Talk:Église de la Madeleine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Odd Sentence

Current text says, "... Bishop Maurice de Sully seized the synagogue that stood on the site from the Jews of Paris in 1182, and duly consecrated it a Church dedicated to Mary Magdalene."

I see two problems with that: (1) "duly" means Sullly did the right thing, and hence violates historical neutrality. (2) The word "consecrated" makes "dedicated" redundant. Wegesrand (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date Problem (obsolete)

How could Napoleon order the construction of the church in 1764? Was he even born then? This page needs some fixing. I'll try to get to it. -Alex S 01:21, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

could be a typo for "1804". Needs checking -- Tarquin 09:20, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well spotted. No, Napoleon was not yet born, and the architect was one year old. The story should now make a bit more sense :) -- Someone else 19:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism?

This article seems to be an exact replication of [1] except for the fact of how many false starts there were. (anon. edit by User:Cory Kohn)

This article has been built up in increments since September 2003. On 12 January 2004, I made a correction from "Guillaume-Martin Couture, who decided to start anew, razing the old building" to read " Guillaume-Martin Couture, who decided to start anew, razing the incomplete construction"— which is the precise wording now at monument-paris.com. I also changed "what purpose the building might serve in post-Revolutionary France" to "what purpose the building might serve in Revolutionary France" because of the date of the debate: that too now appears at monument-paris.com. The text "To its south lies the Place de la Concorde, and to the east is the Place Vendôme" which also appears in monument-paris.com was added by User:Gabbe on a separate occasion, 17 June 2004. Are Wikipedia editors returning to crib from the very same outside source each time? The article at monument-paris.com is not very like the other chatty touristy articles at that site. Two better sources for the architectural information of La Madeleine are at [2] and at French Wikipedia. --Wetman 07:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I did a google search and was really surprised to see this. So momument-paris.com is copying ours then?--Cory Kohn 16:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! I just now saw the copyright notice on the article page. So since monument-paris.com most likely took there page from wikipedia, will someone then be clearing up this copyright infringement business and repost the original article?--Cory Kohn 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could de-list it. I don't know the protocol. --Wetman 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please take off the copyright violation notice--Cory Kohn 20:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Église de la Madeleine/Temp has some enriched information now, and some references. Wetman 04:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the content and removed the copyvio tag. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove the /Temp page now then?--Cory Kohn 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If User:Wetman wants it deleted (he's the only author), he could tag it with {{db-author}}, which would mean that it was deleted under G7. I see no particular need for it to stay, though; the history and the content is already merged into the main article. However, there isn't any particular need for the /Temp page to go, either. Jude (talk,email) 01:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's clutter, and that's enough reason for me. Is there anything at all from the temp not integrating into the article? If not, I'm going to prod the temp page. —Mira 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, folks. It's served its purpose and should be deleted. --Wetman 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)