Talk:Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel

I challenge anyone viewing this to point out the supposed copyright violations. Courtney Akins 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly worried, as Memoirs of the Duke of Saint Simon on the Reign of Louis XIV and the Regency costs $450 on average, and is no longer in print. Also, the second book, according to this at leats, only has 635 pages. I might have the editions wrong, but it's a rather large change for a single year. You can see why we're worried! HawkerTyphoon 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazon has it for $35, and lists it as 448 pages [1]. --Guinnog 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I have a first edition :( HawkerTyphoon 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Error: "Royal cousin and diletante, the Duke of Clarence, in the 1830's proposed a scheme" cannot be correct as from 1830 untill his death in 1837 the Duke of Clarence was in fact WilliamIV so certainly not a royal cousin, I doubt he was a diletante either as he was reknowned for being rather dull and boring, interested only in sailing. If he did propose a channel tunnel he proposed it from the throne. Giano | talk 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe it was a different Duke of C? --Guinnog 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Impossible the next one was not until 1890 when the title was re-created for Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence Giano | talk 12:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Was there a previous one? You are obviously much better informed than I am, please excuse me for not researching it myself. --Guinnog 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was, but sadly for this article he forefited his title in 1478. Giano | talk 12:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Then it must come out of the article I think. Thanks for your expert knowledge. --Guinnog 12:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, Giano, thank you for your expertise in this area. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

England had several royal Dukes at that time, are you sure it was Clarence, check out the sons of George III it could have been one of them. Giano | talk 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is "phantastick dreame" written as though it is a direct quote, it is hardly likely that one French duke writing to another would use Chaucer's English, I would have though they would have spoken in 18th century French. I'm not altogether sure when fantastic came into common English parlence, but this all sounds a little fantastical to me Giano | talk 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it is quite probably false. The text of the memoirs are online at google books though, so you can check for yourself. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Although note that google hosts an abridged edition. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but this plus the "dreame" plus the apparently invalid ISBN equals strong suspicion... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the ISBN was added by Guinnog. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got it from Amazon so it should be valid, although it will likely refer to a modern reprint. --Guinnog 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a 2001 edition. Since page numbers change (and possibly translations and inclusions/exclusions) between editions, sticking any old ISBN on a citation w/ a page number is a bad thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)

(deindent) Point taken. I thought the ISBN of a mosdern edition would be better than none at all. I hadn't thought of the numbering issue.--Guinnog 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is a Duke de Lille - in a Tolstoy novel [2]. Thank you Ghirla! Giano | talk 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what he says it is a mystification... Or does he??? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Giano | talk 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla says "What is more interesting, my favourite novelist mentions one Duc de Lille in Anna Karenina, but that's only a pun on the name of Leconte de Lisle, that is, a mystification." Meaning it is probably a fictional character. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As best I know, the title of Duc de Lille appears in fictional contexts only. See Lemarchand's box, for instance. Furthermore, in 1702 the town was still disputed between France and the Dutch. Such a high-profile title could belong only to a member of the French royal family. You may check Louis's sons and grandsons, the princes du sang from the Condé or Orleans branches - neither of them styled himself Duc de L'isle. And even if there had been lettres patents instituting a new peerage, any prince du sang would have still been known as Prince de Condé or Duc d'Orleans, rather than Duc de Lille. In short, the title appears to be a deliberate spoof. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

François Velde seems to share my opinion --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Channel tunnel

Assuming that suspicions of hoax and copyright issues are unfounded, I believe this may make more sense as a section of the Channel tunnel article instead of a free-standing article. Thoughts? Gwernol 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Unlikely this could really be a very good article on its own. --Guinnog 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is quite probably a hoax, because there is no Duke of Lille in the memoirs of Saint-Simon from what I could find. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the first point, although I'm not willing to trawl through a book that big to look for it. I don't think it's a huge hoax, but maybe it's got its facts mixed up slightly. 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtney just executed a merge; I rolled it back pending some more resolution of the various hoax questions raised here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good article in its own right, if accuracy could be ascertained/enforced, especially in the light of this link :[3] I have long been familiar with the notion of the historic fear of French invasion associated with a Channel tunnel. Tyrenius 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jane Austen

"Invasion-related paranoia was at its height before the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and is much evidenced in the novels of Jane Austen, which were written in and set during this era". I can't say I've noticed. Invasion fears may be there, possibly in Persuasion (they would be of a later date then, though), but much evidenced...? Austen writes domestic fiction. Since this sentence was in the first version of the article, created by Courtney Akins, I assume she can tell us which Austen novels and passages are meant? Or else tell us who she's quoting (or rephrasing, summarising). The Memoirs of the Duke of Saint Simon is the only source cited, but Jane Austen doesn't appear in the index, and the "Search inside this book" feature at Amazon doesn't find her, either. (The search seems to work all right, I tried it with "Louis" and such-like. It works for the entire text, not merely for the exerpt provided.) Incidentally, Guinnog has commented out the other source provided by Courtney, Longford's Queen Victoria, with an edit summary referring to Talk, but I can't find anything about that removal on this page. Guinnog..? Why did you remove the book? It seems likely enough that it would mention Jane Austen, though the period before Trafalgar is surely a little early to be of much interest. (The Amazon "Look inside this book" feature is not capable of searches for this book—some of them are more limited than others.) Anyway, Courtney, where does it come from? Bishonen | talk 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

I removed the material in line with Giano's concerns above. It appears to refer to a non-existent historical figure. Please put back anything you can reference. --Guinnog 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not the material in line with Giano's concerns. Why did you comment out the book by Elizabeth Longford? Bishonen | talk 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

It appeared to only be used to source the removed material. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Exactly right. Although I also added the ISBN of (probably) a more modern edition, which may not be of use (see above) --Guinnog 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? How did that appear, did you guys read it or something? Or check the index? Look, I'm asking because I want to know where the (rather surprising) Jane Austen bit comes from. It's not in the other book, the only one now remaining in the References section. I'd like to know where Courtney got it. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Just guessing, really. Courtney put in a footnote to the Victoria book immediately following the sentence "Royal cousin and diletante, the Duke of Clarence, proposed a scheme in the 1830s, prefacing the modern day Channel Tunnel, that would connect a railway departing from King's Cross Station in London, connecting at Folkestone, and crossing under the English Channel to emerge at Calais" — so it seems rasonable to assume that the book supports that (now-removed) fact only. Of course this would all be a lot easier if Courtney would come and dialog here; it is quite clear that we are making a good-faithed effort to verify the material she has added and it would be ever so lovely were she to join us. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hang on... King's scross wasn't built till 1850ish, was it? So how could you have a scheme in the 1830s referencing it? Just a though :s HawkerTyphoon 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) Excellent point. 1851. Ever get the feeling you've been had? WP:AGF and all that, but still... --Guinnog 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect? Madness. HawkerTyphoon 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No help from Courtney

After I rolled back her merge into Channel Tunnel, Courtney talked to me a little on my talk page. My pleas to join the discussion here were conspicuously ignored.

This charmer was the most concrete information I got out of her. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone keen for an AfD? I certainly am. I'd love to put it up myself, but my boyfriend's coming over, and we have to play chess. HawkerTyphoon 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We could easily merge the few good and verifiable bits into the Channel Tunnel article and delete the rest. I am too busy myself looking after my poultry at the moment to do so though. --Guinnog 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... the one source that was found independent of Courtney, with the scads of background on failed prior proposals, shows that there is potentially a very interesting article here, if someone wanted to work on it, and it might be quite sourcable. I suspect most of the folk that came here to tinker with it were drawn more by the "car accident" aspect of it than because they have any particular interest in the topic itself, so perhaps no one of them do want to? (I have only a marginal interest at best myself) Perhaps try to find what possible WikiProject might be interested? No idea which. So there IS a big article here if we wanted one. But if we don't it should be merged and left as a redirect. I think... I've come around to the "no article is better than a really bad article" school of thought. The para that remains is actually not half bad though. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have some interest, being a member of WikiProject:Trains. Although not all of the Chunnel proposals were for train traffic, most of them were. If I get a chance over the weekend I'll see if I can work on this. Gwernol 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good man. HawkerTyphoon 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you're in Trains? That was my marginal interest too! :) Maybe I will too then. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, most of my editing, apart from admin-type stuff, is on railway-related articles. Perhaps together we can turn this into a decent article. Excellent, Gwernol 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)