Jump to content

Talk:La Marseillaise

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on La Marseillaise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musique

[edit]

What key is the song? What is the meter? Why is this basic information lacking? 151.141.81.91 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

translation

[edit]

I suppose that

The first inhabitants of Rome / enslave nations. (repeat)

should be

Of the first inhabitants of Rome / enslaved nations. (repeat)

151.29.195.48 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreiz an noz

[edit]

The Breton Christmas carol Kreiz an noz based on a Welsh chorale is extremely similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relinquished?

[edit]

Adding clarification in the "relinquished" part of the infobox, putting "readopted" with parentheses. PyroFloe (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

on the translation

[edit]

I feel that the autor by "Les soldatesques légions" meant "legions made by rascals", while in the translation "the soldierly legions" is normally interpreted "legions made by regular soldiers". I feel, because my english is poor and my french very poor. But my dictionaries of english and french agree and the verses show a lot of hate toward Ancient Rome -- I understand perfectly that a text of 1800 cannot be judged with the moral standards of the 2000, so do not interpret this comment in a nationalistic way. 151.29.19.73 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

could we add an English translation please ?

[edit]

that's it Centurio cohortis fulgur (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images in history section

[edit]

Satirical images or cartoons of the French Revolution are standard. My own experience in French history, has been mostly in the history of the south of France, especially with Marseille and Aix-en-Provence. At some stage the History of Marseille was separated into a longer article; the WP:RS, Duchêne & Contrucci, was still used as a source. The satirical tinted etching of "Marche des Marseillois" published by Richard Wilson in 1792 in London is clearly relevant; it has been used in Provence, History of Marseille and History of Provence. It is now in French Revolution and this article. Many sources exist, e.g. Simon Schama's award-winning book "Citizens". The image File:marche-des-marseillois.jpg is high quality and relevant, for the five articles mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Marseille : 2600 ans d'histoire" by Roger Duchêne and Jean Contrucci, 1998, Fayard, has a whole chapter devoted to La Marseillaise (pages 427–435). This is a book I bought in 2007 on the cours Mirabeau in Aix. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is entirely irrelevant to the image's suitability (or lack thereof) for this article. It's already hard enough keeping conversations on topic, don't start going off-topic right from the beginning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any objection to this image at all. For image edits, many wikipedians will have lasting memories of their experiences; in particular there was an arbcom case on Depictions of Muhammad, in which I participated. Here is an image I uploaded in 2011 at that time.File:Ship-of-Faith-Houghton-Shahmana-Metropolitan-Museum.jpg Everything was completely civilized. I don't remember whether there was trolling. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you would mind not going on off-topic tangents, discussing with you would be far less frustrating. The objections to this image are listed right below, if you can't see them then maybe you shouldn't be edit-warring images back in (because you can't see them?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: The image was not here before. You added it. Please do the right thing and self-revert until you get consensus for it. As for the use of the image in other articles, that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Those articles might not have the same sandwiching issues as here; those images might not be concerned primarily with the music (and hence not warrant an actually readable musical score, ...). You've been here long enough I shouldn't need to link you WP:IMGDD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These images have already been in these French history articles for ages. I have already mentioned the book of Roger Duchêne and Jean Contrucci, which is not available online (as far as I know). I've had quite a lot of experience of creating high resolution images: often that requires dezoomifying, but that depends on particular museums or art galleries. But here this is not about music, but history. In the same way the articles French Revolution, History of Marseille, Provence, History of Provence (this section of the article) are are not about music but history; the particular image has been enhanced — it's been dezoomified and cropped using GIMP software. For images, most editors are grateful to have these kinds of images; e.g. in Kashmir or BWV 56. I have also edited the articles United Kingdom and Canada observing consensus; editors are collegial and helpful. Wikipedians can draw their own conclusions. Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's have this in simple point-by-point English since apparently my previous comment was not understood. First off, two basic facts:
  1. This image was not present in the article before you added it, a few hours ago (see, version from 30 March).
  2. This article is about the Marseillaise and not about anything else, unless that is directly pertinent to understanding the primary topic of the article
Now a few facts of relevance which shouldn't be controversial either:
  1. The fact that this image is used in other articles is entirely irrelevant
  2. The history book is entirely irrelevant
  3. The image being "enhanced" does not change the fact it is not adding anything pertinent to this article, which is about the Marseillaise, not the history of Provence or some other place anywhere else.
  4. That you have edited other articles is entirely irrelevant.
As a result of the above, the only relevant questions here are (adapted from the first two sections of MOS:IMAGES):

1. Is the image significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative?

2. Does it aid reader understanding of the topic?

3. Is it the best quality image available for this purpose?

On the first question, while the little soldiers are certainly nice, their presence is purely decorative and does not add anything in favour of this image. On the second question, the score is pertinent to helping the reader understand the music, not the history: as a result, the answer to no. 3 is that of all the available images which depict the score, the little etching is not the best quality image available. As such, the image is not an improvement and should be removed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another wall of text edit. Clearly the five listed articles are related; clearly a historical chapter entitled "La Marseillaise" is relevant (without having read it, how would a wikpedian know that?); clearly a rare 1792 satirical engraving on "La Marseillaise" is a significant document/image. The document (not in colour) is also documented on Gallica, so the BnF.File:Marche des Marseillois.jpg Almost all foreign language wikipedia articles for "Marseillaise" have the monochrome version. That includes de.wik, fr.wiki, etc as can be verified on Commons. The tinted etching is identical apart from the added colouration. The BnF is lower quality; the higher resolution version from the British Museum (in cropped and non-cropped version) is the best anybody could ask for. The same applies to manuscripts of 1723, e.g. BWV 105, and 1726, e.g. BWV 56. Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) This comment was edited after the below comment was written [reply]
    Responding to my analysis (which is still quite a short comment: at about 2 kb of text, which, assuming standard English reading rates, should take less than 2 minutes to read) by dismissing it with a flippant "TLDR" is not appropriate; besides entirely missing the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "analysis" does not match up with reality. As explained above, almost all foreign language articles "Marseillaise" link to the monochromatic engraving by Richard Wilson. To summarise: The document (not in colour) is also documented on Gallica, so the BnF.File:Marche des Marseillois.jpg Almost foreign language wikipedia article for "Marseillaise" have the monochrome version. That includes de.wik, fr.wiki, etc as can be verified on Commons. The tinted etching is identical apart from the added colouration. The BnF is lower quality; the higher resolution version from the British Museum (in cropped and non-cropped version) is the best anybody could ask for. Please look at fr:Marseillaise. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you edited your comment after I replied and now claim as though it's always been there. The fact that it appears on other wikis is as irrelevant as everything else you've said: we are English Wikipedia, and have our own guidelines, and those may or may not have anything to do with those of other wikis. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the Israeli article [1] (User:El_C will be able to sing along!) Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Newton: The Duke of Brunswick Attacking the Rear of the Sans Culottes
No matter how it's presented, this only concerns one single hi-res image of a high quality 1792 satirical etching, now held in the British Museum; this image, or its monochrome variant, has already been included in multiple articles in many different foreign language wikis, including en.wiki. The image is not controversial, and is not contentious, and it is relevant to the article because of the subject matter (drumming up support for revolutionary activities in the march to Paris and the ensuing Reign of Terror). The illustrator was the English caricaturist Richard Newton, who died of typhus at the age of 21. There are other reproductions of the print, for example at the Musée Carnavalet. At Christie's, one print was sold for over $3,000, etc. In addition, in his book Citizens, Simon Schama describes in graphic detail the events around "La Marseillais", and the song itself. Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not able to make a single on-topic argument, are you? The image is contentious, because I've just told you why it doesn't add anything. You can of course keep ignoring me and talk about the colour of the sky on Mars or some other random thing, but beyond false equivalences, your arguments have nothing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for "hi-res", at normal computer resolution, the music and the text (safe for the title) are unreadable: and since the soldiers are mostly decorative, and the image also leads to a MOS:SANDWICH issue, then that pretty much settles it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some third-party input to this fascinating dialogue. The contested image is undoubtedly visually appealing, of high technical quality, and of high "scholarly" quality (in terms of provenance etc): those points are not at issue. Its relevance to the topic also seems pretty unassailable, though I think the caption could do with some expansion (Why is an English engraver addressing this? In what sense is it "satirical"?). Whether it seriously "aids reader understanding of the topic" is a bit more moot, but given that the topic is a song – an audio entity – it would be difficult to argue that any graphic image seriously aids reader understanding: this image seems to meet the requirement just as well as any of the others that are already in the article. To my mind, the only one of RandomCanadian's objections that really carries any weight is MOS:SANDWICH: the "History" section is intruded into (on most browsers) by the infobox, already has two images in it, and doesn't really have space for a third. That difficulty could easily be fixed by moving the contested image into the "Lyrics" section (where it would also be relevant), or carrying out some more radical rearrangement of images. GrindtXX (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. The book Alexander, David (1998). Richard Newton and English Caricature in the 1790s. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719548086. is a very good WP:RS for context; many of the satirical cartoons have been uploaded on Commons with the commons-category "Richard Newton". I agree that a longer caption or footnote would be good. In de:Marseillaise, the monochrome image is displayed on the right and looks fine; so moving things to the right is possible. More text can also be added to the history section by paraphrasing, summarising, or even quoting passages from Simon Schama's brilliantly written book "Citizens". Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Your comments have about as much to do with the question at hand as purple cows on the north beach of Arkansas do. That reliable sources have been written about cartoons and English caricature in the 1790s does not mean that those English cartoons are appropriate images here (which, on top of all of that, is actually not an English song to begin with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image could aid reader comprehension by depicting a central aspect of the song (if that was appropriate here, maybe a more fitting depiction would be something like the image in the infobox, or the Bastille storming, mentioned in the first stanza as the jour de gloire), an important person associated with it (such as the depiction of Rouge de l'Isle singing it), or actually depicting the musical piece in question (such as a score, although in that case the score extension might be more appropriate). The problem is that the little cartoonish depiction of soldiers is more caricatural than anything else; and the score which it contains is unreadable (not just the text, but also the music) at image-in-article resolution and on top of that the lyrics are spelled in an archaic fashion and in a script which is not exactly the model child of readability either. There's already a depiction of a score (one which is actually readable); and if one insisted I could maybe bother getting the melody in as a lilypond example (obviating the need for any image), but the cartoonish depiction is not necessary for that. Unless maybe you want to replace the lead image (a sculpture on the Arc de Triomphe which, although broadly of the same theme, isn't specifically about this song) with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general wikipedia rule: Other users' edits should not be deleted or modified in an article talk page or in project space by a second editor. That was broken here "look, you know what? Not worth the drama" and here "remove irrelevant image from discussion here". Such edits are disruptive. On the other hand another user has very astutely picked up on the relevance of Richard Newton (caricaturist) to this genre of satirical illustration; the book "Richard Newton and English Caricature in the 1790s" by David Alexander is clearly a WP:RS and I will therefore comment further to GrindtXX. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to complain about me removing malformatted entries from RfPP (something which is entirely appropriate), me withdrawing my own request from RfPP (which you then forcefully reinstated, God knows why), or want to complain how your off-topic posts are not, in fact, off-topic, this is not the proper venue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's spilt milk; a sysop can deal with that if it recurs. All the statements about Richard Newton (caricaturist) and English Caricature in the 1790s are relevant, as GrindtXX has written. So far you are in the minority as far as wp:consensus goes. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 v 1 does not "consensus" make (and consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE; and you have not even attempted to address my arguments). Simply throwing enough stuff at the wall until you've buried it with irrelevant arguments, and going for proof by assertion (unlike what you seem to think, I've actually given a -so far not contradicted - argument why they are, in fact, irrelevant), is not a good strategy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It just means that GrindtXX is writing sensible things about "English Caricature in the 1790s". Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't addressed the argument that English caricature is not relevant to a French song. We also have plenty of caricatures of Boris Johnson, or Joe Biden, or any other well known modern politician: simply because they exist does not make them appropriate for an article about the topic (even if one were to entirely ignore copyright issues). This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper caricature strip. And, just to avoid wasting time, as a score, that image is rather useless as well (since it's unreadable, both music and text, at normal resolution; and it isn't even an original manuscript which could be justified as a pertinent historical document to document the song's origin). So this image, which consists of a caricature and a score is useless for both components. And that's before I add any of the outrage about the fact it's still in the article despite it not having been there before and you edit-warring it in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are writing this, so perhaps an administrator like User:Johnuniq, User:Deb or User:Jayron32 can help you, if you don't understand how editors create or add content. I was actually sleeping, as I'm in a different time zone in the United Kingdom (Cambridgeshire) not in Canada. [Parenthetically, as you know from User:Gerda Arendt, I'm currently helping her for the WP:FAC on Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, which has various multimedia components + original manuscripts.]

Nobody is forcing you to reply in the middle of the night, I was just pointing out you had not addressed the argument, feel free to take as much time to address said argument as you need (without wasting more time on tangential irrelevances, that is). Indiscriminately pinging admins is just unnecessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For French Revolution or this article, it should be clear why this image (monochrome or polychrome) is being used; readers of different foreign language wikipedias have thought it suitable. For historical images, the article Organ concertos, Op. 4 (Handel) gives four similar historical images (e.g. Handel as a pig); and Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel) gives others, some of which date back to the 1780s (e.g. Thomas Rowlandson in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens). There was a special exhibition on Richard Newton's work mounted by the Whitworth Art Gallery at Manchester University; David Alexander, Honorary Curator of British Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, was responsible for the exhibition and wrote the accompanying book mentioned above. The book is being sent to me, so I can't comment until it arrives (it's not available online). Mathsci (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Image

[edit]

Should File:marche-des-marseillois.jpg be included in the article? If so, where and how? 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

information Note: added the image Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No The image depicts a score and a caricature of French soldiers. The score, at standard resolution (as you might get from an average desktop computer), is entirely unreadable (you can't see the text, nor the musical notes). The caricature is generic, has a somewhat cartoonish character, and doesn't add anything to the existing imagery (which includes a depiction from the Arc de Triomphe; as well as a Belgian baritone singing the tune with costume and cannon in the background), and on top of that it is by a English author (and what an English artist has to do with a French song is, well, beyond me). As such, neither part of the image (nor the image as a whole) is fit for purpose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Evaluation by RandomCanadian (Summoned by bot) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The 1792 image by Richard Newton (caricaturist) is extremely well known; readers can find out about Newton from the wikilink and the image-rich commons category Richard Newton; he was active from the age of 14 until his death at 21. This rare etching, in polychrome or monochrome, has been used in numerous en.wiki articles, including French Revolution; and also in numerous foreign language wikipedias on "Marseillaise". The documentation has been supplied by the British Museum; other versions exist elsewhere, particularly in France. One can be found at the Musée Carnavalet, which documents the history of Paris including the maquette for the guillotine; often the image is paired with satirical images of the guillotine from the Reign of Terror. Apart from the British Museum documentation, David Alexander, Honorary Curator of British Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, has produced a 1998 book, entitled "Richard Newton and English Caricature in the 1790s"; it appeared in conjunction with an exhibition at the Whitworth Art Gallery at Manchester University. I have ordered a copy of the book from Chipping Norton, but there is at one month left of the RfC for reading the WP:RS. This image is of extremely high resolution, 10.88 MB, 2,882 × 3,016 pixels, and gives a clear image on clicking. The full page hig-res image is also available at File:Marche des Marseillois (BM 1988,1001.4).jpg. User:RandomCanadian incorrectly asserts that this image is "generic"; the quality of Newton's engravings were recognized by art historians as remarkable in a re-evaluation in the 1940s; and the characteristic signature of the engraver "Rd Newton" can be easily made out on the bottom left in hi-res. The spirit of levity or jocularity is consistent with the age of the engraver. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an article about the French Revolution, or about any of the other topics you mention. Whether it is rare, or appears in a book about English caricatures (which are not the topic of this article), does not change that. The image should be readable at article resolution, which it is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The image seems notable to me, as per Mathsci's comment, and it is contemporary to the song. The score and the text are readable. I don't see reasons why it should be removed. I would keep it in the place where it is now. P1221 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral For me, the question is do we have a better image showing the sheet music? That's where the value, if any, of the image lies. Deb (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb: It's possible to use modern scores which are focused solely on the music (and not on some engraving by an Englishman), such as File:Marseillaise-page1.png; or even to use the Score extension to show the sheet music directly using Lilypond (that would probably be the better option, IMHO). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Image is relevant to lyric section and adds value to the article. Also has scholarly value and is good-high quality image. --Trödel 17:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I do not consider that replacing this image with a sterile transcription of the score would be an improvement; nor do I understand why the caricaturist's Englishness is so objectionable. Regulov (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Regulov: It would be an improvement because the score is clearer and is readable without having to search where to enlarge the high-res image (now imagine if you're on mobile, as a significant share of readers, where image display can be even more fidly...). As for the claim that it's "relevant to the lyrics section", we already have a full transcription of the text, so I don't see how an image (which is not the historical manuscript, nor anything remotely related to it) adds any value to that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely we can trust readers to know they can click on an image to see it bigger? Clicking on an image to see it bigger is pretty elementary Wikipedia functionality, no? Nobody's wringing their hands over at Magna Carta or Constitution of the United States because they're worried readers can't read the thumbnail and won't be able to figure out how to enlarge it. Regulov (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The score extension is preferrable to images (ex. [2] vs. [3]). It's been used with success in plenty of articles, including slightly more complex ones and quite simple ones. There's no reason why it couldn't work here, and there's no reason why we would prefer an old engraving which is not readable at default resolution, and also has archaic spellings and is written in a cursive script, and where most of the attention is on a caricature of a few French soldiers: the caricature (though I don't see how it's funny or particularly satirical) might be relevant in an article about English caricature in the 1790s, but in an article about A specific French revolutionary song, it's relevance is more questionable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You make some fair points, here and above, but I think you're too dug in to the argument. The reason to prefer an old engraving with archaic spellings is that it comes from a faraway land called the eighteenth century, which also happens to be where the song comes from. The relevance of the image to this specific French revolutionary song is that the song is printed beneath the Frenchmen; seems pretty straightforward. I don't object in principle to your score extension. I just think you've got your heart set on excising this image—even if the image is more or less just the thing for this page, just the sort of thing an old-fashioned encyclopedia would have in an article about La Marseillaise—and you've always got a new reason. Whether it's funny or satirical, for instance, is perfectly irrelevant. We could even go back a step: can we agree that the legibility of the score and text at thumbnail size is neither here nor there? Regulov (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's where we disagree: readability and legibility should be a concern, even at thumbnail size (otherwise, why all the concerns about image quality and such, if you can just zoom in to see better?). Sure, File:APEC Police Helicopter, Opera House, 2 Sept 2007.JPG might let you see a helicopter over the Sydney Opera House, but as MOS:IMAGES suggests, it does not depict either adequately. Sure, if you click on the image and even zoom in, you can recognise the helicopter without difficulty, but images should augment the article text, not be substitutes which need to be viewed separately to fully understand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You're going to maintain that the image quality is too low? I think you should concede this point. The image is perfectly clear for its size. That is the normal resolution available to the human eye. That is what images on Wikipedia look like before one clicks through. I'm not sure I understand the problem. How do you use Wikipedia? I can tell at a glance that it is an old-timey print of strutting blue-coated soldiers in big pointy hats and tight breeches brandishing bayonets and following a drummer and pipers. I can fully understand that the bottom half of the page is a musical score entitled Marche des Marseillois. If I'd like more detail, I can click through. What is it you think can't be fully understood from the thumbnail? You've suggested I should be able to read the text and the notes, which is an absurd standard. If I wish to examine the expressions of the listeners, the patterns on the screen and carpet, or the scrollwork on the leg of the spinet-bench, the thumbnail of the de Lisle painting is hopelessly inadequate; but I feel confident I've got the gist of it, and the details are just a click away. Almost every image on this site is of this general standard.
    As for your Sydney Opera House example, it is inapt. Again, I think you would be wise to drop it, instead of trying to win on all fronts. The image is not justified on grounds that readers can use the thumbnail as sheet music. I find it hard to imagine a more precisely apposite image than this one. You are arguing that we cannot illustrate an article about a martial French song from 1792 with a print of that very song, also from 1792, depicting marching Frenchmen. Because it is not relevant. Or because it is not adequate. I suggest you try to take a wider perspective. This is an excellent image, present at the birth of the song. It is richly informative. The bare score is more useful to the musician, perhaps, but I think that is a low priority. Regulov (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the intent was to illustrate a martial French song, why stick with a little caricature? We have plenty of high quality pictures of the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars (which, if the intent is depicting soldiers in uniforms, are not really significantly different), which are not hampered by a cartoonish tone, ex. File:La Bataille du Pont d'Arcole.jpg or plenty of others (the one thing we don't lack from that quarter-century period is depictions of the battlefield...). The Sydney Opera House example exactly illustrates why the image should clearly and legibly depict what it intends to depict. If this is intended to depict the music, then it fails in that quite miserably, and there are better opportunities. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't think this line of objection sticks, either. Concerns about something or other being "hampered by a cartoonish tone" are out of place. What is being hampered? Medieval tapestries and illuminations are cartoonish; Japanese woodcuts are cartoonish; Turkish miniatures are cartoonish. So it is cartoonish. So what? How is that disqualifying? As for intent, whose intent? Our intent, I guess?—that is, Wikipedia's intent? Well, I will speak for myself: I do not intend "depicting soldiers in uniforms" or depicting "the music". The image depicts an artifact, and that artifact is a quite interesting 1792 print of a contemporary popular song—the very song, in fact, this article is about!—illustrated (for the benefit of shoppers, presumably) with French soldiers on the march. The image, qua image, is of very high quality. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is hard to imagine a more appropriate image for this page than this one. Why would a high-minded battlefield painting of a subsequent Napoleonic engagement in academic oils be better? At the risk of repeating myself, this is the actual song; this is the thing that was distributed in marketplaces; this sheet is interesting because it is close to the kernel of what would become one of the most widespread and successful tunes of our age. I think sharing this image is more what Wikipedia is and should be about than is sharing an arid, precise, but historically dislocated machine-legible transcription of the score—which, being the national anthem of France, can hardly be difficult to find elsewhere. Regulov (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    well said --Trödel 04:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fine, the cartoon of the soldiers might be ok, if you so wish. The score is still poor. It might make a fine image for the infobox (where depicting the score clearly is not a priority, and where we currently have a statue from the Arc de Triomphe), but we can easily have a better depiction of the score (one which isn't in cursive script, one which should be more clearly readable even for users who might have MOS:ACCESS issues with images, one where you don't need to zoom in to see it and is hence more convenient). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It seems clear that most feel that both can co-exist the score extension and the picture from the time period of the song. --Trödel 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I have moved the sub-header to the discussion section, where it belongs. The expert on engravings of that period is David Alexander, Honorary Curator of British Prints at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. In 2019, Alexander produced, "A Biographical Dictionary of British and Irish Engravers, 1714–1820", published by Yale University Press here. The British Museum followed by the Fitzwilliam and Ashmolean are where there is known expertise. Since you've only seen the title and have not actually read Alexander's book, at the moment you can have no idea about the content or about David Alexander's expertise. The WP:ONUS is now on you to obtain access to that WP:RS, read the contents, summarise them and then check them. There is a section on "History" which specifically mentions the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and how the Marseillaise then figured in the March from Montpellier and Marseille to Paris. It's in the article (and also Simon Schama's book "Citizens"). We can't really deny the occurrence of the French Revolution. Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC) @Deb: you asked about complete renditions for the screen: here is an example of one from the 1900s. Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. the IP vandalism by User:134.3.146.98 was reinstated;
  2. the WP:RS Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution of Simon Schama in further references was removed without explanation
  3. the properly licenced external audio files from the infobox of fr:La Marseillaise was removed without explanation
  4. the tag requesting more "Music references" for fr:La Marseillaise#Réemplois non parodiques was removed without explanation
The edits seem very similar to the report by RandomCanadian with his 4 1/2 hour period on WP:ANI on 7 April 2022. I am quite relieved that you have responded in this way. It is impossible to predict how RandomCanadian will behave: his over-reaction with Lugnuts already prompted warning from User:Jayron32. I noticed already that he has made strange edits recently: for example on Clavier-Übung III, he made this edit[4] which had to be corrected[5], because it made the passage meaningless: that large article, created all by me, was RandomCanadian's only edit there. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. 1 and 3 have been addressed on your talk page, as I did explain these significant issues with your recent edits (including that of combining a disruptive reinsertion of disputed material with vandalism removal, seemingly to make it harder to revert the disruption). No. 2 did not support any useful content in the article. No. 4 just looks like a bad case of WP:IPC (most of it is unsourced) and shouldn't be used here in that state. Of course, you're also stalking me elsewhere, which is even more unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And claiming that a simple change to a link (in a topic which I have edited before, if not that page directly) which was formatted in an odd way introduced a significant issue which "had to be corrected" (when it is in fact simply a minor stylistic choice whether to repeat the redundant information that BWV 21 is a cantata) is entirely misleading. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deb: Something like this:
{ \clef treble \key g \major \tempo 4=100 \set Staff.midiInstrument = "trumpet" { \set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t \override Score.BarNumber #'transparent = ##t \time 4/4 \partial 2 \relative c' { r8.\f d16 d8. d16 | g4 g a a | d4.(b8) g r16 g b8. g16 | e4 c'2 a8. fis16 | g2 r4 g8. a16 | b4 b b c8. b16 | b4 a r4 a8. b16 | c4 c c d8. c16 | b2 r4 d8. d16 | d4(b8.) g16 d'4 b8. g16 | d2 r8 r16\p d16 d8. fis16 | a2 c4 a8. fis16 | a4 g f!2 | e4 g8. g16 g4 fis8. g16 | a2. r8 a8 | bes4. bes8\noBeam bes[bes] c d | a2. bes8 a | g4. g8 g(bes) a g | g4 fis8 r8 \bar"" \break r4 r8.\ff d'16 \bar "||" | d2~d8. d16 b8. g16 | a2. r8. d16 | d2~d8. d16 b8. g16 | a2~a8 r8 d,4 | g2 r4 a4 | b2 r2 | c2 d4 e | a,2~a8 r8 e'4 | d2~d8. [b16 c8. a16] | g2\fermata \bar "||" } } } \addlyrics { Al -- lons en -- fants de la Pa -- tri -- e, Le jour de gloire est ar -- ri -- vé. Con -- tre nous, de la ty -- ran -- ni -- e, L'é -- ten -- dard sang -- lant est le -- vé, l'é -- ten -- dard __ sang -- lant est le -- vé En -- ten -- dez -- vous, dans les cam -- pag -- nes Mu -- gir ces fa -- rou -- ches sol -- dats. Ils vien -- nent jus -- que dans nos bras É -- gor -- ger vos fils, __ vos com -- pag -- nes. Aux ar -- mes ci -- toy -- ens! For -- mez __ vos ba -- tail -- lons, __ Mar -- chons, mar -- chons! Qu'un sang im -- pur __ A -- breu -- ve nos sil -- lons. }
  • Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really would prefer not to take sides here. Much better for those who edit this article regularly and have a particular interest in it to try to achieve a compromise. I'm sorry if there are any resulting problems. However, if there is anything that is now missing and should be there, or vice versa, the correct way to resolve it is to make that point here (preferably as a separate discussion from the one about the image) and request an admin to make that change. Deb (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is more or less why I requested help by pinging you or User:Johnuniq. I'm not quite sure why my edits were moved around by deleting and re-adding things on this talk page; but that funniness also happened in the RfC on "Chopin's sexuality". As far as Schama's book is concerned, I bought it when I was a fellow fellow in Cambridge around 1990, hence my knowledge of the museum. As far as anthems are concerned, I've helped with the anthems of the United Kingdom and Canada (removing drumrolls) and other sections in both articles. For National Anthem does not have a comparable bloody history, because the Civil War occurred a century before the French Revolution. In 1989 in Paris and London I saw quite shocking exhibitions about the Reign of Terror: at the British Museum it started with the Robespierre's waxwork head. Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also edited the anthem of Germany, or that of Canada and the UK - that doesn't change anything here. That is again part of a pattern of "bury the discussion under a pile of irrelevant arguments". If you stop messing with my comments (by collapsing them, moving them under different headers, moving them out of context), then there won't be a need to clean-up afterwards. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my short research here, I'm surprised that relevant images have also been removed. while I agree that we shouldn't have images on both sides of the text. the lyrics section has plenty of room for these images. WIKI TEXT REMOVED:
    [[File:Francois mireur.jpg|thumb|upright|François Mireur, anonymous, terra cotta bust]]
    [[File:Banque de France-Strasbourg (3)-Marseillaise.jpg|thumb|[[Commemorative plaque]] on 3, [[Place Broglie]] in Strasbourg. The inscription reads (in English translation): "Here stood the hotel where La Marseillaise sung by Rouget de l'Isle was heard for the first time by Mayor Dietrich, 26 April 1792"]]
Both seem to have been removed without justification or consensus. I strongly oppose removing the useful visuals and reducing the article's readability and aesthetic qualities just to have fewer images. see historical pages showing these images in the article last edit of 2021, version during protection in September 2021, last edit of 2020 --Trödel 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody objected to the removal of these images. Justification was given here. The commemorative plaque is just text and doesn't add any useful visual element, the bust is only that of someone who sung the song (and we already have a painting of Rouget de l"isle singing it!), and he's neither the composer of the music or the author of the text. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in your opinion, "those pictures don't add much", is not consensus. It was only 2 days ago, and I'm objecting, so "nobody objected" is no longer true. --Trödel 17:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody objected until now, so that's why those images are not in the article (in reply to your question why they were removed). You're free to argue why you think they do add something to the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trödel: I also noticed that. These images are important and cannot be dismissed in this way. On the other hand the proposed lilypond solo score/audio does not enhance the article, particularly when there is a very good midi file in the infobox of the de.wiki article. Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"These images are important" is about as much proof by assertion as always. And that's no proof at all. As for the score, there already is a very good AUDIO (as in ACTUAL person singing and/or playing the music) in this article (in fact, there are two: one sung [video! hard to miss!], and one purely instrumental [infobox! also hard to miss!]). The point of the score is not the audio, but clearly conveying the notes and the text (and since we're later discussing similarities between this and other tunes, and since a segment of the lyrics is repeated, having this clearly in a legible and comprehensible format is definitively a bonus), which is why a simple melody transcription is sufficient, IMHO. If you absolutely insist, you can put the instrumental version with the score using override_audio="[Filename here]". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your global edits recently[6], I am surprised by them. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The polite way of describing what you're doing is saying that it is an instance of invincible ignorance fallacy. The more blunt way is simply that you're missing the point and that there's not much point in me replying to the above, which is as off-topic as purple cows in Arkansas. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
??? Mathsci (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
he argues in circles. his only evidence is his "proof by assertion" that "those pictures don't add much". (Then accuses you of the same thing). from what ive observed, all discussion and reasons anyone brings up will be dismissed with appeals to authority (links included) or claims it isn't an argument at all (like calling it a fallacy). --Trödel 02:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've given reasons why the images do not add much (The commemorative plaque is just text and doesn't add any useful visual element, the bust is only that of someone who sung the song (and we already have a painting of Rouget de l'Isle singing it!)). Mathsci simply replied "these images are important and cannot be dismissed in this way". That's pretty much not even an attempt at arguing, it's outright ignoring it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree that a commemorative plaque is just text. It is an image of a plaque commissioned and paid for to commemorate, It does add a useful visual image as stated in the article itself, the plaque "commemorates the event." the event of its (the song's) creation. for the 2nd image, the bust is of the person who "sung it at a patriotic gathering in Marseille" which resulted in it being "adopted it as the marching song of the National Guard of Marseille." is not "someone who sung the song" as you glibly called it (as if they are just a random person). It is the bust of a person involved in a notable event (the adoption by the national guard). I think others agree that these reasons are there in the text of the article so they are evidence it should be included. what I think we (or at least I) didn't understand is that these seemingly obvious things from the article MUST be also clearly stated on the talk page or they don't (at least in you mind) apply and can't be relied upon in a discussion to retain the images. --Trödel 05:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find that with images, less is more. Too often images just swamp the text (as they did here) leading to MOS:SANDWICH issues, or disguise the fact that there isn't very much of it, and a more careful selection is in order. Of course, you're free to disagree. The article, all included, currently stands at just over 1000 words (maybe 1200 if you count the in popular culture items which are not properly counted by the page size tool). Even with the current selection of images, most of the article has something running either down the left or the right. I can only imagine it's worse on a narrower screen, and it would probably be far worse if we also include all of these images back in. Does a bust really add that much? Does a textual plaque really add anything that can't be said textually? God Save the Queen doesn't need a picture of the Queen to convey it's subject to the readers, nor does it have a picture of any of the composers to whom it is attributed. O Canada is content with a published score in the infobox, an actual image of the poet and of the place where he lived, and 2 more images in the body (one to depict a textual variant, one to depict the cultural significance of it). That's a total of 5, for an article which is decently longer than the current one. Don't see why the Marseillaise is so exceptional that we need to bombard it with pictures. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with @RandomCanadian:, here. The Mireur bust and the plaque feel a bit superfluous, a bit tangential. I mean, "this is where the building once stood where the song was first sung" is slicing it pretty thin. They should go. And I'd prefer a text link to the score over having the score embedded directly in the page. Regulov (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scores are usually included on pages about musical pieces when they are relevant. Here we're talking about a national anthem (so a well known song whose tune actually appears in a fair few compositions; and here there's the added bonus that there are doubts about the attribution of the tune), and probably one of the more memorable national anthems, which has also sparked inspiration for many other anthem-like songs (many of which in fact simply took the tune and put new lyrics to it: it's quite probable that readers would be interested in a clear depiction of that tune). At least, as one can see, it is also usually included on pages about other national anthems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics have been removed, cited WP:NOTLYRICS

[edit]

I don't know what wiki guidelines stated, but to regular user it seems kind of odd that a national anthem page does not have lyrics. ~ Limyx826 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does seem weird, considering all the lyrics for other countries' national anthems are still listed. Perhaps its best to ask the user why he is only focusing on removing the lyrics for the French anthem. Damian001 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to another national anthem page in violation of WP:NOTLYRICS, and I will remove those as well. I have no interest in removing the words from just one national anthem—that would be biased.
What is required is that the WP:NOT is respected. "Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article." The problem here is that lyrics have no context, no discussion, no references talking about differences in usage: nothing. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the phonetic transcription

[edit]

The transcription of the "couplet des enfants" is entirely missing. Also, there are mistakes like transcribing a liaison /z/ in "nos jeunes héros" (héros is "h aspiré"), transcribing the first e in "ploieraient" as a full non-schwa /ɛ/, "phalanges" with /p/ instead of /f/, and multiple inaccuracies (using /ɑ/ for "mâles" but not for "bras"), the /k/ liaison in "sang impur" which is almost never done. I'm going to improve some of these aspects but remember that the transcription of the whole "couplet des enfants" is pending. 2A0C:5A81:4307:8200:80A5:4879:23B8:821F (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Marseillaise&oldid=1240295442"