Jump to content

Talk:Gilles de Rais

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.213.98.17 (talk) at 09:06, 16 December 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled comment #1

I take it that the masturbation and severed heads stuff is taken from the numerous gruesome websites. Is there any more reputable source for this? --Chinasaur 00:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Untitled comment #2

I think that the article would deserve some information checked from reputable historical sources. There seems to be a certain point of view that the allegations against Gilles de Rais were unfounded and that the prosecution was mostly motivated by jealousy; this would need confirmation. David.Monniaux 18:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • This seems to have been adressed. I just read this article and any bias towards him being not guilty is gone as of this edit.

Untitled comment #3

"conspirital plot"... Does that word exists? --Lektu 12:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Untitled comment #4

there are large factual errors in this, as with 99% of the rest of wikipedia. this shit is revolting and you should all be ashamed. stupid internet. for starters, Francois Prelati came to the scene 7 years after child murders began and Barron was merely Prelati's "personal" demon ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.125.113 (talk • contribs) 17 July 2005.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Civility, and name your reference. --BorgQueen 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever removed the Werewolf link...

I believe the link IS relevent since it is an abridged version Gilles de Rais' trial. --Machine gun molly 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled comment #5

I heard he was more a childraper and killer, then a women killer. There ware legends surrounding the village, when children went stealing apples in his garden, they never came back. They said there were eating children's flesh in the castel. I heard this in my history lesson, and we saw an original source, from a bisshop declaring these facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.67.4 (talk • contribs) 16 October 2005.

De Rais

I read one book where yes, Prelate did show up after De Rais began murdering for pleasure, but that it was the fallen priest who suggested he sacrifice boys, or more accurately offer parts of them, to the demon called Barron in exchange for alchemical wealth. Another book I have has transcriptions in French with indicate that he at least chewed upon human entrails.

Church perspective

I have to say, this article largely focuses on the Church's view of things, rather than on other views which doubt the "official" version and present other possibilities that the man might actually have suffered an ordeal similar to that of Jeanne d'Arc. Margaret Murray, for example, mentions such an alternative view in her Witch-Cult of Western Europe which deserves mention. And I don't think it is wise to state as fact that was a "serial killer" and "rapist." SouthernComfort 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more of the article it is apparent that there are POV problems here. Everything is stated as fact even though there is enough evidence to question the credibility of the Church's record concerning these matters. SouthernComfort 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence to question" is fairly speculative. There's certainly enough authority to mention that divergent views exist, but in the spirit that "extreme claims demand extreme proof," unless and until there's a shift in consensus among historians, it should be considered fact and the questions placed in the "Controversy" section. I think the article is fine as is. (Since this reflects several of your edits, it's not clear that we actually disagree that much.) DCB4W 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which historians?

Other historians have rejected this idea, pointing out that Murray's representation of Rais' case bears little resemblance to the evidence contained in the many historical documents concerning the matter.

What is the source of the above claim? If it is not properly sourced, it will be deleted. SouthernComfort 08:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Gibbons

An anon added a link to a book review by Jenny Gibbons [1]. This is inappropriate, since Gibbons, in her very brief article, makes no mention of de Rais. SouthernComfort 09:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note on English grammar

The traditional possessive for a proper noun that ends in "S" is to still add an apostrophe and S. The exception to this rule is ancient names, which typically receive only the trailing apostrophe. The examples from The Elements of Style are Charles's, Moses' and Jesus'. The Wikipedia Manual of Style reads, "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia." When there are multiple acceptable standards, reverting a correct one to another correct one is discouraged. So please stop. DCB4W 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note on French grammar

The French word "de," particularly in the context of a name, means "of." As part of a name it usually indicates a noble family, once "of" a certain place. The article is almost invariably deleted at the beginning of a sentence, and generally when referring to the surname. Democracy in America wasn't written by "de Tocqueville," it was written by "Tocqueville." "De Tocqueville" is certainly not the right way to start a sentence about its author, even though his name is Alexis de Tocqueville. DCB4W 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think again, muppet
The above unsigned comment was posted by anonymous user 90.7.134.139 at 15:16 on 27 September 2006
"Muppet?" Muppet? What kind of insult is that meant to be? Seriously, please specify. Are you suggesting that I'm spineless? Or that my head is empty and made of cloth? Or both? Clear writing is the most vital skill for any contributor to this encyclopedia. When engaging in pointless trash-talking, you should always endeavor to make your meaning clear. The fact that your anonymity precludes any importance from being attached to your comment (if I don't know who you are, there is absolutely no reason why I should care what you think of me, or indeed what you might think about anything else) does not excuse you from your obligation to raise the level of discourse on Wikipedia. If you expect your online graffiti to be taken seriously, you must improve your writing. DCB4W 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar aside, I'd just like to point out that the Library of Congress cataloging rules agree with the original post. I.e., they list him as "Tocqueville, Alexis de" supporting somewhat that he should be referred to formally as "Tocqueville." In speaking, however, I almost always would say "de Tocqueville." -- Quartermaster 12:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This bit is unsourced: Mainstream historians reject Murray's theory, often labeling it bluntly as "patent nonsense." The many such historians include C. L. Ewen, Ronald Hutton, G. L. Kitteredge, Norman Cohn, Keith Thomas, and Georges Bataille (e.g., The Trial of Gilles de Rais). They point out that Murray's representation of Rais's case, and the Dianic Cult theory in general, bears little resemblance to the evidence contained in the many historical documents concerning these matters.

The contributor must present evidence that the above listed authors have actually discussed Murray's theory in their works. SouthernComfort 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to say that it's "unsourced." It does at least give specific names of the writers alleged to hold the stated positions, although I'd agree that more information-- like citing to specific books in addition to The Trial of Gilles de Rais-- would be appropriate. I disagree with your deletion of the paragraph-- this seems to be precisely what the {{fact}} flag is for. I don't think that "must present evidence" is the right standard; I've always felt that the assumption of good faith strongly implied that when someone-- like the contributor of that section-- makes specific factual claims that we have to assume he didn't pull it out of thin air. DCB4W 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it lists numerous authors claiming that all those writers have specifically disputed Murray's theory. I find that highly unlikely considering most historians don't even mention Murray when writing about Gilles de Rais. The first quote ("patent nonsense") also is not sourced to any particular author. It's not asking a lot for the contributor to actually provide some evidence in the form of quotes so we know that those authors are actually mentioning Murray. Otherwise it's POV and doesn't belong. SouthernComfort 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not POV if you're right; it's simply wrong. In any event, the way I read the paragraph, at least some of the "other historians" are referring to Murray's entire theory, that there was a Dianic cult, to be the patent nonsense. Which, as best I can tell, actually is the historical consensus over the last 30 years. Presumably this is why "most historians don't even mention Murray when writing about Gilles de Rais." That lack of mention itself is something that should probably be in the article. Omitting any mention of the professional consensus about Murray is probably the least NPOV option suggested thus far. Of course, if you're personally familiar with those historians' works and know that they've said nothing about Murray, generally or with regard to Rais, then your edit is right. If they've criticized Murray's underlying theory without specifically mentioning its application to Rais, then the section just needs to be rewritten, rather than removed. I've taken a shot at part of that; with the glory that is Google, tracking down reputable (Hugh Trevor-Roper's reputation took a blow with the Hitler Diaries, but not a fatal one) historians' rejection of Murray was a fairly trivial task, and I've rewritten it to comply with what I can substantiate. DCB4W 04:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I pretty clearly botched my <ref> markups in the article. I'm going to try to figure out what I did wrong, but in the interim help would be appreciated. DCB4W 05:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Fixed it. This was my first shot at adding a notes section myself-- until now I'd added edits to a preexisting one only-- so I omitted part of the markup. DCB4W 05:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Spence's version

My main acquaintance until now with a detailed account is in Lewis Spence's Encyclopedia of the Occult, republished by Dover; over a hundred years old by now and perhaps not reliable. I'm wondering if anyone has read it? I'll have to study and compare it and the writeup overleaf for any significant differences, but I'm wondering if it's worth the bother.Skookum1 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this is in any way relevant.

Some twenty years ago, I read a fairly controversial view on the whole Gilles de Rais trial. It postulated that not only was Gilles de Rais not in debt, but he was wealthy enough, and ostentatiously so. According to this thesis, the king of France was envious of the opulence at Gilles de Rais estate; so envious in fact that he pressured charges of any possible application be brought against him, and remove this more flashy guy from the scene. Probably very speculative theory, but it is out there. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Appearances

At the present rate, the fictional appearances section will overtake the body of the article in length. Do we really need this much trivia in an encyclopedia? DCB4W 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they should be made in to their own article.ShadowWriter 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Considering the list, I'd say the time is ripe for a "Gilles de Rais in popular media" page... Will do that, as soon as I have a chance. 87.16.42.217 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia

According to the article, he raped children, and got sexual pleasure from them. That sounds like pedophilia. Any dissagreements? Mishy dishy 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Allegedly, he was guilty of murder and dismemberment. You should stick with your other amusing fantasies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.105.9 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2007

I think you are the one fantasizing, 24.4.105.9. He was arraigned on multiple charges, not just "murder and dismemberment". Dismemberment isn't a chargeable offense; the offense is that he murdered them, not that he cut up the bodies. Or were you referring to mutiliation? Torture and mutilation leading to death are circumstances of the murders themselves, not separate crimes, although the relative enormity of the details would certainly bear on the verdict and sentencing. The rape and presumed sexual pleasure falls under the heading of sodomy, then (as now) a fairly vague catchall that also covers paedophilia. 12.22.250.4 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture of G de R shown here is clearly from a 17th century book of villains and shouldn't really be included here. Sjmawson (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This "portrait" is often reproduced in connection with G d R but has absolutely no documentary value. There are no contemporary depictions of G d R extant, and even if there were they would be of doubtful value since the style of portraiture in the late middle ages was not realistic but idealizing.helio 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradicts Another Article

I have noticed that the article on the Loudun Possessions lists de Rais as being burnt to death, not hanged. Neither account is sourced in any way. Can someone provide a source that solves this matter? 211.30.66.138 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any need to have an advert for "cradle of filth's new album" on the page of an historical figure? The fictional appearances section has been taken down so why is this appearance an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.5.68 (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Crimes

While they say he killed a lot of people, the actual section on what he allegedly did is, well, absent. There's no description of his alleged crimes. There probably should be, given that's what he's really famous for. 208.51.48.155 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Murders

In this section, more than once the children he killed are refered to as "it". Could someone please edit this as it dehumanizes the child victims. I would also like to see some statement in relation to how many victims there may have been as leaving this unstated raises conjecture and assumptions he could have slain hundreds which I don't believe was the case.

I do think the graphic nature of the murders should be stated because it really presents the monstrous nature of what he did. So should anyone suggest this be removed, please consider that it reveals the monstrous nature of what this man did.

Another contributor mentions the werewolf angle. I myself heard this many times about this man and the link was that he was not just a witch, but also a werewolf. While i think it best to portray him as the serial killer he was, many serial killers were also linked to being werewolves. This maybe should be a sidenote even if to dispute the claim. (Armorbeast (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

GA nomination

Is anyone interested in bringing this article up to GA standards with me? The article is well written but first, references must be cited. Second, a map of Brittany showing the locations of events in this story would be a nice addition. I'm adding citations now and would appreciate input and suggestions! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

George Bataille's Trial of Gilles de Rais is not a novel but one of the most important secondary sources on de Rais. I substituted Huysman's Le Bas for it, even though de Rais is only one of that novel's themes.

Some Would Argue

Many wiki users would argue that this article is chock-full of weasel words. I support the GA nomination, this needs to be re-written completely to correctly maintain NPOV. Encyclopedic content doesn't need to be a flamewar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.221.14 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Huysmans novel referenced is actually entitled "Lá-Bas" - The Damned. 64.213.98.17 (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilles_de_Rais&oldid=331995253"