Talk:Oubliette

My trusty Bloch & Wartburg (French etymological dictionary) is the source for that earliest reference in French; at which point it becomes irrelevant what Benvenuto Cellini wrote, especially since the Italian word is segreta — oubliette is not in use in Italian — and thus I'm almost certain that oubliette is the word used by the English translator, which also, by the way, means 19c or not much earlier. So, although I'm loath to get rid of a nice story and the mystique of Mr. Cellini, it's not germane to the article. Bill 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know, i mean Cellini did speak french quite well.

The oubliette was not merely a place for storage of grain but a real live form of prison cell in the middle ages. If you tour, for example, the French church opposite Notre Dame on the left bank, it not only has an oubliette, the oubliettes were convenient for ejecting people into the adjacent river.

Contradictory statements

In order we have:

An oubliette was a form of dungeon which was accessible only from a hatch in a high ceiling.
There is no reason to suspect that this particular place of incarceration was more than a flight of romantic elaboration...
Although they may have been used as an inventive place of detention, their original purpose was to store grain.
There is an excellent example of an oubliette at the chateau in Meung-sur-Loire ... only one prisoner escaped...

The first and last statements imply that the use of the oubliette for detention is an established fact; the second and third that if they were used at all it was only as a by-product of other uses. They can't all be right; at the very least some consistency needs to br brought into the article. Loganberry (Talk) 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the statements "To exit an oubliette was impossible under any circumstances, without outside help" and "Apparently only one prisoner escaped; he wrote a poem for the king who was visiting." are blatantly contradicting, unless of course it can be proved that the escapee had outside help. --RKingdom 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two sentences are not contradicting, but the structure is a bit gauche, the only prisoner who escaped had outside help (after presenting his poem) - the king.

The problem seems that an editor didn't know how to express himself properly. From what I read the obliette was meant for lifetime imprisonment. Therefore it was the equivalent of a maximum-security wing in modern prisons. The problem there is, prisoners will try to escape and the longer they are imprisoned, the more likely. Guarding them with conditions close to normal living standards would have been costly, so this was a cheap and efficient solution. So the question is perhaps how many livetime imprisonments were conducted and thus how frequent was the use of obliettes compared to usual imprisonment? Wandalstouring 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but possibly not meant for "lifetime imprisonment". The article on Chillington Castle [[1]] states: Prisoners of the castle may have had their limbs cut off or broken before being thrown into the pit to die. Eventually the bodies piled up and were cleared out early last century. So we might more consider the oubliette to be a means of execution more than a place of confinement.

As for the "prisoner who escaped", the statement is completely unreferenced and, what is possibly worse, the word "escaped" is not the correct word to use at all; to receive a pardon, or clemency, or to otherwise be released from confinement is far different than to "escape" as "escape" is freeing oneself from confinement when the confining power desires the confinement to continue. So either the word "escape" needs to be changed, or - preferably - the whole reference to this escape needs to be removed unless a citation is added. Hi There 08:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of cleanup to this article and tried to eliminate the contradictions. It reads to me that the statement about the grain simply gives the history of the oubliette, i.e. somebody got the bright idea one day to throw prisoners down the grain pit. The bit about "romantic elaboration" is simply stating that the work cited did not refer to a literal oubliette (i.e. a hole in the ground) but simply a poor place to spend time; however it remains notable as the earliest English use of the term. Finally, I removed the bit about the prisoner being freed due to a poem. If someone finds a reference to that, they can add it back in. Generally, this article needs references anyway, which I documented. Ryanjunk 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the word oubliette

Here is a copy of Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, 3 volumes, a reference for French etymology. Below is the entirety of the entry—after reading it, I think that the grain storage thing I added myself may be wrong. Read on (original French text available on request:

“

Oubliette is first attested (1372) in the expression mettre en oubliete (sic) “put to oubliete” in Instruction de la Geole du Chastelet de Paris then under the modern form (14th century. The word, by a trivial derivation (diminutive) and an impromptu semantisation) designate the dungeon where a convict was placed there forever and thus forgotten (oubliée). The word had been reused in the 19th century in archeology refering to a pit of tipping trap door (trappe basculante) allowing to get rid of someone by hurling him/her to the void.

”

— Le Robert — Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, 1998

Perhaps you picked up somewhere that a former grain storage was used as an obliette. Wandalstouring 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge

I suggest to merge oubliette and immurement into one article on medieval high security imprisonment, implying slow death of the captive or something like that. Wandalstouring 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Medieval high security imprisonment" might be difficult to define--would the pillory count, for example? It's public, so it's very different from what we think of as high-security imprisonment today, but that very fact of being in public view makes it higher security than many other methods of imprisonment; everyone in the village becomes part of the watch. However it might be defined, I think it'd be an incredibly long article--those were creative times for law enforcement. Additionally, the oubliette has enough of a unique character and history (more than just the medieval era, in fact) to deserve its own article. This one could be expanded and wikified into sections once there's more info, but I say, keep it. --PoetrixViridis 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to keep it separately. They seem to be somewhat distinct in that an oubliette is designed specifically for execution/torture, whereas immurement is done during building construction. See alsos at the bottom of both pages would be appropriate, of course, and those are there.--Chaser T 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation, please

For those of us who are not steeped in the ways of L’Académie française, please add pronunciation. This issue seems to be wikidemic to French places and names!

-It's [oo-blee-et]. With the emphasis on 'et'.

"Popular culture" section

The "in popular culture" section of this article is becoming a bit epidemic. It's currently about twice as long as the article itself. Barring any serious objection, I think it should be cut down significantly if not removed. I'll be bold and take care of this shortly, just wanted to leave it open for comment a bit first. Ryanjunk 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the unsubstantiated movie reference, I wasn't aware the pop culture section had gotten out of hand. Maybe at least a mention to the fact that there are, in fact, many references? (So no one else Labyrinth spams the entry) :) MantorokEd (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent spate of obstinate anonymous additions to this section, I'm considering dumping it altogether. Any thoughts? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is so wrong about having entries in this section? I think it enhances the wiki by providing places where the item is used (examples and references). Not only should this section remain, but it should be expanded as long as the additions to it are valid. 12.36.39.154 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is considered WP:Trivia or WP:Listcruft.

Please note that it's bad form to continuing to make the same edits over and over again before any sort of consensus has been reached. Please don't do so again until anyone else agrees with you. Please also note that making the same reversion more than 3 times in 24 hours is not allowed; see WP:3RR. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have to continue to make the same reversion if you would just stop removing my contribution from the page! It is a valid addition. 12.36.39.154 (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all the reasons listed above, no it's not. And as I mentioned above, if you make the same edit again today, you'll be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are threatening to block me because YOU keep deleting my contribution and I have to add it back each time? All I wanted to do is contribute to this Wikipedia article and all you've done is harass me. I have a valid and useful addtion. Just because you personally think it shouldn't be included in the article doesn't give you the right to keep removing it. Its people like you who are damaging the entire relevance of Wikipedia. 12.36.39.154 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting it for good reasons, which you've yet to refute, and which other editors above tend to agree with. You complain that I'm damaging the relevance, but you clearly haven't read the links I provided above. Note that I have no power to block you (I'm not an administrator, but I'm able to list you on the appropriate noticeboard. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying that your entry is false, but I think that the mentioning is trivial, because the oubliette doesn't play a substantional role in the film. There are dozens of films where a oubliette occurs. Cst17 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You people have it your way and I'll stop using Wikipedia since its obviously policed by people who don't care for valid contributions by others. 12.36.39.154 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dungeon

I propose merging the content of this page (at least as far as it is appropriately verified]) into Dungeon. They cover very similar ground. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's unanimous then. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer, I fear! I found this article via Adeliza de Borgomanero, and it was very useful to find out quickly what was meant, rather than to wade through a much mre general article. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is not a dictionary but I do plan on defining oubliette up front in the lead of the merged article. Articles should be about topics, not words, and there is insufficient difference between a dungeon and an oubliette to make them separate topics. Thanks for the input - I was getting lonely here.Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my main contribution seems to have been to fight off people inserting trivia lists into this article (specifically from the Labyrinth movie), I'll be kind of glad to see it go :) Which is not to say that I disagree with the merge, I think that it does make a lot of sense that it should be a sub-topic of Dungeon. So you're not alone, I just didn't find anything to disagree with... Ryanjunk (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]