This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John II of France article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The referencing of this article needs improvement. It is difficult to tie some of the claims, if not outright extrapolations, to the main references cited therein. I have tried to remedy some of it with a few edits based on Froissart, Deviosse and Autrand. Jouvencel 19:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the name of Jean II is "translated" or anglicized for the title of this article? If his name was Jean, would it not make more sense to simply leave it "as is"? PGNormand 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't just anglicized. He is known in the English speaking world as John II, not Jean II. Since this is an English article, it should be John throughout. marnues ( talk) 07:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This article seems awfully short for a biographical article on a King of France. I think it's worthy of being labeled a stub. Are there any objections to this? RobertM525 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I arrived at this article following the counts of Auvergne in the Rulers of Auvergne page, but here I finfd no evidence of him being count of Auvergne. divugi@hotmail.com
The article is a bit biased in saying John sacrificed himself to return to England. France was devestated by years of war and the black plague, while England had all sorts of good things for Jean.
I have added a {{ Fact}} tag to the following paragraph, as it isn't consistent with the preceding one which says that he was held captive at a variety of locations. Can someone verify this? -- MichaelMaggs 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*As a prisoner of the English, the King of France was granted royal privileges, permitted to travel about, and to enjoy a regal lifestyle. At a time when law and order was breaking down in France and the government was having a hard time raising money for the defense of the realm, his account books during his captivity show that he was purchasing horses, pets and clothes while maintaining an astrologer and a court band.
In " Treaty of Mantes" it is written that "By the treaty, ... but the peace he desired was not sustained and Charles... assassinated his constable, Charles de la Cerda, later that year." Thus the treaty was before the assassination.
On the other hand, this article says "...Charles II of Navarre... was implicated in the assassination of the Constable of France, Charles de la Cerda. Nevertheless... John signed the Treaty of Mantes with Charles." Thus the assassination happened before the treaty.
What is correct?
Top.Squark ( talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to consider whether the text on sexuality is phrased correctly or whether the sources are the right ones. But I would rather engage in a discussion first please before removing such a large piece of text (which is dealt with by mainstream academics in a fairly straightforward way). Proper objections would be welcome. Contaldo80 ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Text:
Like many sodomites in the Middle Ages or ancien regime, John was more of a bisexual than a homosexual in the modern sense of the word; he took a wife Bonne of Luxembourg, and fathered 10 children, in eleven years. Yet the love of his life was Charles de la Cerda, a childhood friend. La Cerda was given various honours and appointed to the high position of connetable when John became king; he accompanied the king on all his official journeys to the provinces. La Cerda's rise at court excited the jealousy of the French barons, several of whom stabbed him to death in 1354 [1]. La Cerda's fate paralleled that of Edward II's Piers Gaveston in England, and John II of Castile's Alvaro de Luna in Spain; the position of a royal favourite was a dangerous one.
John's grief on La Cerda's death was overt and public, producing episodes of fury and despair - the king's feelings, as was often true in the case of similar liaisons in early modern Europe, were well known. [2]
You need to sign your posts please. I happen to agree partly with you - the opening of the paragraph is poor and needs rephrasing and causes confusion (although arguably 'sodomite' is the term that would have best been understood during the medieval period). I do not, however, agree that there should be no inclusion of the issue - I think it's of interest and relevant to the topic. Improvement rather than removal is the key here. I've had a go at fixing the article so hopefully better addresses the points raised - the original source is actually Jean le Bon by Jean Deviosse, Paris, 1985 (this is what's quoted in the Aldrich & Wotherspoon book). Therefore a valid academic resource. I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that there is an 'agenda to sensationalise', however, which suggests there is a lack of objectivity. I haven't found that myself after looking at the source. Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but do you know better or something - you seem very confident? The Aldrich & Wotherspoon book is absolutely legitimate - not that it's even been cited anymore. You're jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions by arguing it is non-objective. For wikipedia purposes it is sufficient to reference the Devoisse book (as an academic source) and to set out the view of a historian - I don't need to start digging up primary sources but I will if I have to. If you have another historian you would like to quote then please go ahead and do so. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does EVERY article I come to have a long, long doscussion on sex?? This is very strange. Is all of wikipedia like thatt? - Bolinda ( talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Bolinda
Does it have anything to do with the fact that you're stalking me and have decided to go systematically through my comments? Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have searched through my copy of Jean Deviosse's book on Jean le Bon, but have not been able to find any sentence in which the author suggests a romantic relationship between king Jean and La Cerda. I have therefore adapted the sentence in question in this article to match the French wiki-page as well as the view in several academic books: that rumors were spread of an alledged affair between the two by Charles II of Navarre, as part of his slander campaign against king Jean. If you wish to include a statement that some historians think Jean le Bon was bi/homosexual, please include specific references, to the exact page of the book where it can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.0.242 ( talk) 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What does this mean? Bolinda ( talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a denier of Jean II. Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG ( talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So according to this article and the articles for his two wives, in chrono order:
This is obviously wrong. Can someone with access to a brick and mortar book please correct the record here? -- Y not? 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC).
We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour
User: Pgarret (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
The passage about the banquet following John’s coronation is unclear. Who exactly bursts through the door in full armor? The placement of commas is ambiguous and the sentence difficult to parse. It reads as if Charles of Navarre interrupts the event accompanied by John’s retainers, but is then arrested by John, who has appeared from nowhere. 47.44.104.99 ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John II of France article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The referencing of this article needs improvement. It is difficult to tie some of the claims, if not outright extrapolations, to the main references cited therein. I have tried to remedy some of it with a few edits based on Froissart, Deviosse and Autrand. Jouvencel 19:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the name of Jean II is "translated" or anglicized for the title of this article? If his name was Jean, would it not make more sense to simply leave it "as is"? PGNormand 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't just anglicized. He is known in the English speaking world as John II, not Jean II. Since this is an English article, it should be John throughout. marnues ( talk) 07:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This article seems awfully short for a biographical article on a King of France. I think it's worthy of being labeled a stub. Are there any objections to this? RobertM525 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I arrived at this article following the counts of Auvergne in the Rulers of Auvergne page, but here I finfd no evidence of him being count of Auvergne. divugi@hotmail.com
The article is a bit biased in saying John sacrificed himself to return to England. France was devestated by years of war and the black plague, while England had all sorts of good things for Jean.
I have added a {{ Fact}} tag to the following paragraph, as it isn't consistent with the preceding one which says that he was held captive at a variety of locations. Can someone verify this? -- MichaelMaggs 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*As a prisoner of the English, the King of France was granted royal privileges, permitted to travel about, and to enjoy a regal lifestyle. At a time when law and order was breaking down in France and the government was having a hard time raising money for the defense of the realm, his account books during his captivity show that he was purchasing horses, pets and clothes while maintaining an astrologer and a court band.
In " Treaty of Mantes" it is written that "By the treaty, ... but the peace he desired was not sustained and Charles... assassinated his constable, Charles de la Cerda, later that year." Thus the treaty was before the assassination.
On the other hand, this article says "...Charles II of Navarre... was implicated in the assassination of the Constable of France, Charles de la Cerda. Nevertheless... John signed the Treaty of Mantes with Charles." Thus the assassination happened before the treaty.
What is correct?
Top.Squark ( talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to consider whether the text on sexuality is phrased correctly or whether the sources are the right ones. But I would rather engage in a discussion first please before removing such a large piece of text (which is dealt with by mainstream academics in a fairly straightforward way). Proper objections would be welcome. Contaldo80 ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Text:
Like many sodomites in the Middle Ages or ancien regime, John was more of a bisexual than a homosexual in the modern sense of the word; he took a wife Bonne of Luxembourg, and fathered 10 children, in eleven years. Yet the love of his life was Charles de la Cerda, a childhood friend. La Cerda was given various honours and appointed to the high position of connetable when John became king; he accompanied the king on all his official journeys to the provinces. La Cerda's rise at court excited the jealousy of the French barons, several of whom stabbed him to death in 1354 [1]. La Cerda's fate paralleled that of Edward II's Piers Gaveston in England, and John II of Castile's Alvaro de Luna in Spain; the position of a royal favourite was a dangerous one.
John's grief on La Cerda's death was overt and public, producing episodes of fury and despair - the king's feelings, as was often true in the case of similar liaisons in early modern Europe, were well known. [2]
You need to sign your posts please. I happen to agree partly with you - the opening of the paragraph is poor and needs rephrasing and causes confusion (although arguably 'sodomite' is the term that would have best been understood during the medieval period). I do not, however, agree that there should be no inclusion of the issue - I think it's of interest and relevant to the topic. Improvement rather than removal is the key here. I've had a go at fixing the article so hopefully better addresses the points raised - the original source is actually Jean le Bon by Jean Deviosse, Paris, 1985 (this is what's quoted in the Aldrich & Wotherspoon book). Therefore a valid academic resource. I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that there is an 'agenda to sensationalise', however, which suggests there is a lack of objectivity. I haven't found that myself after looking at the source. Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but do you know better or something - you seem very confident? The Aldrich & Wotherspoon book is absolutely legitimate - not that it's even been cited anymore. You're jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions by arguing it is non-objective. For wikipedia purposes it is sufficient to reference the Devoisse book (as an academic source) and to set out the view of a historian - I don't need to start digging up primary sources but I will if I have to. If you have another historian you would like to quote then please go ahead and do so. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does EVERY article I come to have a long, long doscussion on sex?? This is very strange. Is all of wikipedia like thatt? - Bolinda ( talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Bolinda
Does it have anything to do with the fact that you're stalking me and have decided to go systematically through my comments? Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have searched through my copy of Jean Deviosse's book on Jean le Bon, but have not been able to find any sentence in which the author suggests a romantic relationship between king Jean and La Cerda. I have therefore adapted the sentence in question in this article to match the French wiki-page as well as the view in several academic books: that rumors were spread of an alledged affair between the two by Charles II of Navarre, as part of his slander campaign against king Jean. If you wish to include a statement that some historians think Jean le Bon was bi/homosexual, please include specific references, to the exact page of the book where it can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.0.242 ( talk) 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What does this mean? Bolinda ( talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a denier of Jean II. Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG ( talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So according to this article and the articles for his two wives, in chrono order:
This is obviously wrong. Can someone with access to a brick and mortar book please correct the record here? -- Y not? 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC).
We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour
User: Pgarret (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
The passage about the banquet following John’s coronation is unclear. Who exactly bursts through the door in full armor? The placement of commas is ambiguous and the sentence difficult to parse. It reads as if Charles of Navarre interrupts the event accompanied by John’s retainers, but is then arrested by John, who has appeared from nowhere. 47.44.104.99 ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)