Talk:Louis Braille

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:France
 France Portal
Louis Braille is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.
"Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Contents

[edit] High traffic

This article is currently the number one link on Google, if you click the logo (which celebrates Braille's birthday) -- IlyaHaykinson 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we put the High-traffic on the actual page, or do people already know this because they are all coming from Google?--Opspin 18:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should put the high-traffic link on today GrapeSteinbeck 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea, we should

I think consensus is that the High-traffic on this page is enough, I agree, it just takes away the focus from the actual article, and is redundant since everybody comes here from Google anyway--Opspin 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For Future reference, logo is here: [1] --Theone3 11:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

It's very important to the flow of this page that the language 'braille' is in lower case, despite technically being a proper noun, and the name "Louis Braille" or simply "Braille" is in capital letters. This, if done consistently, makes telling the two apart a little simpler for the editor and the reader. --Theone3 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a notice at the bottom of the article to such effect. --Theone3 13:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this a new item in the table of contents, so I'll have to add it here... Would it be possible to get a reference section in the article containing A-Z and 0-9 in their raised dot forms? Sorry for not following the format of the message board -arthur_toafk@yahoo.com-

[edit] Anglocentric Viewpoint?

In the "Legacy" section, as of Jan 07, it says "The significance of the braille system was not identified until 1868, when Dr. Thomas Armitage, along with a group of four blind men, established the British and Foreign Society for Improving the Embossed Literature of the Blind". This imples that the system initially fell out of use in France. How good is our evidence for this? There's no hint of that in the equivalent French Wikipedia article. --Farry 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism + Protection

This page has been protected from editing due to consistant vandalism by people with nothing better to do. As much as this encyclopaedia would like to be "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", It seems that as per usual, there are a few out there that want to ruin it for the rest of us.

It's not all bad though, you can sign up for an account today and edit anything, and if you have any contributions you'd like to make, this discussion page is not locked. --Theone3 12:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why has the sprotected tag been removed? The page was instantly vandalised again! --Theone3 13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
sProtected tag has returned. Phew. --Theone3 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism

Can somebody show me how to protect the logo summary text for a picture. Some fool called "Josh" keeps replacing the summary for the Google logo in Braille into his name. Childish fool.

I have blocked the IP who did it. But we don't want to use the google image for copyright reasons. And the braille image we have is fine. Shanes 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You should really protect the articles and only allow them to be edited by submission. IMO, this is what keeps Wikipedia from being the first source I go to for information. 4 January 2006 (Anon )
They are now protected from anonymous entrants. --Theone3 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

The Life of Louis Braille is in bold because in this high-traffic period, it provides a better history. Recently the link was removed. before returning it, I checked that the IP address and it did not resolve to the place that hosts the link. It resolved to the USA. I'd ask that anyone else investigating the removal of the link does the same courtesy to the company by checking that the IP does not resolve to them here. -- Theone3 11:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism (Old Discussion)

Since it is Louis Braille's birthday, many visitors are here from google, and the article is being vandalized like crazy! Can we get some protection or something? --Kotjze | Talk 09:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone has protected the story. I'm not sure who has editing rights, but I do know that I do. I'm watching this page. --Theone3 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's incredible. He goes to google, sees a man who helps blind people and then vandalizes an article on him... where is the brain in it?

We usually try to avoid protecting articles when they are linked to from high trafic sites. Many anons coming here might have constructive edits to make. And I belive we are still the encyclopedia that everyone can edit.... Reverting vandalism is easy. And that protect template is so damed ugly! So, I'll unprotect it and see how it goes if people don't mind. Shanes 10:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

VERY BAD IDEA. This has been tried and has already failed. Vandalism was absolutely rife. This page must be getting 1000's of hits per second. It's not worth risking people's view of our integrity for the possibility of a slightly better article. Wikipedia's already got bad press...--Theone3 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem seems to have been handled very nicely by semiprotection. - Nunh-huh 11:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Protection is back. Theone3 FTW :D --Theone3 12:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Protection is gone again. :( --Theone3 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A page isn't protected by simply adding the (ugly) protect tag. Protection is done by an admin, the tag is inserted in the text only to inform. Regarding this page, and other like it that experience links from high trafic sites, we want to keep them open because we are an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. And geting lot's of new readers seeing that we indeed are an encyclopedia that everyone can edit is good. It might be that we have to give up in some cases, but as long as possible I'd like to try keeping this open. But if any other admin disagree and want to protect it, go ahead, and I'll keep quiet. Shanes 12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hope you all know that they can still edit the pictures...

[edit] Errors

The CNIB [2] has his remains being moved in 1952 instead of 53. which would make sense being the centenial of his death. Matt 11:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed. Theone3 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a factual error and a general misconception about the age Louis went blind. My research indicates that it's at the age of four that he lost eyesight in both his eyes, despite having damaged his right eye at the age of three. I see the actual loss of eyesight as more important than the incident. --12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theone3 (talk • contribs) .
One minor issue, the article states that he developed an infection in his other (uninjured) eye as a result of the original injury. Britannica states that sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) was the culprit. Other sites state this less absolutely, saying that it was *probably* sympathetic ophthalmia. The distinction between infection and sympathetic ophthalmia (an inflammation of an eye after damage to the other eye by penetrating injury) isn't just semantic. The mechanism for SO, as medicine currently understands it, is an autoimmune process that is initiated after injury in one eye exposes the immune system to ocular antigens. The immune system then goes to work attacking the other eye. SO, which can occur from 2 months to several years after the initial injury, also fits with Braille's history.Once the google-directed vandals go away, I'll make the additions, if it's cool with everyone.Zyryab 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)-DoneZyryab 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
another minor grammatical error in naming Braille a celloist in place of a cellist

[edit] sprotect

  • Do we really want to sProtect when we're getting so much traffic from google? Good time to get new contributors. We just have to stay on top of rollback. I'm willing to do my part while on-line. Wikibofh(talk) 14:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I like your thinking. Kappa 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to go and get a drink (regrettably, not that kind) and then will unprotect and open in a few tabs so I can rollback quickly. Give me 5 minutes. Anyone else wants to join in, feel free. Wikibofh(talk) 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's done. Watching. Wikibofh(talk) 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm all with you on that. I want it kept unprotected for the same reasons as you and have unprotected it myself ones already. I'll help watching it some more before I need some sleep. Shanes
It's going fine. I'm right on it and still have been too slow on two reverts now, and even the warnings to the user.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Damn. 0 for 3 now on the reverts. I'm even getting beat by non-admins.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Suppose we should use {{anon}} for the first message to new anons instead of test? Then followup with test. Normally I test first, but might be better in this case. Wikibofh(talk) 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with {{test}} - it's not in any way threatening, and {{anon}} might even be overwhelming for a first-timer just seeing if they really can edit here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm AFK for about an hour. I'll be back on after that and will keep working on it. Wikibofh(talk) 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The semi-protection policy was created for exactly the type of vandalism we have been experiencing here. We are not losing any editors by semi-protecting an article which is being vandalised multiple times per minute by multiple IP addresses. On the contrary, we are probably losing readership and credibility when they come to this article by way of Google and find something offensive. Semi-protection is being reinstated for this reason. Hall Monitor 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with about everything you say. When we get a link from google like this it's a perfect chanse to get new editors involved. Now they can't edit it at all. Semi protection is ok for pages like GW Bush and Hitler and such often vandalised articles, but when get high trafic cause of things like that we should welcome it and show our new readers what wikipedia is: An encyclopedia that everyone can edit. And with so many people watching this today we also show how quickly vandalism is reverted. But since I've already unprotected this article twice today and don't want to get into a revert-war over it, I'll leave it to other admins to open it again if they agree with me, wikibofh, Kappa, etc. Shanes 19:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So, you disagree that we lose potential readership when people visit Wikipedia for the first time and find something offensive rather than informational content about Louis Braille? It also should be noted that the degree to which this page is being vandalised makes it difficult for honest editors to contribute. Hall Monitor 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It's the same argument (basicaly) as to why we don't protect todays FA. Raul has a page somewhere listing the reasons when people ask why we let it stay open despite it always being vandalised alot. Sure, there are moments (seconds) when the page is in a vandlised state, but we make up for it by showing all the new readers what wikipedia is. Many good edits on this page today has come from new users. And many have been standard test-edits from confused users surprised that they can edit. I am happy for both. And to add to that, the sprotect template is too ugly for words. It ruins the whole article. Shanes 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • You failed to answer my question. Do you disagree that we lose new readership as a result of the extreme problem this article is currently having with vandalism right now? Please provide diffs of anonymous users making positive contributions, if you do not mind. Hall Monitor 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
            • What we can't tell is how many people click "Edit this page" and then cancel, so we have no way to measure. I view this as an extreme FA, not an extreme GWB. There have been some positive anon edits today (I've seen them) but admit they are needles in the chaff (if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors). Wikibofh(talk) 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Readership? I don't know. But I'm quite sure we lose readership on having the article start with that hiddious protection box smeared all over. (But I've ranted enough about that today). But, fine, I agree that this is being vandalised extremely much. And I might be wrong about what is best. Go ahead and protect it again if you relly think it's best. I don't, but I'm tired of arguing. About positive new/anon user-edits, I can't bother to find them, but as I've been watching this article edit for edit for some 8 hours today and I think know something about its history. It has been interesting to watch it grow, and I think we've m,anaged to keep it under controll just fine. Shanes 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Speaking as someone who dedicates at least 40 hours a week toward maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, I can tell you that we have not been keeping it under control just fine, and that semi-protecting this article is and was well warranted. Hall Monitor 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Hey--thought you'd might like to hear from a new reader: I thought you guys might be over-looking the potentially positive benefits having the protect template there. A lot of readers, myself included, worry that the principle liability with Wikipedia is that it's open to things like vandalism. When I saw the template at the top of the page, I actually felt a little reasured that the legitimate community was both willing and able to respond to things like vandalism as quickly as they have. I would consider this a boon to the site, because it lets users know that there is a system in place to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia from the small percentage of people out there that would attempt to corrupt it. Just food for thought :) 65.249.152.15 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That is something that had not occured to me.Geni 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 40 hours a week? Maybe you should get a job. 167.1.163.100
  • Looks like he has one. Wikibofh(talk) 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
still the tail end of the uni holidays right now. I suspect we have quite a few people spending insane amounts of time editing.Geni 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His hands

The French wikipedia says his hands were detached from his body and remained in Coupvray, and at least this one source (www.blind.net) agrees. I'm trying to find something to back it up. Kappa 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok. I saw it, and a quick google didn't confirm, so I wasn't sure. Wikibofh(talk) 17:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The blind.net link says On his tomb can be seen a casket in which the remains of his hands are preserved, but it looks like it is an English translation of French guidebook. I wonder if is actually remains of his hands, or simply casts of them on the tomb. I'm a functional monoglot, so someone else needs to handle figuring out what fr.wikipedia.org says on it. Wikibofh(talk) 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's an actual picture of the "casket" here: http://www.snof.org/histoire/Lbraille.html . The French wikipedia says "Il fut cependant décidé de laisser, ... ses mains inhumées dans sa tombe à Coupvray…" - "It was nevertheless decided to leave his hands buried in his tomb at Coupvray". It's been there quite a while but doesn't seem to be well sourced. Kappa 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't like depending on our sister wiki as a source, but will defer. Wikibofh(talk) 17:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually I think we should leave it out for the moment, other sources don't look completely solid english source French source. I won't put it back myself. Kappa 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
            • The caption on the tomb in Coupvray reads as follows: "The Coupvray Community piously keeps, in this urn, the hands of the brilliant inventor" (my translation, from Kappa's source). JTBurman 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google activism

Do we seriously need the extra bit about Google's long line of special logos? It's a Googlevertisment, and honestly having a search engine show an image in braille is hardly justification to devote so much space to it.

A link to their archive of logos would be entirely sufficient. As it stands, the current text is excessive and unnecessary.

  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.15.11 (talk • contribs) 17:48, January 4, 2006.
  • Perhaps, although that is the reason we probably have 10 experienced users focus and reverting on this right now. It is at least a significant wikievent. I agree though, in context of the article, it is too big. Wikibofh(talk) 17:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I trimmed it down. Wikibofh(talk) 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I say remove it! As it is now, after being "trimmed", the paragraph about Google is larger than the paragraph about the French state moving Braille's remains to commemorate his acheivement!! Honestly, does anyone believe that Google's contribution to Braille's memory is more significant than France's? In my opinion, Google's contribution need not even be acknowledged outside of the talk page. I think it's cool that Google chooses to commemorate certain dates, but that just makes me want to use Google more for searching. It doesn't make me want to sing their praises. Please remove the paragraph about Google entirely. Cmdrwalrus 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's get consensus. What does everyone else think? Wikibofh(talk) 18:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cmdrwalrus and think it should be removed. Shanes 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think keeping it as a "trivia" item will stop people putting it back, at least for today. Kappa 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that google braille's logo has nothing to do with braille's history :( (pleas, get that text out)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.4.128.45 (talk • contribs) .
  • Can we leave it for now while we battle and then figure it out tomorrow? Also, anyone know if google logos go in and out on UTC or not? Wikibofh(talk) 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove it. It's redundant -- 99% of the traffic is from google. Google "honoring" Braille is a non-event in Braille's life. There is no comprehensive list of the awards Braille got in his own lifetime, so why is the google link significant in a historical context?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrater (talk • contribs) .
  • Agreed. It's great for Google to link here, but in my opinion as an active Wikipedia user it's more of an advertisement for google than information about Braille Computermacgyver 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This will be forgotten in a week, it's a non-notable event. Joe D (t) 18:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK that looks like consensus, I've taken it out. Kappa 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a Google Doodle article, does it belong there? Joe D (t) 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Google honors Braille's birthday, yet Google Accounts uses a visual CAPTCHA with no alternative for people who use a refreshable braille display. I don't think such a hypocrite deserves a backlink for this. --Damian Yerrick 00:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it has an ALT tag so it is readable to the blind. --Theone3 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that putting in the extra bit about Google's "long line" of holiday logos was a bit too much. However, I agree with Kappa that a trivia section with one sentence about the Google logo in Braille to honor Braille's birthday is a good idea. --Mike 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing about Google belongs in an article on Louis Braille. Google logos should be discussed in Google's article. Not here. Not at "4th of July". Not at "Christmas".... etc. - Nunh-huh 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conditions in school

Do we really need to mention that pupils in the Instutut Royal were mistreated? I'm quite confident it was the norm in the early 19th century. toad (t) 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is well known (though not extremely well known) that conditions were bad. The only reason we know this is because we read about how the conditions were. If we remove all mention of the bad conditions simply because we already know, then people who read this article and do not know will not know.User:Foebea 14:18, 4 January 2006

But this article is about Louis Braille, not conditions in schools in 19th century France. toad (t) 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Put that way I agree completely. The conditions he endured in school are not relevant to his article unless they played an important role in forming his character or affecting the development of braille, which by reading the article it seems they do not. I vote for its removal. Maybe the paragraph could be modified to explain how he aquired the scholorship?User:Foebea 16:18, 4 January 2006
  • Pure speculation (and thus original research so not allowed) is that it might explain his ongoing health issues and early death. Wikibofh(talk) 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The conditions he grew up in are of great importance to the article, as they demonstrate the lack of awareness of blindness at the time. This combined with 'begging on the streets' gives an accurate description of how he managed to make such a success of himself and his importance to blind people everywhere. --Theone3 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my comments. hope I'm doing this right

If he was abused in school, that shows how hard his life was, and is relevant. Did someone check to see if the stale bread and water and constant abuse was true?

I have a book about the man that says that when he returned to the school, the children told him that the new administrator who had just taken over for the school had burnt all the books Braille had made. I'll look through my library if that information isn't out there already.

I believe he was teaching it to other students while still a student, but maybe not. The wikipedia entry currently says that it wasn't taught during his lifetime, but I know thats not true.

I'm glad to see someone fixed the page. When I first linked here, it had various errors, and something about the man being a homosexual. Googling about, I find there is an audio company by Brailles name that keeps popping up. Probably just some immature prank.

not an immature prank. From http://www.louisbrailleaudio.com/aboutus.asp , "All profits from the sale of our audio books contribute to the operation of the National Information & Library Service--a free library service for the visually impaired." The name is homage, eh?

If you haven't locked the page, please find someone who can. Otherwise you'll just keep having problems.

Oh, something you might want to add.

After he went blind, his parents didn't let him sit around doing nothing. They made him walk to the well each day, and bring back water, him tripping at first and crying, but apparently learning to do it right.

I think they built him a statue somewhere, and blind children are led to visit it according to the book I have. Rather stupid really, since they are blind, and can't see it. Still, its a good sentiment.

---

I also just found that he was an accomplished musician. http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/braille.html "Now Louis was a tremendously creative person. He learned to play the cello and organ at a young age. He was so talented an organist that he played at churches all over Paris."

  • Added muscisian information --Theone3 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone really should do some thorough research and put up a nice detailed artical for such an important person.

[edit] lock

THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE LOCKED DOWN NOW! IT IS CONSTANTLY BEING REVERTED TO LUDE, OBSCENE PICTURES. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL CONTENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG WHO KNOWS!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.208.61 (talk • contribs) .

moved from top of page. Sorry for the revert. - BanyanTree 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

The viewing rate on this article is so high that even the best efforts of the anti vandlims editors are not enough (at least juding by the the emails I'm getting from people who noticed). As a result I've locked it down. Probably should not be pulled untill about 3 am UTC.Geni 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • *sigh* Ok. The effort has been heroic. I will rejoin if another admin wants to unprotect, but will not do it myself. Wikibofh(talk) 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The effort, while heroic, should have been put to a halt several hours ago; it was a waste of admin resources. Know when to say when and move on. Hall Monitor 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Are we skipping the sprotect template? Wikibofh(talk) 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
With the profile of this article right now I'm prepared to bend the rules to make it look good. Of course if anyone wants to put the template there I'm not going to object. And could someone protect the images please?Geni 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put up the template on the general principle that the status of articles should be readily apparent, though I admit I'm not entirely happy about it from a PR perspective. At least the sheer ugliness of it gives admins extra incentive to unprotect as soon as possible. Somebody else has already protected the images. - BanyanTree 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I got the images, haven't had time to list them on pages or mark. Saw someone else marked though. (I'm on a conference call) Wikibofh(talk) 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm delighted to see that the page is protected. Although a certain amount of soul-searching among regular contributors and hall monitors is honorable, I think we get the point: the page needs to be protected until the Google-storm dies down. A potential contributor with something useful to add (someone like me, in other words) is more likely to be turned off by idiotic vandalism than a message explaining temporary protection. Quelrat 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error

Someguy

"In 1939 Braille published details of a method he had developed for communication with sighted people"

Should this not be 1839 since he died in 1852? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.200.192.174 (talk • contribs) .

Yes it should. Thanks for pointing out this error. Joelawrence fixed it. - BanyanTree 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Louis Braille publish anything in 1939. must be 1839.

OK thanks for correcting. I seriously doubt that Louis Braille publish anything in 1939. must be 1839.

OK thanks for correcting.

I beleive that Louis Braille dies exactly two days after his 44th birthday. Someone please check up on this.

It is two days after his 43rd birthday. --Kotjze | Talk 03:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation completed

There was a translation request submitted. The text below follows the organization used by the original author in their original article. JTBurman 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When you incorporate the text in the English article, please cite me and the original author in your edit summary as
(Greudin, French Ed.; J.T. Burman, Trans.)
and cite the original French article near your inclusions, as I have done in comments below, so we can keep track of version control.JTBurman 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have completed the translation of all the sections that meet our NPOV criteria. I also skipped the intro section, since it covers material we already have in the English version. There were, however, some interesting challenges in this job. For example, there are some apparent contradictions of fact between the French and English articles, which I tried to address, but I think the dates should be checked before the article is submitted as a Feature. I also tried to clean up some of the more informal aspects of the original author's language, while at the same time keeping the subtler nuances (e.g., the doit/doigt pun in the first title section became "bump"). In general, I think the quality of the translation is quite good, although that decision will have to be made by a Fr → En copy editor. Cheers, JTBurman 08:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bump that brought us "braille"

As a boy, Louis expressed a keen interest in his father's tools: from the day he could walk, and whenever he had the opportunity, he would slip into his father's workshop to play. But, one day, as the three-year-old awkwardly made holes in a piece of leather with a stitching awl, the heavy and too-big tool slipped and damaged his eye. His parents did what they could; they bandaged the wound and hoped for the best. However, Louis couldn't keep from scratching, which exacerbated the infection. Whether it then spread to his other eye as a result, or he developed sympathetic ophthalmia, is unclear; in any case, his visual capacity diminished and then gradually faded out. In vain, he begged his parents to bring back the morning. Alas, however, he would never again see the light of day.

In the early nineteenth century, the blind were not as well thought of as they are today: some even treated them as distinct--a separate sub-species! Given the context, Louis Braille was thus not able to continue his formal education, learning only what his parents could teach. Yet his accident did not diminish his enthusiasm for his father's business, to which he was quite devoted. Indeed, this is almost certainly what led to the development of his manual dexterity and skill.

Braille's parents realized that knowing how to work leather would not suffice to provide a living. Although it is unknown how, his father then secured his admission at the Royal Institution for Blind Youths, which had been founded in 1785 by Valentin Haüy (1745-1822). Upon his entry, Louis was immediately recognized as a remarkable student. He succeeded in all his courses and never shirked his duties. When he was fifteen, he was entrusted to teach; as time passed, he was given more and more responsibilities.

JTBurman 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointing the way toward literacy

In 1819, or thereabouts, Louis Braille learned about Charles Barbier’s system of “night writing.” He immediately hoped to suggest some improvements for its use by the blind. Unfortunately, however, the two were separated by a great difference in age; in spite of his success at the Institute, nobody paid young Louis any attention. In addition, Barbier maintained that the purpose of his system was to represent sounds, not letters. Nevertheless, this did not prevent Braille from continuing the development of his own interpretation. It was to this that he then committed himself, working eagerly, especially in the evening and at night, until about 1825.

When Braille was eighteen years old, in 1827, his new system of writing began to gain some acceptance, taking the form of a transcription of the "grammar of grammars." Then, in 1829, published using the method pioneered by Haüy (which was still the official script at the Institute), appeared Method of Writing Words, Music, and Plain Songs by Means of Dots, for Use by the Blind and Arranged for Them, by Louis Braille, lecturer at the Royal Institution for Blind Youths. This document has been described as "braille’s true birth certificate."

The first alphabet was not exactly as it now appears, but its principal part – the first four series – was the same. The original included, in addition to the familiar pips, a number of smooth features. Yet, while Braille described the board and punch used to make the pips, he never described how to make the smooth features. Furthermore, the logic according to which Braille established the first series of signs, and from which the others arose, is unknown. What is clear, however, is that Braille was careful to distinguish between similar symbols, attentive to the fact that they might have been confusing had they been too close to each other. In spite of its being a prototype, this system was already superior to Barbier’s.

The greatest advantage to Braille’s system was that it was an alphabet, based on the same system used by the sighted. It therefore provided a very real connection, and complete access, to the outside world. It was also much easier to decipher, since the characters were only half as tall (to a maximum of six pips instead of twelve) and could easily be learned by anyone who had lost their sight. Moreover, it required very little in the way of finger movement. Although Barbier had always refused to retract his earlier criticism, he did however recognize the method’s value; this led to further innovations, such as the punctuated musical notation that has since become the international standard.

Unfortunately, as often occurs during the emergence of a novel invention, there were also setbacks. Between 1840 and 1850, there was a sort of "crisis." One of Braille’s strongest supporters at the Institute was forced into early retirement after being accused of "corrupting the youth" by teaching an unorthodox history. Although the replacement tried to limit the use of braille to music, he ultimately left in 1847. In the meantime, however, Braille had had to give up work, due to his failing heath.

JTBurman 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Consumption

Through 1835, Braille's close friends and family took increasing notice of his ever-worsening cough. In recognition, too, the Institute's administrators gradually reduced his teaching load until, by 1840, his time was devoted entirely to music. In 1844, however, he decided to give up teaching entirely. Yet, rather than obsessing over his illness, he added more breadth to his work. As a result, the first braille typewriter was introduced in 1847.

Braille's work ended in early December 1851, when a pulmonary hemorrhage confined him to his bed. Weakened by profuse bleeding, he died -- surrounded by friends and attended by his brother -- on January 6, 1852. He was buried in Coupvray on January 10, in accordance with his family's wishes.

After a century's wait, the mortal remains of Louis Braille were then transferred to the hallowed halls of the Panthéon in Paris. In homage to his childhood village, however, his hands remained in Coupvray.

JTBurman 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and sources

This article draws heavily on the fr:Louis Braille article in the French-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of 19 January 2006.


[edit] Remarks on the translation.

[edit] Section titles

These being the most visible part with noticeable translation "quirks", I've decided to deal with it separately, and before the rest.

  • 1) the "bump"... Honestly, I doubt the French writer had a pun in mind when he did this... I have reservations over his title, which migh make you think that Braille writing was discovered by accident, instead of Louis' blindness being the result of same, and the invention of his being a bright man. I have even more about the "bump" which, while it may remind you of the writing itself, maes light of the injury and suffering that must have followed, and, as I see it, involves a kind of ghastly, tongue in cheek, humor which I'm not sure has its place in an encyclopedia... of course, simply rendering it by "the accident that brought us Braille" might seem insufferably pedestrian
  • 2)pointing the way... not bad, except of course that it can't well apply to blind men, can it ;) ?
  • 3) "Disparition" is indeed a dialect, in that it is used to mean all the events leading to, and following, the subject's death. Using "consumption" instead seems to focus on the disease itself.

[edit] Early life

What's this mention about "shirking duties"? the original sentence says that Braille was an exceptional student in that he not only passed all courses, but managed to get all the prizes (awarded each year to the best student in a given subject). This was true whether the course involved manual work or intellectual tasks.

[edit] Braille's work

The bit about signs being confusing because they were too close to each other is somewhat ambiguous, I'd replace "close" by "similar".

[edit] Late life and death

nothing particular

Alright, beside the few details, this version has my imprimatur. --Svartalf 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


One year has passed and the translated text has not been integrated. I have tagged the page to help this occur. JTBurman 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the "merge" tag is for. If you want the text integrated, why not just do it? --PeR 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text Integration

With the completion of the translation, the next step is to integrate the two texts. Please review the above discussion before incorporating the material into the main article. As a translation, there are special requirements. JTBurman 16:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Made a bunch of tiny corrections. Happy to explain any upon request. IronDuke 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text integration

Hope I'm not being dense, but I just wanted to be sure about what's being integrated. Is it the JTBurman sections above? And how are they to be integrated? Or is that, in fact, what this whole discussion is about? IronDuke 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The text above, which has now been vetted, is a translation of the French article. It needs to be integrated with the article, while being sure to cite the source (as above). JTBurman 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

edgie

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/u/Talk%7ELouis_Braille_44c5.html"