Talk:Urbain Grandier

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The judges who condemned Grandier ordered that he be put to the "extraordinary question", 
 a form of torture which was usually,  but not immediately, fatal, and was therefore only
 administered to victims who were to be executed immediately afterwards.
What exactly was the extraordinary question? The article links to Boot_(torture) but after doing a quick google search it seems to mean some kind of water torture. 122.106.103.80 (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book of Aldous Huxley (see Loudun possessions), which is based on historical records of the event, describes the Boot. Forty years later Madame de Brinvilliers was subjected to the water form. Probably The Extraordinary Question involved a variety of techniques. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Extraordinary Question"

message: The linking of Descartes' Meditations and the Grandier trial seems tenuous at best, and requires a proper citation.Visual Error (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Descartes and Grandier

message: Having the pact written out four separate times takes up way too much space in this article.  I think we should probably transwiki this stuff to  Wikisource, where we can still wiki link to it, and perhaps keep (at most) only the modern English forwards translation.  All four versions do not contribute to a greater understanding of the subject here, they just take up a giant amount of this article's real estate.  Ford MF (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no shortage of space on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree with the two other users who have voted to remove three of the four versions of the diabolical pact and leave only the picture and the English translation.  I tried to do this but Xxanthippe reverted me.  The vote is currently 3 against 1. - Eb.hoop (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, I vote that before anyone deletes it, they should first put a duplicate in Wikisource, and then put a link to the wikisource text in this article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I did it myself.  Does the article look Ok, now, as stands?  The Latin is linked to and is in Latin Wikisource.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like it.  One suggestion though: could you label the texts in the Wikisource, as they were in the previous version of this article (direct transcription, text reversed with abbreviations, full Latin)?  - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I broke them down into numbered sections. I am not expert enough to write actual Latin titles (as should be done in Latin Wikisource).Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Text of the pact

message: I'm putting the text that was deleted here.  I myself don't see a reason for simply deleting it from the article (instead of at least relocating it, first), as someone just did.  You will find that people actually took quite an effort to put this material in here correctly, and I don't believe it's available anywhere else on the Internet (and maybe not even correctly in a published book).  Simply deleting work someone did which had been a contribution to available information, seems destructive and counter productive, to me. If it was so important for the article to be changed, then why not take an effort to salvage important material first - or is that too much work? (Yes, I know it's still in the history, but future editors are not likely to browse through there).Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Latin Text