This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The image File:John duke of burgundy.jpg is distorted, elongated. It was taken from a site displaying it that way. This site shows the portrait in its actual proportions. 84.75.191.239 ( talk) 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Cristiano Tomás add this, "..and
Willem van der Haegan, by Margarida de Borsele" into a referenced sentence, thus user:Victar added more unsourced information and since he did not check what the Vaughan source actually stated wrote this, "Author
Richard Vaughan in his book, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, claims John of Burgundy was the father of
Willem van der Haegen, by Margereta van Borsselen."~ref>Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, Vol.2, (Boydell Press, 2005), 236.</ref~, "however this does not fit chronologically has Willem was born at least 11 years after the death of John.".
Vaughan makes NO mention of Willen van der Haegen and only mentions that John had 3 children by Margereta van Borsselen, but does not mention their names.
[1]
In the future some simply fact checking instead of outlandish claims would suffice. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Medlands, unauthored, non-peer reviewed, unpublished tripe? Why even waste the time using
real sources? Let veterinarians write history! --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 05:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
Copied from
User talk:Kansas Bear#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley by
PBS (
talk) 17:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley
Have you looked up the conversations at WP:RS/N? Probably best to start with Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.
I looked through your edit history to see what sparked this question and came across this: John the Fearless history. My point in the discussions is that Cawley is an unreliable source. But his sources can be reliable. So in my opinion he is a case for SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If Cawley is used outside
SAYWHEREYOUREADIT ie as an unsupported source then I think you should not immediately remove his unsupported citations but instead turn on the flag Where Cawley is used to support SAYWHEREYOUREADIT then long term the source he cites needs to be accessed (so Cawley can be removed), or another more reliable source that cites the reliable source needs to be used in place of Cawley. Cawley also speculates on relationships (POV), and also makes assertions (facts) without the support of reliable sources, which if he were a Wikipedia editor would be a SYN. The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source. -- PBS ( talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
To keep this conversation in one place, this was the message posted by Victar to User talk:Andrew Lancaster: Sorry to trouble you, but could you comment on User_talk:Kansas_Bear's talk page about citing MedLands? From what I read on Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, it seems acceptable, particularly if you use it as a secondary source. Thanks for your time. -- Victar ( talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) @ Victar the question is not "is Cawley a secondary source" clearly Cawley is a source and he is not a primary one. The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not! But the sources he cites which are often primary sources which are reliable providing they are used in a way described in WP:PSTS, in which case SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies. The content of Cawley to date like Lundy's The Peerage and {{ Rayment}} have proved to be by and large accurate when cross checked against more reliable sources where available. So citing them citing their sources is an adequate temporary measure until better sources can be found. However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Wikipedia article. -- PBS ( talk) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Duke Jean had three illegitimate children by Mistress (2):
|
@ Kansas Bear, Andrew Lancaster and Victar as the discussion has moved onto a specific case I have copied to conversation here as I think this talk page is a more appropriate place for it than user space to talk about the sourcing of a specific article. -- PBS ( talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Kansas Bear and Victar lets have no more accusations and counter accusations of bad faith, it will not help resolve this issue. I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:
carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct").
I have today looked up and ported to wikisource the original EB1911 article it can be found at s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/John, Duke of Burgundy. I have done this because if one looks back over the history of this article it started out as a copy of the EB1911 article. I then ran the "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" over the two pages and I have placed citation on the text that is obviously copied from EB1911. More of the text can almost certainly be supported by EB1911, but I leave that to those who are more interested in this article than I am.
I have also used the source to add EB1911 citations to all but one of the legitimate children. So that removes them by and large from this discussion. We now come to the mistresses and illegitimate children. As benefits a tertiary source EB1911 is a summary and the author, René Poupardin, chose not to include anything about these mistresses and children, presumably because either the secondary sources EB1911 used did not mention them or the details were not considered notable enough to be mentioned.
Are any of these considered to be notable in a standard reliable secondary source (like a biography of this man)? -- PBS ( talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Before you expanded the article with this edit on 1 September 2015 the artilce had said for several years:
John also had several illegitimate children, including John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, by his mistress Agnes de Croy, daughter of Jean I de Croÿ, and Willem van der Haegen, by Margarida de Borsele. [1]}
References
- ^ Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless:The Growth of Burgundian Power, Vol.2, (Boydell Press, 2005), 236.
What is the reason for including the additional names? ie how are they notable? -- PBS ( talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the multitude of sources for John's illegitamite children? Four citations for this:
When clearly the Vaughan source is sufficient.
Seven citations for this sentence:
When clearly Sommé, Monique (1998). Isabelle de Portugal, duchesse de Bourgogne une femme au pouvoir au XVe siècle. Presses universitaires du Septentrion. p. 69, is sufficient.
Six citations for this sentence:
When the Vaughan and Kasten, Brigitte (2008). Herrscher- und Fürstentestamente im westeuropäischen Mittelalter. Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar. p. 478, are sufficient.
Five citations for this sentence:
"Philipotte of Burgundy, Lady of Joncy, married Antoine of Rochebaron, Baron of Berze-le-Chatel"[3][11][8][9][13]
When the Somme and Vaughan sources are sufficient.
This appears to be
citation overkill, which is unnecessary. --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me you are confused, editwarring and canvassing for ownership of this article:
So what were you saying?? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I would say that Victar is not listening to what either Andrew Dalby or I am saying.
Unless someone has a viable reason to add an outdated source(Stein) or an unreliable source(Medlands), there is no reason to continue this charade, which started on 3 October. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John the Fearless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just as the title says, John the Fearless seemed to have been firmly French by birth, ethnicity, and nationality, so why the Dutch in the introduction exactly? Aliy Dawut ( talk) 06:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The image File:John duke of burgundy.jpg is distorted, elongated. It was taken from a site displaying it that way. This site shows the portrait in its actual proportions. 84.75.191.239 ( talk) 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Cristiano Tomás add this, "..and
Willem van der Haegan, by Margarida de Borsele" into a referenced sentence, thus user:Victar added more unsourced information and since he did not check what the Vaughan source actually stated wrote this, "Author
Richard Vaughan in his book, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, claims John of Burgundy was the father of
Willem van der Haegen, by Margereta van Borsselen."~ref>Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, Vol.2, (Boydell Press, 2005), 236.</ref~, "however this does not fit chronologically has Willem was born at least 11 years after the death of John.".
Vaughan makes NO mention of Willen van der Haegen and only mentions that John had 3 children by Margereta van Borsselen, but does not mention their names.
[1]
In the future some simply fact checking instead of outlandish claims would suffice. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Medlands, unauthored, non-peer reviewed, unpublished tripe? Why even waste the time using
real sources? Let veterinarians write history! --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 05:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
Copied from
User talk:Kansas Bear#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley by
PBS (
talk) 17:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley
Have you looked up the conversations at WP:RS/N? Probably best to start with Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.
I looked through your edit history to see what sparked this question and came across this: John the Fearless history. My point in the discussions is that Cawley is an unreliable source. But his sources can be reliable. So in my opinion he is a case for SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If Cawley is used outside
SAYWHEREYOUREADIT ie as an unsupported source then I think you should not immediately remove his unsupported citations but instead turn on the flag Where Cawley is used to support SAYWHEREYOUREADIT then long term the source he cites needs to be accessed (so Cawley can be removed), or another more reliable source that cites the reliable source needs to be used in place of Cawley. Cawley also speculates on relationships (POV), and also makes assertions (facts) without the support of reliable sources, which if he were a Wikipedia editor would be a SYN. The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source. -- PBS ( talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
To keep this conversation in one place, this was the message posted by Victar to User talk:Andrew Lancaster: Sorry to trouble you, but could you comment on User_talk:Kansas_Bear's talk page about citing MedLands? From what I read on Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, it seems acceptable, particularly if you use it as a secondary source. Thanks for your time. -- Victar ( talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) @ Victar the question is not "is Cawley a secondary source" clearly Cawley is a source and he is not a primary one. The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not! But the sources he cites which are often primary sources which are reliable providing they are used in a way described in WP:PSTS, in which case SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies. The content of Cawley to date like Lundy's The Peerage and {{ Rayment}} have proved to be by and large accurate when cross checked against more reliable sources where available. So citing them citing their sources is an adequate temporary measure until better sources can be found. However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Wikipedia article. -- PBS ( talk) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Duke Jean had three illegitimate children by Mistress (2):
|
@ Kansas Bear, Andrew Lancaster and Victar as the discussion has moved onto a specific case I have copied to conversation here as I think this talk page is a more appropriate place for it than user space to talk about the sourcing of a specific article. -- PBS ( talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Kansas Bear and Victar lets have no more accusations and counter accusations of bad faith, it will not help resolve this issue. I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:
carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct").
I have today looked up and ported to wikisource the original EB1911 article it can be found at s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/John, Duke of Burgundy. I have done this because if one looks back over the history of this article it started out as a copy of the EB1911 article. I then ran the "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" over the two pages and I have placed citation on the text that is obviously copied from EB1911. More of the text can almost certainly be supported by EB1911, but I leave that to those who are more interested in this article than I am.
I have also used the source to add EB1911 citations to all but one of the legitimate children. So that removes them by and large from this discussion. We now come to the mistresses and illegitimate children. As benefits a tertiary source EB1911 is a summary and the author, René Poupardin, chose not to include anything about these mistresses and children, presumably because either the secondary sources EB1911 used did not mention them or the details were not considered notable enough to be mentioned.
Are any of these considered to be notable in a standard reliable secondary source (like a biography of this man)? -- PBS ( talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Before you expanded the article with this edit on 1 September 2015 the artilce had said for several years:
John also had several illegitimate children, including John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, by his mistress Agnes de Croy, daughter of Jean I de Croÿ, and Willem van der Haegen, by Margarida de Borsele. [1]}
References
- ^ Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless:The Growth of Burgundian Power, Vol.2, (Boydell Press, 2005), 236.
What is the reason for including the additional names? ie how are they notable? -- PBS ( talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the multitude of sources for John's illegitamite children? Four citations for this:
When clearly the Vaughan source is sufficient.
Seven citations for this sentence:
When clearly Sommé, Monique (1998). Isabelle de Portugal, duchesse de Bourgogne une femme au pouvoir au XVe siècle. Presses universitaires du Septentrion. p. 69, is sufficient.
Six citations for this sentence:
When the Vaughan and Kasten, Brigitte (2008). Herrscher- und Fürstentestamente im westeuropäischen Mittelalter. Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar. p. 478, are sufficient.
Five citations for this sentence:
"Philipotte of Burgundy, Lady of Joncy, married Antoine of Rochebaron, Baron of Berze-le-Chatel"[3][11][8][9][13]
When the Somme and Vaughan sources are sufficient.
This appears to be
citation overkill, which is unnecessary. --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me you are confused, editwarring and canvassing for ownership of this article:
So what were you saying?? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I would say that Victar is not listening to what either Andrew Dalby or I am saying.
Unless someone has a viable reason to add an outdated source(Stein) or an unreliable source(Medlands), there is no reason to continue this charade, which started on 3 October. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John the Fearless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just as the title says, John the Fearless seemed to have been firmly French by birth, ethnicity, and nationality, so why the Dutch in the introduction exactly? Aliy Dawut ( talk) 06:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)