Talk:Moberly–Jourdain incident

message: *Firstly, a general note. All the internet refs need publisher info. Using , this is the |publisher= field. Eg. for ref 19, add |publisher=IMDB
** Majorly (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, good work Majorly, you've done a good job here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And passed! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright Violation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Revisit several years later?

message: 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)
replies: text: Reference added. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I see. I had assumed it was a description from 1901. Thanks for clarifying. SlightSmile 00:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Gatecrashed a gay fancy dress party" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Moberly–Jourdain incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Pedantry is misplaced: see dot point three. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  See extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Moberly%E2%80%93Jourdain_incident, resulting in the article being much improved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some" explanations 

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