Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudine de Culam

Claudine de Culam[edit]

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Claudine de Culam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, this was a girl who was convicted of bestiality and executed four hundred years ago. The article cites two books that apparently discuss this incident, but makes no mention of why this particular case is more notable than other historical bestiality convictions. The girl was not otherwise notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: The article is about the incident not the victim, so it can be renamed. I googled the girl's name and it seems that the sources who wrote about her are more than what is mentioned in the article. If this event has symbolic and historical value, it does not matter how famous the person is or why this particular event has been considered.--IamMM (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KeeporMovetoTrial of Claudine de Culam. It's discussed in:

• Simon Porzak, "Perverting Degeneration: Bestiality, Atavism, and Rachilde's "L'Animale" " Nineteenth-Century French Studies Vol. 46, No. 1/2 (Fall-Winter 2017-2018), pp. 97-98 as an important case study for early modern attitudes towards bestiality.
• Desmond Hosford "Uneasy Anthropocentrism: Cartesianism and the Ethics of Species Differentiation in Seventeenth-Century France" JAC Vol. 30, No. 3/4 (2010), pp. 521-523 as a key example of early modern ideas about the difference between humans and animals (the dog was also found guilty and sentenced to death)
• Also in Villeneuve, La Muse'e de la bestialite' (1969) pp. 142-143. Furius (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it sad that they used to convict the animal as well, but that was the standard practice for a very long time, ridiculous as it seems to us now. The crux of this to my mind is that the sources all seem to be discussing the history of how the law responds to bestiality, and have collected incidents. What I'm not seeing is how this one is more significant than the myriad other examples, perhaps because it involves a young girl? In any event if it is kept I do agree that it should be moved to be about the trial. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have Animal trial. Maybe one could consider merging there; but the focus seems to be on trials where the animal is the only "defendant", so not sure that's really appropriate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is really for us on WP to decide whether the example really is significant. If it is discussed and analysed by multiple sources (and used as a standard case study), as I think I have shown it is, then it is notable. The case is kind of analogous to Menocchio (though of course he's much more obviously notable). Furius (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole putting animals on trial is indeed bizarre to a contemporary observer, but OTOH sometimes a good lawyer could successfully defend them, see for exampele the Auton Rat Trial. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Trial of Claudine de Culam or similar, as suggested above. I think these sources represent sufficient historic documentation as well as modern analysis to make for a short article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and fails GNG. — Ched (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• MovetoTrial of Claudine de Culam or similar. The article and all SIGCOV provided is about the trial not the individual. This probably is best presented as a section in a larger article or as part of a list (i.e. WP:NOPAGE), but that can be done boldly through the normal editing process, or a merge discussion if it really comes to that, and doesn't need to be sorted at afd. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There used to be several other articles that this maybe could've been merged with, but they were so full of pro-bestiality original research that they've since been deleted. It's a troublesome area that was basically under the control of people who think raping animals is pretty cool, and so I and others have been trying to clean it up, that's how this got nominated as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beeblebrox: umm yuck. Kind of vaguely reminds me of the sexology stuff, definitely not the kind of topic area I would like to be involved in. Anyway either the topic of an article is notable or it isn't, and I largely agree with Furious that it isn't for us to decide which case studies we like or not, when academic sources treat something as a standard case study and provide analysis we do so as well. My initial thought on the NOPAGE question was that this would best presented in context with other early modern european trials regarding sexual behaviour but I don't know enough about how legal content is usually organised to say anything definitively. If there isn't a good merge target or standard practice is to have separate articles then we end up with a bit of a niche article but sometimes that is really the best way to do things and they can be done well (e.g. Glass Age Development Committee). I do sympathise with your cause and there are times I think it would be better to just delete articles that are frequently brigaded by advocacy editors regardless of notability, but ultimately that's not how policy works. Anyway, I'd just watchlist it or if your watchlist is already out of control bring it to the attention of others to keep an eye on things. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject meets WP:GNG and that really matters. Maybe it should be expanded further but no need to delete it. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears that notability hasn't been disputed. Yoonadue (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The cited sources appear to discuss this only as one of many examples of criminalizing beastiality, and don't discuss it enough for notability. As there is no stand-alone coverage as the subject, I simply don't see notability here.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jackattack. As a stand alone article it fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I've been trying to express all along, it's noted in a few sources among other examples, not as a topic unto itself. Being part of a list of examples of something does not in and of itself confer notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that's not how WP:SIGCOV works, which says directly but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The issue is not the the topic can't be covered in detail, just look at the Catalan Wikipedia article (see w:ca:Claudine de Culam). The issue is that doing so is not particularly encyclopaedic. Who cares about the minutia of the trial? What's really of interest from a legal history perspective is trial procedure, standards of evidence, and the way the moral agency of non-human crime participants was treated, and IMO that's best placed in context with other legal proceedings from the same time period/location. Having said that I probably lean more towards consolidating stubs in general, an it may be that editors in the legal history area prefer standalone stubs. I mean it's silly that so many geographical features are done that way but sometimes the fight over such things isn't worth having.
        Anyway I'm not a robot, ask me to look at the guidelines and I'll tell you it should be retained, but set aside GNG and ask me how much value this has or if there is much to be lost by deletion I'll say very little to none. EVENTUALISM has proven to be a far too optimistic an outlook, and the truth is that unless someone with a strong interest in the legal history of the era comes along this may languish indefinitely. And if such an editor does appear, whether or not this stub exists will matter very little, there just isn't much here.
        Other options? could be redirected to History of zoophilia as an ATD, but once pointed there the history is unlikely to ever be used, so again what does it matter? Could be draftified on the hope someone will find a merge target prior to 6 months, but we all know once in draftspace it will be forgotten until g13'd so what's the point? Bottom line it's a small potatoes afd. Should it be retained, if we adhere to the guidelines strictly then yes, but it really doesn't matter if this is deleted and I doubt anyone will care. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know it doesn't have to be the main topic, but it strikes me as one not-very-remarkable example from a list of examples. If I'm being perfectly frank I have a suspicion that bestiality advocates see her as a symbol of their long struggle to prove that animals totally like to have sex with people. While that in and of itself is not a reason to delete it I think it is worth considering if this may be another example of pro-bestiality influencing the project. Merging it with the history article only really makes sense if it was somehow important to how the law on the matter evolved over time, and I've seen no indication of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The thing is the way guidelines work the question isn't how remarkable among other examples is this one, it's solely does this pass GNG, or is this a populated legally recognized place, or has this person appeared in a professional footy-event etc. I'm not saying that if we were to redesign Wikipedia from the ground up we would keep things this way, but I'm not going to pantomime and pretend that I'm adhering to the guidelines when I'm not. OTOH, if someone were to make a bold nom that said yes this does pass GNG, but guidelines allow for occasional exceptions and this is one of them then I may well support, but if we're going to do that let's just be honest about it and state directly what we are doing. As for the advocacy editing I'm of two minds. Part of me feels that some articles and even topic areas are more trouble than they're worth, although and admitting I haven't checked diffs, disruption here isn't obvious from the page history. Another part of me is hard RBI, don't allow their actions to influence our content even one iota, revert their contributions, block them, clean up any disruption and otherwise carry on as though they don't exist, just record things neutrally and whether or not they like or don't like some of the things in our articles should be completely irrelevant. Finally I didn't say merged I explicitly said redirected (although on second look probably the refs should be copied over). But now that you bring up the advocacy portion it does seem to me there's no need for the testimony of the witnesses to be in wikivoice so I'll adjust that. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If relevant sources do not treat this in depth as an incident of particular importance, but only as an example to illustrate the phenomenon of animals being tried, Wikipedia should do the same. The topic can and should be mentioned in an article with a broader scope. Sandstein 13:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IP is right. In my view, as someone who was punished in a historically notable case, the subject clearly merits an article on its own (= meets notability, to put it in Wikipedia's parlance). While one can reasonably argue in favour of a change to a more suitable title, it is quite misleading to say that this does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Kerberous (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV per [1][2] TheRollBoss001 (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.