Talk:Château de Falaise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Restoration Debate

Who did the "restoration" of this castle? What on earth were they thinking? Anybody who has been to Falaise will know exactly what I'm talking about CJ DUB 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Official website : Château Guillaume le Conquérant. Ollamh (fr) 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the restoration of the castle followed precise guidelines and I suggest you read the Venice Charter if you want to find out more about this. I am correcting the slander that is currently on the entry for the castle. There are three false claims : - "this time by the Monuments Historiques" : the 19th century restoration was also organized by the Monuments Historiques - "furthering the destruction" : the current restoration preserved the original buildings and prevented further damage (erosion, humidity etc.) without ever damaging the original parts - "concrete and metal fantasy" : all the choices made were supervised by monuments experts and approved in a consensus. This is hardly "fantasy".

There is such a thing as slander. A Wikipedia entry should reflect an objective truth, yet your addition is highly subjective and rests on false premises. Let's call it what it is : smear. Vandalism should have no place on Wikipedia.

Chateaufalaise (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Super. This castle is a excellent example of what is wrong with castle "restoration" in France. I've seen some terrible restorations: Coucy, Hardelot, even Montlhery, that make me ashamed. Its funny you hold up the Venice Charter as some sort of ideal. Why in the hell can you not just simply consolidate and save structures? What justification is there for unsolicited interpretation and new masonry, by so called experts? CJ DUB (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion, you are entitled to it and this could lead to a very interesting debate. Let's just keep opinions out of the official entries in Wikipedia. I'm not holding the Venice Charter as an "ideal", I'm just telling it like it is, without inserting any opinion, as this is an encyclopedia. I appreciate at least the fact that the entry wasn't vandalized again and that the "factual" version remains. Just as a reminder : these modern (reversible) restorations are added when there isn't sufficient evidence about the missing parts (records, pictures etc.). Even though the architect resorted to new building materials for the older parts (12th century), the more recent parts (13th century upward) were restored identically (dressed stone etc.) because there are reliable records. The primary purpose of the restoration is to materialize again the inner volumes and circulations, so that visitors can finally understand how the building functionned. This was absolutely impossible before the restoration (it was a ruin : no floors, no roofs, separations were missing etc.). It might sound paradoxical, but it is now easier to explain to visitors how the castle worked, whereas things were very abstract before, and not much of the visit could be remembered (unless you're an expert, which most of visitors aren't). I guess the best thing to do is to come and take a look, and even to follow a guided tour in order to get the full picture. A lot of people actually change their minds about it once they get all the info. I've visited many castles in England, and they are often in the state of untouched ruins, which make them very difficult to understand, interpret or even remember. The castle of Falaise, at least, is alive again and reclaimed its rightful place among other masterpieces of Norman heritage. Chateaufalaise (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Realize the funny part about you using the Venice Charter is that this restoration violates MANY sections of the charter:

ARTICLE 5. The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose. Such use is therefore desirable but it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the building. It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted.

ARTICLE 6. The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and color must be allowed.

ARTICLE 9. The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument.

Still, i can see how you could use this charter, ignoring these highlighted sections to justify YOUR creation. I think the you guys are too interesting in creating your OWN interpretation rather than letting the building do that itself, accompanied by science and research. I'm stating unequivocally that this is WRONG, and that is not upheld by the charter. That entry is pure conjecture, violating Article 9, for example.

I've seen Falaise up close. I was appalled and so was my companion, not even a specialist in history, that someone would allow such a thing to occur with a protected and important monument. You'll notice the so called expert and the person who gave him permission were fined, huh? CJ DUB (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I’m sorry if I sound a little bit didactic and patronizing, but let’s do a bit of homework here. It’s going to be very interesting because you are making points FOR the restoration. Let’s take a look.

- Article 5 : this article was designed to prevent historical monuments from being used for out-of-context purposes (a supermarket inside a castle for instance). This didn’t happen here. In Falaise, the layout and decorations have not been changed. They are all there and visible (and from all periods, from the 12th to the 19th-20th centuries). They have been restored according to scientific, archaeological and historical surveys (volumes and circulations). The evidence is all there. Just contact the relevant archaeological authorities on the subject.

- Article 6 : the traditional settings have all been kept, preserved and protected. Nothing was demolished or destroyed, as you seem to believe. The relations to mass and colour are designed so as to be in line with article 9 (“must bear a contemporary stamp”).

- Article 9 : you need to understand what this article is about, because you don’t seem to have fully comprehended it. Here is what it means : you can restore identically when you know what was there before. If you don’t know for sure, you need to stop restoring (identically) and do some evocation work (recalling an original appearance but not imitating it, with the contemporary stamp, remember?). This is exactly what happened here. Falaise follows 100% the prescriptions of the Charter.

You bring up as well the legal procedures that emerged. The fines were imposed because the works started before the official permit was delivered. It was an administrative technicality. But many angry people still think that it is because the castle was “badly” restored (how could one litigate on such a vague notion?). The whole project was approved and was officialized on all levels. So this argument falls apart as well. I’m sorry to say that you are wasting your time. I understand that you are angry, and that’s fine, but Wikipedia isn’t the right venue for your frustration. What you can do : write to the Ministère de la Culture, write to the Town Council of Falaise, write to the architect. But please don’t vandalize a Wikipedia entry that is just stating facts. And read the Venice Charter more carefully (or go on a guided tour of the castle, we won’t bite you). There is a bit of misguided anger out there, and we are always more than pleased to correct all wrong notions. What you can do as well : start your own wikipedia entry about the whole thing, but don’t deface the entry of the castle just because you have an agenda. I think you need to calm down a notch.

Chateaufalaise (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BAHAHAHAH. ME write to the Ministry of Culture? Why bother? There were already criminal charges against the individuals who perpetrated this and it was found NOT to be in accordance with the Venice Charter, so you may as well stop saying that now. Read the court case. I'm stating facts here, not opinions, in the article. YOU on the other hand have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article. As far as visiting, I was already there, and I told the nice tour guide what I thought about this nonsense.

Article 5-Violated: Change in the decoration.

Article 6-Violated: New construction which alters the relations of mass and color (metal and concrete forebuilding).

Article 9-Violated: 100% conjectural forebuilding re-construction.

Of course, none of what I think really matters. This has already been decided in the courts. We found out exactly what was the value of these self-appointed experts there, when taken with the evidence of REAL historical experts. CJ DUB (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you didn't understand a word I wrote. What a waste of time. You obviously don't understand the Venice Charter, and you don't seem to understand the court case either. You're an angry man with a mission, and therefore shouldn't dabble in editing wikipedia entries. Do you have an axe to grind? Do you enjoy deleting the *objective* info of the entry? Can you tell me why the final paragraph is wrong? This place is not an ideal venue for your anger. Once again, neither the castle nor wikipedia are responsible for what you seem to feel strongly about. Complain to the relevant people, but leave wikipedia alone. There are rules against vandalizing. Your opinions don't stand a chance against the facts. Get over it.

Chateaufalaise (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Objective"? Your entry has a clear agenda. With your obvious connection to chateau falaise, you have no right in wikipedia to edit the entry, due to conflict of interest. Mine entry states historical facts ONLY: 1. the new building IS controversial, 2. those two people were charged under the law. Guess what? I have cited references for all that, and whereas you have just your own opinion that the building is in accordance with the Charter. So who has the facts again? Answer: Not you. Quote the Venice Charter all you want, those people were found to be in LEGAL VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER. CJ DUB (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is objective, believe it or not. I dare you to find anything wrong or biased in the last paragraph. On your side, you've been constantly writing lies and slander :

- you make up your own convenient interpretation of the Venice Charter

- you maintain that there were "further destructions" (wrong) "this time by the Monuments Historiques" (not just this time but also during the Viollet-Le-Duc restoration : that means you have an agenda) with "concrete and metal fantasy" : every inch of it was debated and approved.

Granted, it is controversial, you are absolutely right, and there are strong opinions about this, but Wikipedia isn't an opinion column where you can spread lies. My paragraph is more accurate than yours, it's as simple as that. If you are keen (and desperate) to talk about the legal procedure, why don't you base your allegation on facts, evidence and quotations? Only if you do this will I believe you. You started off with lies, falsehoods and approximations, and therefore I have trouble believing what you say. Furthermore, if these people "lost" on an "expertise" basis, why is the restoration still there 12 years later and attracting 40.000+ visitors a year? Guess what : it's going to stay there for a while, and you will still be whining on Wikipedia. Sorry to be a little abrupt here.

Chateaufalaise (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like "somebody" has trouble finding his sources! Can you prove that the court case was about the Venice Charter? If not, you should consider other pastimes than deleting items of this entry. I don't know if someone who says "Worst Restoration Ever" should be fiddling with this entry in the first place. The great thing about Wikipedia is that slander and lies can be rooted out, and folks who can't quote any sources often run away :-)

Chateaufalaise (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chateau-dude's got a point. You need to prove what you say and present verifiable evidence. Looks like you got bupkiss.

ErnestLeBarbare (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The link is here: *Justice injuste au Chateau de Falaise! chateau dude, keeps reverting the page and then saying there is no evidence. As it turns out there isn't anybody but the Chateau Falaise people saying everything is fine. The court confirms that both those people acted in violation of the law. Contained within this newspaper article are links to a scolarly paper and other articles on the subject. As it turns its chateau dude, that doesn't have a shred of proof that the castle is in accordance with the Venice Charter, which a 4th grader could see that it ISN'T. CJ DUB (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The blog you link is full of slander and smears, all falsehoods that have been debunked. Talk about an angry agenda... Working here, I can assure you that things have changed in 12 years, and people know what the thinking behind the restoration is. And believe it or not, it is a well know tourist venue. It might not be what you want to believe, but a lot of people like the castle the way it is. Now I'm once again removing your paragraph because you base your arguments on false premises. Good day. Chateaufalaise (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that blog you linked to is run by a bunch of nutty extremists lol!! Now I know where u stand. It's all kind of weird you have to admit. ErnestLeBarbare (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys are funny. I even thought you would say that. But the fact is, that the blog simply quotes a news story that is all over the internet. Just because its on a blog you don't like, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Truth hurts huh?

Interview_Gady
L'entrait - January, 2006
Normandie Château de Falaise : condamnations au tribunal correctionnel. OUEST ET CENTRE - Magazine N° 5326 du 2005-12-23 - page 19 , 304 mots

I see, you've finally admitted you work for Chateau de Falaise. Bit of a critical error that, since it prevents a sock puppet like you from editing the page.

My section simply and factually states that the restoration is speculative, controversial, and those two people got charged and fined in a court of law. All irrefutable facts about the history of the castle. I don't see one ref to support that the work "closely corresponds to the Venice Charter", bud. CJ DUB (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's still nothing there, sorry. You've got an article I can't read because you need a subscription, then a column about a guy who has got an opinion (and doesn't delve into specifics), and finally a recap of the prosecution that states that the DRAC and the architect were fined because they started the works before the official permit was delivered (administrative mistake on their part). Is there anything there stating specifically that they were prosecuted for not having followed the Charter of Venice (your words)? No, nothing at all, even though you keep hammering it. You need to produce evidence, and it is still not there! Where is it? If you state something, you must prove it. Otherwise it is not worth anything. Moreover, your blog is a forum with an agenda of vindication and political statements. The thing is, it's still stuck in the 90s and you won't find anything there about the current restorations going on (castle walls), the projects, the events or the new archaeological developments. Nothing. It's all about hate, which is a little sad. You might feel reluctant to recognize that there are people who like the castle (and I don't feel like a sock puppet thank you!), who know that it is an touristic boon for the city, that there are tons of effort done to promote it, and it is now THE official place where people come to discover the beginning of William's epic (remember, 40.000 visitors can't be wrong...). I won't resist the pleasure of quoting you our guestbook, and specifically a note left this morning by an angry angry visitor (one can feel the outrage and the stigma):

"Une restauration magnifique, une très belle scénographie, des illustrations choisies avec goût qui mettent parfaitement en valeur les textes de l'audioguide. Une grande réussite, merci à toute l'équipe, xxx, étudiante en médiation culturelle"

What a stinging indictment, is it not? :-) And this kind of comment is actually quite common. The sad thing is, you won't recognize any of the effort that's made to promote William and his descendants through the work that's done here. Finally, there is no conflict of interest for me to write here, unless I write stuff like "the castle of Falaise is the best in the world etc.", or if I lie about it. I'm just writing facts and am remaining ever vigilant against slander and angry agendas. So I'm going to be here for a while, in case you're wondering :-) Chateaufalaise (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by an uninvolved party

As much as I would like to help, I am not able to read French and the online English language sources are very poor regarding Chateau Falaise. That said, I would like to make the point that that blogs are not considered reliable sources. Also, if one man has an opinion that the restoration was poor it needs to be discussed whether it is worth including (is he an expert, is the opinion prominent, is it verifiably widely held) and if it is context must be included. Also, WP:COI means that intereseted parties can edit articles they are associated with as long as they remain neutral. As I am unable to read the sources so am effeectively blind, the phrasing by Chateaufalaise seemed acceptable.

So far, the discussion on this talk page has been based mainly on whether the restoration was in line with the Charter of Venice. Unfortunately, you are both employing your own interpretations (see WP:SYNTH). Please find reliable sources stating whether or not the Charter of Venice was followed and do not make your own judgements on the issue. There is a great deal of bad feeling here, leading to accusations of sockpuppetry. At the moment, the final, controversial paragraph is completely unsourced and if neither party can come to a compromise, the unsourced information will be removed per WP:V. Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Chateaufalaise uses sockpuppets to make his case:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chateaufalaise/Archive

Also since Chateaufalaise is an employee of the monument, he should not be editing this article. CJ DUB (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Chateaufalaise was wrong to use sockpuppets, but as I have stated unless neutral, third-party, reliable sources can be provided for the last paragraph of the article (re: the reconstruction) it will be removed per wikipedia's policy on verification. Wikipedi'a policy on having of conflict of interest means that Chateaufalaise is permitted to edit the article as long as he/she maintains a neutral point of view. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. He's here to promote the opinion of the owners of the property. Lets not forget the criminal court findings with respect to the restoration. I say, in the mean time, put that info in since it relates to rcent history and the controversial restoration. l8tr CJ DUB (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the sources in French, and there's nothing in English about the case. You'll have to add the information, but I will be checking whether the sources you add are considered reliable. Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here: [1] An interview with Alexandre Gady [2] [3]. You should be able to use google translate with all of these. Actually the second ref with Alexandre Gady is in english.

I wonder if Chateaufalaise will revert again? Incidentally, I take issue with being accused of making unsourced edits to the article. As you can see I made edits only discussing the controversy and the court case. That is all. For my edits I actually recommended taking out all references to the Venice Charter but Chateaufalaise would not permit that. Anyway, I have no wish to get into this again, suffice to say, there was a court case and criminal charges made, which were widely reported. Here is my text with ref:

From 1986 to 1997, the keeps of the castle underwent a restoration that recreated the inner volumes and circulations and a reconstructed forebuilding. This restoration, has been widely criticized due to its use of modern building materials and conjectural reconstuction. In 2005 Bruno Decaris, chief architect of historic monuments and project manager for the restoration and modification from the castle in 1995, was sentenced to pay a fine of 3000 euros. Elisabeth Gautier, former Regional Director of Cultural Affairs of Lower Normandy, was ordered to pay a fine of 2,000 euros.

CJ DUB (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the blog as a source because it's not considered reliable. If, as you mention above, it's quoting another news story the original should be provided. I have changed the last paragraph to read:

From 1986 to 1997, the castle underwent a restoration that recreated the inner volumes and circulations and a reconstructed forebuilding. The restoration has been publicly criticized by Alexandre Gady, an art historian and vice-president of Momus (a group involved in the protection of French national heritage); he claimed that the final reconstruction differed from the proposed version.[2] In 2005, the former Regional Director of Cultural Affairs of Lower Normandy and the chief architect involved in reconstructing the castle were fined by the Correctional Court of Caen.[3][4]

From my reading of the sources, it was unclear whether the criticism was widespread, but it was public. Also, in the interview with The Art Tribune, Gady criticises the reconstruction for not adhering to the original plans but doesn't specifically mention building materials. At the moment, the information is verifiable through its sources. If Chateaufalaise can produce sources which state the reconstruction has been in line with the Venice Charter, they should also be included; however, since that claim is currently unsourced, it has been removed. Nev1 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of common sense here, quite far removed from the angry ramblings of our friend CJ-DUB (let's not forget his initial slanderous allegations...). I'm remaining objective, and it's difficult to find anything wrong about my original last paragraph. Until I find the text by the architect referring to the Venice Charter (got it somewhere), we'll put the matter on hold for the moment. What I would have an issue is that the final paragraph as we read it is potentially misleading, and can lead to think that the court case was about building materials although it was not (it was an administrative technicality, the whole project had already thoroughly been studied by the relevant experts, so there was no surprise there). The interview of M. Gady is just that, an interview, and only the records of the court case should be accepted. I'm not sure that "the opinion of some guy about something" should be accepted in any wikipedia entry. Only facts matter. So for lack of better evidence, I'll (respectfully) remove those parts. It is important to state precisely what the court case was about. A lot of ill-intentioned people have tried to transform this into a judgement about the nature of the architect's work. How can anyone rule on this matter? Should the architect of the Pyramide du Louvre be tried as well? PS : the "sockpuppeting" was from the same IP, but from another (non involved) person who wished to intervene. Does that count as sockpuppeting?

Chateaufalaise (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, until more sources are provided I've removed the final paragraph. This edit removed sources, and while I don't have any particular objections against the wording as such, I do object to removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced statements. The removal of the paragraph is only provisional, and if other sources cannot be provided I will reinstate it. As to Gady's opinion, it is explained within the article why his opinion is relevant and the implication is that his opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone. Also, I thought the article had made it clear that Gady objected to the plans being changed but there was no mention of building materials.

As for what you claim about the other account, if it is true it does not count as sockpuppetry, however if you specifically asked them to intervene that counts at "meat"-puppetry and is not allowed either. If you have a problem with the checkuser case, I suggest you raise it with Avraham (talk · contribs) who performed the check. Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reinstate the edits with changes. It wasn't written that great: the opinion of Gady is not key to the case. In fact he's only commenting on the court case 2 years after the conviction, which again was widely reported. Try this:

From 1986 to 1997, the castle underwent a restoration that recreated the inner volumes and circulations and a reconstructed forebuilding. This restoration, has been criticized due to its use of modern building materials and conjectural reconstuction. In 2005 Bruno Decaris, chief architect of historic monuments and project manager for the restoration and modification from the castle in 1995, was sentenced to pay a fine of 3000 euros. Elisabeth Gautier, former Regional Director of Cultural Affairs of Lower Normandy, was ordered to pay a fine of 2,000 euros.

CJ DUB (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with the status quo as it is, for want of more reliable info. It's still better than CJ-DUB's suggestion above, which still does not state the precise reason behind the fines (misleading info). And the interview of Mr Gady still has no place here (it is blog-style material, just comments). I did not know there were such precise terms and protocol when people used the same IP as yours! Here, it's just a friend who was interested in the whole debate and wanted to jump in on his own initiative. So I understand it wouldn't count as "meat-sockpuppetry"? What a term! :-) Learning things everyday...

Chateaufalaise (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So far, Gady is the only person I have seen criticising the reconstruction and the source provided does not give building materials or conjecture as the reason for his objection. It was made clear in the wikipedia article that it was the opinion of one man, and not necessarily shared by everyone. I think it's worth mentioning his objections as he is involved in a (prominent?) heritage group. CJ DUB, the canal blog is not an acceptable source as it doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for reliability.

Regarding the fines, I was initially wary of adding them as they were not in context, however this source English original French links the fines with the castle. I would however like more detail. I do not see the need to give names.

Chateaufalaise, your friend taking part in the debate, however well intentioned, was unfortunate as it has damaged your credibility, but hopefully we can move beyond that. The removal of the last paragraph is only temporary as it was referenced, and if you cannot provide sources backing up your assertions such as adherence to the Venice Charter, it will be reinstated without. Nev1 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've no particular axe to grind in this content dispute, but User:Nev1 asked me to translate the above source into English, and I just wanted to drop my translation into the talk page for your information.

Result of the trial concerning the restoration of Castle Falaise at Calvados

Last November, the Caen criminal court fined the chief architect of historic monuments and the Regional Director of Cultural affairs for violating the code of urban planning in the matter of the restoration of the Castle Falaise at Calvados.

The chief architect of historic monuments and master of the restoration and modification work from 1995 was fined € 3,000. The Regional Director of Cultural Affairs of Lower Normandy has also been fined € 2,000. The judge reproached them for having authorised and executed restoration and modification work to the castle without consulting the High Commission of Historical Monuments.

The case began with a complaint filed by several groups after the construction of a concrete structure in front of the castle dungeon, built in the 12th century. The case, which had originally been brought in the civil court, focused on the law of the Planning and historic monuments. The court warned the two that their sentences were recorded in the criminal court, in view of their responsibilities to the public and in the absence of precedent.

Falaise Castle, known in the UK, was the birthplace of William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy (1035-1087) and King of England (1066-1087).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help S Marshall. The translation is for my benefit I was unable to read the source. Using this PDF, it is clear that the fines were linked to the reconstruction and the change of plans. Also, "several groups" objected to it, prompted by the concrete structure. If this was used, I don't think it would be necessary to include Gady's opinion, although it may still be interesting. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Photo of reconstructed forebuilding

http://products-of-normandy.com/images03/Falaise-Normandy-castle-keep01.jpg CJ DUB (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)