 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]
( )
- ... that during the Revolution of 1848, Jacques Aupick defended Paris as his stepson, the poet Charles Baudelaire, tried to lead a mob to kill him?
- Reviewed:
Created by Mafarkafut (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Kaspar Hauser (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC).
New enough and long enough. QPQ unneeded. Nineteenth-Century French Studies (the journal) is peer-reviewed, so reliably sourced. Fact is interesting. However, this article has a large amount of unsourced (or unfootnoted) statements. Please add citations to the statements in order for this hook to pass. Roast (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
@Guerreroast: I've added sources, I hope it now qualifies. Thanks!! Kaspar Hauser (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Mafarkafut: the statement "and on May 12, 1839 in the repression of the insurrection organized in Paris by the Société des saisons, a secret society" in unsourced or unfootnoted. All facts in the prose need to be cited, so add a source to this statement and all other unsourced statements, if the latter applies. Roast (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
@Guerreroast:: Every statement should be sourced at this time Kaspar Hauser (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Guerreroast and Mafarkafut: The body of the article says this is a myth, while the hook implies it is real. You will need to fix this. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd suggest fronting the same hook with "according to a myth" in that case. If that works with you Mafarkafut, then I'll accept that version. Roast (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Guerreroast and Viriditas: The article says "subsumed into myth," meaning that the report, unverifiable but not discredited, has had an important bearing on the legend of Baudelaire's and Aupick's relationship. The French wording of Baudelaire's shout is reported differently by different sources ("Most dramatically, he physically participated in the revolutions of February and June, actually fighting on a barricade and, according to some contemporaries’ accounts, apparently shouting, 'Il faut aller fusiller le général Aupick'" -https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/charles-baudelaire), but https://www.jstor.org/stable/23538741 talks about "reports of Charles seen on the barricades in 1848 yelling 'Il faut tuer le Général Aupick'." Would "reportedly" work? I could also change the article but I think the wording is clear. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- In that case, you will need to fix the hook and the article to maintain the text-source parity. What you are saying is a bit complex for most readers, so figure out a way to clarify the issue. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: "Some contemporary reports, which have had an important bearing on Baudelaire's "family romance" (cite https://www.jstor.org/stable/23538741), have Charles on the barricades in 1848 shouting "Il faut tuer le Général Aupick." (cite: Baudelaire biography." I would then change the hook to read "DYK ... that during the Revolution of 1848, Jacques Aupick defended Paris as his stepson, the poet Charles Baudelaire, reportedly tried to lead a mob to kill him?" Would this be eligible? Thanks. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Proactively changed the article to something similar. Unsure how to edit the hook proposal.
- Having dealt with this kind of thing a lot, the first thing you need to do is determine whether it is apochryphal. Is it of "doubtful authenticity, commonly circulated as true but are likely fabricated, legendary, or unverified"? If so, you will need to place it in that context. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I appreciate your patience. It's recounted in a peer-reviewed journal with the sole qualification of "reports of," while more sensationalist sources report it without qualification. Of course it's unverifiable, but I would not know how to further determine whether it's apocryphal. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's perfectly fine to create an ad hoc determination, and it sounds like you already have a sample size to do so. When the journal said "reports of", can you tell who they cite? Trace it back if you can. Where that chain of evidence stops is usually where you can attribute or describe the type of source that made it popular. I recently had to do just this regarding a claim about a particular type of technology that was used to generate a synthesized voice in the late 1950s, early 1960s at Bell Labs. It took me down quite a rabbit hole, and I was able to come to some conclusions about the sourcing, but was also left with an enduring mystery about another related source, which is somewhat fascinating. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: The spread of the anecdote seems to be mainly due to Charles Asselineau's influential 1869 biography of the poet (Baudelaire died in 1867). https://archive.org/details/charlesbaudelair00cruoft/page/78/mode/2up Asselineau, a close friend of Baudelaire, cites another friend, Jules Buisson, though I haven't been able to determine the date of Buisson's remark. Because there's a documented bedrock origin, I'd argue not apocryphal. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- So can we assume the context is according to a friend/peer/colleague? This is slightly problematic, as in American culture, at least, this is often the basis of what we call an urban legend. At this point, it does sound like folklore, so I would place it in that or a related context. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I've changed the article to read: Later reports by contemporaries have Baudelaire on the barricades in 1848 yelling, "Il faut tuer le Général Aupick!" (General Aupick must be killed!). This anecdote is ascribed by Baudelaire's friend and first biographer, Charles Asselineau, to another friend of the poet, Jules Buisson." That said, I do feel that "reports of" provided enough critical distance (the reports themselves are a fact), and Asselineau is the source for a lot of the groundwork of Baudelaire's biography as understood and universally accepted today. I hope it meets the DYK requirements now. I'm unsure about the etiquette of pinging but I know I wouldn't have noticed without a ping if I weren't personally invested in the article. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Understood. The problem with FOAF reports when they border on the extraordinary, is that they are generally treated as myths or folklore. We could say it was an "historical anecodote" to be kind and upbeat, but you would need to add that context to the article and hook. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Article text changed to: "A historical anecdote, which has formed an important part of the legend of Baudelaire's and Aupick's enmity, has Baudelaire on the barricades in 1848 yelling, "Il faut tuer le Général Aupick!" (General Aupick must be killed!). This story is ascribed by Baudelaire's friend and first biographer, Charles Asselineau, to another friend of the poet, Jules Buisson." I would change the hook to read: "...that Jacques Aupick defended Paris during the Revolution of 1848, while, according to a legend, his stepson Charles Baudelaire tried to lead a mob to kill him?" Syntax is a little bit clunky but this seems to correspond to the facts. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Wondering if approval would be possible with the above changes.Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Article text changed to: "A historical anecdote, which has formed an important part of the legend of Baudelaire's and Aupick's enmity, has Baudelaire on the barricades in 1848 yelling, "Il faut tuer le Général Aupick!" (General Aupick must be killed!). This story is ascribed by Baudelaire's friend and first biographer, Charles Asselineau, to another friend of the poet, Jules Buisson." I would change the hook to read: "...that Jacques Aupick defended Paris during the Revolution of 1848, while, according to a legend, his stepson Charles Baudelaire tried to lead a mob to kill him?" Syntax is a little bit clunky but this seems to correspond to the facts. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Understood. The problem with FOAF reports when they border on the extraordinary, is that they are generally treated as myths or folklore. We could say it was an "historical anecodote" to be kind and upbeat, but you would need to add that context to the article and hook. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I've changed the article to read: Later reports by contemporaries have Baudelaire on the barricades in 1848 yelling, "Il faut tuer le Général Aupick!" (General Aupick must be killed!). This anecdote is ascribed by Baudelaire's friend and first biographer, Charles Asselineau, to another friend of the poet, Jules Buisson." That said, I do feel that "reports of" provided enough critical distance (the reports themselves are a fact), and Asselineau is the source for a lot of the groundwork of Baudelaire's biography as understood and universally accepted today. I hope it meets the DYK requirements now. I'm unsure about the etiquette of pinging but I know I wouldn't have noticed without a ping if I weren't personally invested in the article. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- So can we assume the context is according to a friend/peer/colleague? This is slightly problematic, as in American culture, at least, this is often the basis of what we call an urban legend. At this point, it does sound like folklore, so I would place it in that or a related context. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: The spread of the anecdote seems to be mainly due to Charles Asselineau's influential 1869 biography of the poet (Baudelaire died in 1867). https://archive.org/details/charlesbaudelair00cruoft/page/78/mode/2up Asselineau, a close friend of Baudelaire, cites another friend, Jules Buisson, though I haven't been able to determine the date of Buisson's remark. Because there's a documented bedrock origin, I'd argue not apocryphal. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's perfectly fine to create an ad hoc determination, and it sounds like you already have a sample size to do so. When the journal said "reports of", can you tell who they cite? Trace it back if you can. Where that chain of evidence stops is usually where you can attribute or describe the type of source that made it popular. I recently had to do just this regarding a claim about a particular type of technology that was used to generate a synthesized voice in the late 1950s, early 1960s at Bell Labs. It took me down quite a rabbit hole, and I was able to come to some conclusions about the sourcing, but was also left with an enduring mystery about another related source, which is somewhat fascinating. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I appreciate your patience. It's recounted in a peer-reviewed journal with the sole qualification of "reports of," while more sensationalist sources report it without qualification. Of course it's unverifiable, but I would not know how to further determine whether it's apocryphal. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Having dealt with this kind of thing a lot, the first thing you need to do is determine whether it is apochryphal. Is it of "doubtful authenticity, commonly circulated as true but are likely fabricated, legendary, or unverified"? If so, you will need to place it in that context. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: Proactively changed the article to something similar. Unsure how to edit the hook proposal.
- @Viriditas: "Some contemporary reports, which have had an important bearing on Baudelaire's "family romance" (cite https://www.jstor.org/stable/23538741), have Charles on the barricades in 1848 shouting "Il faut tuer le Général Aupick." (cite: Baudelaire biography." I would then change the hook to read "DYK ... that during the Revolution of 1848, Jacques Aupick defended Paris as his stepson, the poet Charles Baudelaire, reportedly tried to lead a mob to kill him?" Would this be eligible? Thanks. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- In that case, you will need to fix the hook and the article to maintain the text-source parity. What you are saying is a bit complex for most readers, so figure out a way to clarify the issue. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Guerreroast and Viriditas: The article says "subsumed into myth," meaning that the report, unverifiable but not discredited, has had an important bearing on the legend of Baudelaire's and Aupick's relationship. The French wording of Baudelaire's shout is reported differently by different sources ("Most dramatically, he physically participated in the revolutions of February and June, actually fighting on a barricade and, according to some contemporaries’ accounts, apparently shouting, 'Il faut aller fusiller le général Aupick'" -https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/charles-baudelaire), but https://www.jstor.org/stable/23538741 talks about "reports of Charles seen on the barricades in 1848 yelling 'Il faut tuer le Général Aupick'." Would "reportedly" work? I could also change the article but I think the wording is clear. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd suggest fronting the same hook with "according to a myth" in that case. If that works with you Mafarkafut, then I'll accept that version. Roast (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice start!