Talk:Plot of the rue Saint-Nicaise

Copyright

I've left a note on the talk page of the primary contributor to this article asking about his sources, etc., because it reads like a copy from a book or journal. If I don't have a satisfactory response within a few days, I will presume it to be a copyvio, and start the process to remove it as such. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Material Very badly written hence almost unreadable. Needs re-writing in plain words without all that unnecessary detail and split into sentences and paragraphs to separate the ideas and improve readability. <Personal attack removed. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)>

• Clearly copied. The references are not complete. Presumably they refer to a list elsewhere in the book they came from.
  • IMO it is translated from one of old French articles. I posted and e-mailed requests for help, but no one respondedn so far. mikka (t) 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Is Named Wrongly ?. Is it about a plot involving an infernal machine or about infernal machines in general ? 22:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)~mikeL
  • Yes, it must be renamed, but I don't know the traditional English name of the plot, so I didn't rename it myself. Napoleon experts don't hurry, but I'd suggest not to rename it into something "reasonable", but rather find out the real terminology. mikka (t) 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

<Personal attack removed. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)> John Everest

<Personal attack removed. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)>

I cannot find the source of the copyvio on the internet and hence an reluctant to process it as such, even though I concur it reads as such. I think put it up for AfD as unsourced to resolve.--A Y Arktos 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I had prodded the article but user:mikkalai removed the tag without explanation at the time. On my talk page he has since explained :"You don't need "prod" tag to delete an article tagged for copyvio. Deletion of copyvios is done in a certain manner while processing the Wikipedia:Copyright problems log. mikka (t) 18:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)"

and further:"If you don't have proof that it is copyvio, all the more you have no right to "prod" it. This tag is for doubtless cases. I wrote to several persons in wikipedia to verify this article. Also, I wrote to two Napoleonic societies. One of them ignored me, another answered they don't know. Among wikipedia's policies is assume good faith. While the text does look as copied from elsewhere, we do have several wikipedians who write in a pretty scholastic way. Aslo, after careful reading I noticed that the text has several stylistic defects hardly possible in a published book, thus speaking in favor of the originality of the text. mikka (t) 19:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC) "

In the absence of concensus to delete and in the absence of a source from which copyright was vioated I am removing the copyvio tag and restoring the clean up tags--A Y Arktos 20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You still have the right to put it on AFD, my opinion is certainly not final, nor I am an expert in the field. mikka (t) 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I've removed the wfy and cleanup tags. They can be readded when the copyright status is verified. Otherwise someone might come along, fix this article up only for it to be deleted. - FrancisTyers 15:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Chasing up those references... - FrancisTyers 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Castelot 1971 might be Napoleon : A Biography by Andre Castelot (1971)
• Bainville 1933 might be Napoleon by Jaques Bainville (1933)
• Cronin 1971 might be Napoleon by Vincent Cronin (1971)
• Tulard 1987 might be Dictionnaire Napoléon. Ed. Jean Tulard (1987) (Paris: Fayard)
• ROEDERER (Pierre-Louis), Autour de Bonaparte : journal du comte P.L. Roederer... Paris : Daragon, 1909
• ROEDERER (Pierre-Louis), Œuvres publiées par son fils le baron A.-M. Roederer, Paris, 1853-1859, 8 vol.

Renamed

I have renamed the article to align with a reference at French Consulate#Government under the Consulate and Napoleon's consolidation of Power and also the article at French wikipedia. Comments above had also suggested renaming.--A Y Arktos 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Renamed again, to have lower-case "rue". Ericoides (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Image Removed

I removed the so-called map of the 2nd Arrondissement from this topic. The map actually did not show the location of this event. It showed the area of Paris to the north of the location. The location in question here is the area around the Comedie Francaise on the south side of the Palais-Royal, not the north side. An appropriate map would show the intersection of the Place du Carrousel with the Rue de Rivoli, the Rue de Richelieu, the south end of the Palais Royal and the Comedie Francaise. --24.0.156.160 (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Machine Infernale

The plot was not named "in reference to an episode during the sixteenth-century revolt against Spanish rule in Flanders". The term machine infernale had long been used for any bomb-type device - perhaps since this sixteenth century progenitor. The plot was named after the bomb, not the 1585 plot.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Location of carriage

The article suggests that the bomb exploded a minute or two late. Does that mean that Napoleon's carriage had long since passed? There is no indication of where the carriage actually was at the time of the explosion. This omission should be corrected.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Tagliamento

The article refers to Napoleon's bad dream about his 'defeat' at the battle of Tagliamento. I'm no expert, but other articles describe this as if it were a victory. HuPi (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The plotters

This section has no references to support the list of conspirators named. The only footnote refers to the spelling of Saint Rejeant's name.

The implication of the Chouan leader Cadoudal for example is the subject of debate and speculation. As it stands the section is of little value.

JF42 (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Image of the plot

The image File:PlotRueSaint-Nicaise.jpg is not the correct one: I give elements of that here (discussion page of the wiki creator/user of the image) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_C._Minor#File:PlotRueSaint-Nicaise.jpg

I propose to cancel the actual picture.

--Jipécé34 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)