of most of the Explanation section I will say that I had never heard of the book mentioned by the unsigned anon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 7 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).

In this edit I have tried to: a) Make the article more NPOV by adding material about why the critics received the story so unfavourably. b) Change to the use of sources whose provenance and pedigree can be more readily ascertained than those of anonymous web sites. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 14 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)

Interesting. Do give sources for further sightings. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC).
I'd love to know more about this, too. --RThompson82 (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (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)

Reference added. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 14 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. SlightSmile 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Copyvio is not allowed. Ref. 27, which I use as source, was written in 2012 and uses "gay" with the modern usage of that word. If you doubt that the Montesquiou menage was "gay" then I suggest that you read Philippe Jullian's book. I have copied this exchange from my talk page to the talk page of Moberly and Jourdain, where it ought to be. Further discussion should take place here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
I see. I had assumed it was a description from 1901. Thanks for clarifying. SlightSmile 00:38, 17 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)

Interesting thought, but there is no supporting evidence. Proust was never in the Montesquiou inner circle (see biographies). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 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)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't support it. The affair is better known by the names of the protagonists. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC).
Support. The story should be discussed in context of the book, not the other way around. It certainly needs to be stripped of anything that states or implies that their claims are factual. - Location (talk) 00:40, 21 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)

I am sure that you have noted that it was I who wrote much of the debunking section of the article and, in particular, introduced the key Philippe Jullian theory to it. It is the duty of Wikipedia to report matters neutrally without taking sides. Wikipedia should state claims and counterclaims without fear or favor, in paranormal subjects as in religion and not color them with the opinions of individual editors Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
Stating that this was an event that actually occurred - rather than stating what someone said occurred - is not neutral and it is taking a side. It colors the subject in manner that leads people to think it is something that really happened. - Location (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should state claims and counterclaims without fear or favor, in paranormal subjects"? Maybe that was the prevailing thought in 2008 when this article was GA'd, but community opinion and policy has since evolved with the goal of making Wikipedia a serious reference work. A good essay on the subject is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Articles on the paranormal tend to be a magnet for cranks, both of a credulist nature and of a skepticist nature and Wikipedia editors have to hold a balance between the sometimes passionately held views of both.  Of course the incident occurred! The women went for a walk in the gardens at Versailles and wrote a book about their experience. That was the incident. The article reports their well-known views and offers some commentary from other sources about the experiences that they claimed to have had. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
Agree with Xxanthippe. What source claims the book is "primarily known as an example of early 20th century mysticism"? I've only ever come across discussions of the ladies' claims in the context of purported ghost sightings and "time slips", and the book itself was certainly originally presented as a factual account of a supposedly paranormal experience (no matter how impossible that might be in the real world) Liverpres (talk) 04:56, 22 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)

Yes, I object. It will become another time-wasting battleground for a WP:Tag team of fringe cranks like this page has turned into. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
We shouldn't avoid making improvements to the article for fear of potential "tag teams of cranks" - they can easily be dealt with as they arise,  as one has been already. In addition:
A majority of outside sources contained in the the present bibliography identify the topic by the book's name: "An Adventure".
A REDIRECT can be set up for those who search Wikipedia using the term "Moberly-Jourdain incident" (as it is referred to exclusively on fringe sites) similar to how Ghosts of Petit Trianon is presently a redirect.
Right now, the article title and structure function to describe the topic from a supernatural POV: i.e. (a) the supernatural incident happened ("Moberly-Jourdain INCIDENT"), so (b) after it happened Moberly and Jourdain wrote a an account of the incident ("AFTERMATH"), but (c) some people don't believe the incident ("SOME EXPLANATIONS"). Re-titling and re-structuring the article as An Adventure (book) will help us contextulalize that (a) Moberly and Jourdain wrote a book which they purported to be a true account of a supernatural incident. Much more neutral and much less misleading. A nice "Summary" section can contain a neutral description of the claims contained in the book, and a "Response" section can summarize critical reaction to them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:38, 2 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080209233101/http://nottinghamchurches.org:80/heroes/moberly.html to http://nottinghamchurches.org/heroes/moberly.html
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).

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.—cyberbot IITalk 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)

Pedantry is misplaced: see dot point three. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 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)

I agree. It's not clear to me which cited sources are arguing in favor of time slips and ghosts, but those explanations should rightly be characterized as fringe and not given equal credibility with non-fringe views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Having researched and written much of the debunking section myself including discovering the Montesquiou explanation, I think the section is fine. The only fringe explanation is that of Moberly and Jourdain's book. All the others are rationalist explanations. This article has long been a battleground between fringe cranks (who know that they are right) and anti-fringe cranks (who know that they are right). A plague on both their houses. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
See extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Moberly–Jourdain_incident, resulting in the article being much improved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 14 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)

The GA icon should be removed because the article has changed vastly since 2008. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC).