Please reconsider: Guise (and soon after his brother, the Cardinal) were both killed by Henri III of Navarre (who was to become Henri IV in 1589) not by Henri III of France. The phrasing of your entry is ambiguous. Geb11 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No they weren't? I would suggest you read some books about this period. I would name a specific book, but quite literally any book will correct your understanding, perhaps Knecht 2010 or Holt 2005 would be best.
Guise and his brother were killed in Blois, at the royal residence, having been invited by the king to a council meeting so that he could be rid of them. In 1588 Navarre was at war with the crown and based himself out of south-west France. Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated and expanded this biography of another French soldier and military writer - if you have time, see if you have any comments. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My specialty is mainly 1559-72 history, so I can't really critique or praise the content in an expert fashion apologies.
Hello Sovietblobfish, thank you for your recent edits to François de Scépeaux! I translated the article from French not to long ago, but I guess some facts were lost in translation 😅 I really appreciate you finding these problem areas and fixing them to the best of your ability. Much appreciated and good luck on your other projects. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 20:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi johnson,
i'm glad you find the edits useful, i'm far from finished with that article yet though, that was just the opening salvo before i introduce new content :)
I'm so glad to see there are others who are really caring for these articles 🙂 If there is any way I could potentially be of help in this project, please let me know. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 02:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
A single s isn't worth an edit war. I don't understand your reasoning here.
if one is referring to the Brothers Guise, or members of the Guise fsction, then Guises is the proper plural. So what's your logic here? I'm a grammar fanatic myself. So I'm curious.
PainMan (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PainMan: :Guise refers to the family, and is therefore singular
Some examples from a book to hand "Henry II's death is conventionall seen as the end of an era in which glory and strong rule aws overnight replaced by the divisive and chaotic rule of the Guise."
You may want to know(if you did not already), Jean's father Rene fought for the Imperialists at the Battle of Pavia. Apparently Rene was involved in Charles III of Bourbon's conspiracy against Francis I. Oddly, I can not find any reliable source(s) detailing Rene's loss of lands, titles, or joining Bourbon at Pavia and subsequent death. There are questionable sources mentioning Rene's departure with Charles and his loss of lands.[1][2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting, I wasn't aware, I need to find sources for that section of Jean's article, as I wasn't able to from my usual library of books (which are admittedly more focused on Henri II-Henri III's reign) Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even Knecht's Francis I, makes no mention of Jean's father. However, Knecht does call Jean, "one of Bourbon's accomplices"![3] If Jean went with his father, then he, more than likely, was at Pavia. So that might help in your research. I will keep digging around. Stay safe, Sovietblobfish! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knecht's book is definitely good for some aspects of the kings reign, however like a lot of books that cover politics of this period, it has a bit of habit to focus on the leading couple of families around the king at the expense of the broader networks of noble authority. I've found Harding 1978, Salmon 1975, Jouanna 1998 and Durot 2012 invaluable for providing a little balance in that regard. Sovietblobfish (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jean IV Auvergne
Hi,
I see you changed this link on Catherine's page from III to IV, this prompted me to look at the French article and the French page for the count. They agree with you about it being Jean IV, I do not know however why. There are only 3 Jean's in the count list, what's going on here?
Sovietblobfish (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not "IV" of Auvergne, he is "IV" Jean de La Tour, his family. M. Armando (talk) ..:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
For example, his father, Bertrand VI is only the second of his name to be Count of Auvergne, but he is the sixth Bertrand de La Tour. That is why the correct numbeing, in my view, is "IV", following the familial logic. M. Armando (talk) ..:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
My approach to that Bertrand would be that he is Bertrand VI de la Tour, but in his capacity as count of Auvergne he is Bertrand II d'Auvergne. In much the same way Henri IV de France is simultaneously Henri III de Navarre, I wouldn't call him Henri IV de Navarre I guess we have different approaches. :) Sovietblobfish (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can always use "Jean IV de La Tour, Count of Auvergne" or "Jean IV de La Tour d'Auvergne". Both would meet your criteria. M. Armando (talk) ..:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
References
^Williams, Hugh Noel. Henri II: His Court and Times. p. 93.
^Pardoe, Julia. The Court and Reign of Francis the First. Vol. II. pp. 285–286.
^Knecht, R.J. (1984). Francis I. Cambridge University Press. p. 428.
If, and when, you are so inclined, you might see if any of your books mention these two. I found a bit of information regarding Charles Emmanuel, but I could not place him at the Battle of Arques in 1589. Henri's role in League seems sparse so I am not sure of mention in sources.
Thanks for this work Kansas, your usual standard I am confident. I probably won't do much with Henri's article, as he becomes more relevant in the 1590s-1620s which is after my interest in the period fades. Charles Emmanuel's article is definitely on my hitlist though, and I have good information on him in Harding 1978, Knecht 2016 Jouanna 2006 etc. but its a long hitlist at the moment. My project priorities for the next week while I'm off from work are going to be
@Kansas Bear:: Finally got around to devoting attentions to Charles-Emmanuel and securing references to his participation in Arques (from Jean Pierre Babelon's biography of Henri IV) if you fancy a look at how the article has evolved since you helped on it! Hope you're doing well :) Sovietblobfish (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Henri's role in the ligue, he acted as Nemours' lieutenant when he was the marquis of Saint-Sorlin, however he was very young and inexperienced and got steamrolled by the archbishop of Lyon for control of Lyon in the absence of Nemours (which was, almost always). He campaigned around Lyon in 1593 and 1594 and held Vienne after Nemours captured it. When Nemours died in August 1595, he capitulated to Henri and received several hundred thousand livres for his troubles (though not the governorship of the Lyonnais, which went to Philibert de La Guiche. Sovietblobfish (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if I'll work on Henri's article, I'd need some materials on the reign of Louis XIII to really do it justice, I currently have none and frankly I have like 40 books worth of sixteenth century material on my book shopping list right now that would overrule it in importance for me. Which is a couple of years of purchases!
I will definitely need to get at least a couple for when I work on Jean Louis de Nogaret de La Valette's article (that's going to be a nightmare project in scope, at least 200 footnotes for someone of his political longevity I'd guess), because he had the incredible discourtesy to live for like 80 years, which was quite rude of him imo. Perhaps after I do that I can turn my attentions to Henri.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles de Bourbon (cardinal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mézières.
Good work you're doing. One thing from a style POV - go easy on the sub-section headings, for the kind of basic biographical articles you're doing you shouldn't really need to use === 3-level section headings at all, or at least infrequently. Per WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs you shouldn't have a separate subsection heading for each paragraph - typically each section should consist of a couple of paragraphs. Don't be afraid to assess your own articles up to B - as someone who does a lot of assessment, I find it hard to give Bs on obscure subjects as it's hard to judge whether an article meets the "reasonable coverage without obvious omissions" test for B, so I'll tend to a C. To be honest the only assessment that really matters is WP:Good article - broadly "this article is of the kind of standard you'd expect from other encyclopedias like Britannica" - and I would *strongly* encourage you to aim to take your articles through the nomination process after you've checked out the WP:Good article criteria. Cheers FlagSteward (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlagSteward,
Thanks for these kind and generous words. I confess I'm largely ignorant on Wikipedia policy and style as I'm quite a focused content editor. I often find subheadings are useful to me as a reader to break up the wall of text and inform me what I am about to be reading and I tend to use them for when the subject changes from a discussion of one thing to another, but I shall endeavour to use less of them.
On behalf of WikiProject Military History, I invest thee with the WikiChevrons for your work in the field of the French Wars of Religion, an under-explored subject matter on the English Wikipedia. Feel free to use them in some kickass heraldry ;) –♠Vamí_IV†♠08:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you added the text "The question of whether the massacre had long been premeditated was not entirely settled until the late 19th century by which time a consensus was reached that it was not". I don't have any doubt you are acting in good faith, however there is a certain process that has to be followed.
Just to be clear, citing three or even many more sources which say the same thing doesn't imply that "consensus was reached" can be added to an article. That would be original research. You need an article which specifically says "consensus was reached".
The idea that "consensus was reached" 300 years later seems odd to me, but if you have an article from a reliable source that says so it is okay to add. Do you actually have such an article?
@Jayanta Sen: :The sources I added were specifically chosen, those are standard textbooks in English and French for the period and are thus designed to represent the academic consensus for their readers who are new to the period. The third source I added, Salmon, has this on the cited page "Premeditation of the Massacre was a legend that survived in the historiography for nearly three centuries"
The idea that there is "consensus" is still your idea unless a reliable source explicitly says so. Based on your sources, it seems the most accurate would be text like "According to Salmon, premeditation of the Massacre was false, yet this idea survived for three centuries". Best, JS (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salmon states the idea does not survive in the historiography. That means it is no longer a position taken by serious historians, that means there is a consensus.
He does not use the word "consensus" itself but fortunately we are allowed to use our own wording for articles rather than verbatim quotes, and given it means the same thing, there is no issue.
You should rather use the language from the sources you use instead of interpreting what they are saying. Also, to say that historians 300 years later are better informed than contemporary sources seems a stretch. Best, JS (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Jayanta, are you a historian?
You don't seem to have the fullest understanding of how the process of history writing works.
If contemporaries were the 'best informed and thus deferred to in their perspective' as you say, there would be no point in writing new histories of the period.
Contemporaries are deeply involved in the events they are describing, and coloured in their perspective by that. They are also subject to the mores and prejudices of the period (a lot of our primary sources for the massacre argue only wicked Italians could have planned something like that massacre)
They also have a far more limited perspective in terms of vision than a later historian can. Jean who lives in Paris, can only see what Jean who lives in Paris can see. The historian can take from Jean, Paul, Antoinette, city archives, pamphlets, etc. etc.
They also don't have centuries of debate and discussion to fine tune their views and polish off any rough edges.
Finally, even if we were to want to use contemporaries to constitute our analysis, that would be original research, that thing you have accused me of several times since we met. Our purpose as an encyclopedia is to defer to the consensus of modern historians, which we have in this case, as their consensus is that the massacre was not planned, I have demonstrated this in the references I have provided.
Of course, historians are not always able to reach consensus as they did for the origins of the massacre, for an example of this, you can look at the Assassination attempt on Admiral Coligny on 22 August. The event that set the stage for the kill squads on the morning of 24 August. Historians have a wide range of perspectives here as to who was responsible (from Catherine to Anjou, to Guise, to Maurevert the gunman acting alone, to the Parlement of Paris, to Spain) even now, and are no closer to arriving at a consensus. As such for that portion of the article, nothing definitive is said (at least I hope it isn't, there's nothing definitive in my Assassination of Admiral Coligny article, that's for sure.
"If contemporaries were the 'best informed and thus deferred to in their perspective' as you say, there would be no point in writing new histories of the period." Not really, one can look at differing contemporary accounts and arrive at their own synthesis. Also, new evidence is sometimes uncovered. While I am not a historian, I am reasonably familiar with the process. Best, JS (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion has reached its end. You correctly called me out for restoring deleted content without also adding a reference to support the deleted content. I provided appropriate references. You object to me using different wording to the source (with the same meaning). I see no reason to adhere to the exact words used by a source when constructing an encyclopedia.
Have a good day, and happy hunting in whatever topics you turn your eye to next.
The word "consensus" has a particular meaning, and your claiming that there is "consensus" based on 3 cites is original research. Anyway, I don't have the time for an edit war so I will leave it as it is. Maybe someone else will come along in the future and fix it. Best, JS (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for interrupting..
What if we quote from all three sources concerning the "consensus"? Is that an option? Would that be possible? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of bringing this down to dictionary definitions, consensus means there is general agreement. The Salmon page citied, tells us that the 'idea of premeditation survived in the historiography for nearly 3 centuries' (he's not wrong, the latest book I own that advocates premeditation was written by a priest in 1880). This means it no longer survives in the historiography. If something is dead in the historiography that means no historians advocate it. If no historians advocate it, there is general agreement that it was not premeditated.
If it really is 'too much' to draw that small logical chain, (which I don't think it is) I will either mine some other books in my possession for the specific word 'consensus' or I will change the text of the passage in dispute to 'the notion of premeditation no longer survives in the historiography'. As citing passages from those other two books, as Kansas kindly suggests, will not provide the word consensus, which is JS's goal here.
I'm not going to lie, I grow weary of this dispute, but I do not wish to let it go, as allowing the article to imply there is not consensus would be academically dishonest, and unhelpful for readers who need an overview of the present (last 100 years) state of academia on the matter. I apologise if my weariness comes across as rudeness. Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you created the article Henri-Robert de la Marck. In the Principality of Sedan article it states, "In 1560, they declared Sedan's independence from the Kingdom of France."
@Kansas Bear: During the 16th Century, France's princes étranger who didn't technically have an independent lordship outside the authority of the king of France, had a fiefdom of there's raised into a principality to better suit the dignity of their status. This is true for the Guise with Joinville which was raised to a principality in 1552, Porcien for Le Croÿ in 1561, Condé for Condé-en-Brie sometime in the 1550s (he did his by assumption), Tingry for the Luxembourgs in 1587, Guéméné for the Rohan in 1547.
For the La Marcks, Robert de La Marck first claimed Sedan had independent sovereign jurisdiction in 1549, however it was only his son who declared himself a 'prince de Sedan'
(All the above is a summary from Carroll's 2013 article " "Nager entre deux eaux": The Princes and the Ambiguities of French Protestantism"
@Kansas Bear: Well its possible 1560 is when their 1549 assertion was recognised by the king, that might require a deeper digging I'm afraid. Carroll cites the following source for his information, which may be the place to go to (I have not been to this book)
Pierre Congar, Jean Lecaillon, and Jacques Rousseau, eds., Sedan et le pays sedanais: Vingt siècles d'histoire (Marseille: Lafitte Reprints, 1978), 152-53.
Hi I’ve patrolled many of your article creations and I know you consistently produce good, well-sourced articles. Have you though about applying to become wikipedia:Autopatrolled? It doesn’t make any difference to your editing but it means new articles you create go straight to search engine indexing and don’t need a patroller like me to review them. You can apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. All the best Mccapra (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sovietblobfish, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.
Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.
My rapid pace of work does tend to leave something to be desired in terms of my articles grammar and spelling haha. Fortunately there are many eagle eyed editors on this encyclopedia who thrive on improving such things.
On an unrelated note, I was delighted to see the translation (?) work you've recently undertaken for the siege of Fornovo, that will be an excellent contribution to the english language site when you've finished fine tuning it. Sovietblobfish (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siege of Novara (1495)? It is actually the English version, which has been inundated with outdated and primary sourcing and an over reliance on quotes. Reading the article gave me the impression it was about a woman name Beatrice than the actual siege! We will see what I can do. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sovietblobfish, I see that you are quite knowledgeable about French nobility. Perhaps you might have noblewomen to add to my new categories Category:Duchesses regnant and Category:Countesses regnant? I'm fairly new to the topic myself, but I was hoping to make it easier to identify (mostly European) women who were duchesses or countesses in their own right (suo jure), because it's often assumed that all duchesses and countesses were merely consorts of their husbands who had real power. If you know any, you could add them to the cats. Merci. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know some and will begin adding them, more that lack articles currently, one day I need to tackle the difficult task of writing aristocratic women of this periods articles.
Before that though I will have to acquire some specialist books, I think Katherine Wellman's book Queens and mistresses in Renaissance France will be invaluable in that regard. Sovietblobfish (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 10 to 15 that I could think of off the top of my head
If you would like a leg up in this project, I would recommend using the category French Suo Jure Nobility. I assume other areas have similar categories, like Spanish Suo Jure Nobility etc.
That's a list of 122 women on there who were sovereign countess', duchess' etc.
Hey there Sovietblobfish, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you're doing on early modern French nobility. While reading your article about François II, Duke of Nevers, I noticed that the article about his successor, Duke Jacques, is the only Duke of Nevers that does not yet have an article on the English wikipedia. I was wondering if you could give it a shot?
I am planning to, however he is particularly obscure, before I tackle him I need to own a copy of Les Ducs de Nevers et l'Etat royal : Genèse d'un compromis (ca 1550 - ca 1600) by Ariane Boltanski
Without that the article would only be a couple paragraphs, even with my 70+ books on the era. :(
Do you happen to have any information regarding Isabella's religious affiliation? According to the René I, Viscount of Rohan article, she was a Protestant and introduced said religion into the Rohan family(unsourced in the article).
Shall look into it :) Hopefully I have material on her in my biographies of Jeanne d'Albret or Henri IV. Can't imagine where else I would have the information. Shall update you in a couple of hours. sovietblobfish (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This extract of Salmon (1979) [page 124] "At the national level the patronage of Condé and the Châtillon in their conflict with the house of Guise would have created a strong impulsion on certain of the high provincial noblesse to associate themselves with Calvinism, even if as it happened in so many instances, the women of these families had not already accepted Geneva. Further down the scale country hobereaux hastened to join the religious as well as the political banner of a La Rochefoucauld in Poitou, a Rohan in Brittany"
This extract by implication says that the first convert in the Rohan family was a woman, but it doesn't tell us which woman! The hunt continues...
Salmon (1979) [[page 120] "The patronage of the great, and the consequent adherence of their clientage among the rural nobility was to transform the Protestant churches... Others among this group were Charlotte de Laval, the wife of admiral Coligny, whose conversion antedated that of her husband; Françoise de Seninghen mother of the prince de Porcien, Isabeau d'Albret wife of the vicomte de Rohan"
Now we have a name, also again the implication that her conversion came first.
Next up we have Cloulas (1979) [page 213] "Non loin de là, la vicomtesse de Rohan, Isabeau de Navarre, a fait du château de Blain un centre réformé important"
Ah ha, now were getting somewhere, but we don't have a date for when she did it, frustrating as we're at the limits of the materials in my possession. I'll have to mine books online to progress further. sovietblobfish (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carroll (2011) [page 109] tells me "If Longueville's correspondence with Calvin was a secret, that of his mother, Jacqueline de Rohan was certainly not" and [page 7] "The spread of Protestatism was abetted by commercial and kinship networks - the protestants cells of Troyes had themselves been galvanised to establish a church in 1551 by Michel de Poncelet a wool-carder and cloth weaver from nearby Meaux. The richer Troyen merchants evangelized and sent books to their kinsmen and business partners in the smaller towns. The local nobility also did much to ensure Protestantism's expansion outwards from its urban base. Most of Champagne's ministers came not from Geneva but Neuchâtel a principality beyond the kingdom of France in the Jura Mountains. It was administered in the name of her young son, the duke of Longueville by Jacqueline de Rohqan a confidante of Calvin who lived at Blandy on the western fringes of Champagne"
The implication of these passages in combination appears to be that Jacqueline was a Protestant during the 1550s, and would therefore possibly predate a 1558 conversion by Isabelle.
His son Henri de Rohan was one of the promoters of reform in Brittany. His mother, Isabeau, had early drawn, from her relationship with Marguerite de Navarre, a taste for the new doctrine. [Dead in 1549, so that pushes her conversion back considerably] She had known the first propagators, Lefevre d'Etaples and Gerard Rousell, bishop of Oléron. She therefore welcomed d'Andelot and his ministers "like angels of the Lord who had come to announce the pure Gospel" [Andelot was not released from Habsburg prison until 1556, so this section is after that]. The reformed church of Blain was the second in Brittany and offered asylum to the first church, that of Nantes which had been subject to persecution. The consideration and respect which surrounded the daughter of Jean d'Albret were of no small help to the Church which was born under the reign of François II [1559-1560]. At a time when the stakes were being erected everywhere in Paris and in the provinces, for the followers of the new faith, when the virtuous Anne du Bourg himself was burned, Isabeau de Rohan dared to claim freedom of conscience for herself and for her family. [page 100] The Duke of Étampes, governor of the province, and mortal enemy of the reforms, went to her to settle the number of persons to whom this privilege would be granted, she boldly had all those in the country who were Protestant registered. The duke could not hide his surprise. Isabeau look him in the face only says these words "It's not too much for the daughter of a king!"
"Isabeau d'Albret, who in 1534 married René de Rohan was, after his death [1552], won over to the gospel by her nephew"
The trouble you have with a lot of high noble conversions to Protestantism, is the actual point at which they move from sympathetic to Protestantism to Protestant themselves can be very ambiguous. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very true! Oddly Jacqueline de Rohan, Marquise de Rothelin was imprisoned in 1567 for harbouring Protestants(presumably since it is cited by Encyclopædia Britannica). However, according to Writings by Pre-Revolutionary French Women, ed. Colette H. Winn, Anne R. Larsen, page 235, states Jacqueline de Rohan, marquise de Rothelin, acted as mediator in 1567 between Catholics and Protestants. Jacqueline and Isabeau appear to have been contemporaries during this time. As always, excellent work Sovietblobfish! It may take me a few more weekends to piece this all together(I had a granddaughter's birthday party to attend last Saturday, so I am a bit behind.), but if you find more information feel free to add it! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crainsaw: Hi, thank you for your kind words. Its a solid article, though I'd probably employ a wider source base for it if I re-wrote it again these days. Access to a lot more books than I used to have. :)
If you go into your preferences, you can enable the statistics tool, which shows various article statistics at the top, such as who started the article and a link which shows authorship etc... Crainsaw (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also never written a Good Article, but from what I know, to nominator you have to be the original author or have written at least 10% of the article. It also needs to be well cited (Yours is exquisitely cited in my opinion), and needs to follow MoS, and also be stable, i.e. no edit wars or major clean up tags such as neutrality. Crainsaw (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'll consider it. Trouble is I'm rarely free from a new article on my in-tray, my rewrite of Anne de Montmorency is devouring most of my Wikipedia time at the moment, and the rest is devoted to some move requests I'm trying to bring to fruition (they won't happen, but its worth a shot). I sense I would need to be able to devote a certain degree of time to whatever the experienced editors who go under the hood of the article recommend, as they would surely have critiques. sovietblobfish (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For improving many articles with high quality sources, and creating very impressively cited articles. This was long overdue. Crainsaw (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: Hi Kansas, I am doing well, hope you likewise. I have been watching with interest your work on that article for the Armenian campaign. Its looking promising, excited to see the finished article.
As to your question, I would imagine its being changed because that's how it is on French and Spanish Wikipedia. Either that or both edits are the work of a single editor, I don't know much about ip editing. sovietblobfish (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have not found much in the way of specific battles so Tigranes' campaigns may have been more of the occupation/annexation than conquering/conflict type. I just hope it will be useful.
I have noticed certain IPs and named editors have a "thing" about dates of birth. Too bad they can not bring a source. Wishful thinking, I guess.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Okay, so this was more difficult than I anticipated, really thought one of my books would mention his death but it seems the event is quite obscure.(I am hoping to soon acquire a book on Amiens during the French Wars of Religion, so perhaps that will serve as a more recent source when I have it.)
Fortunately, German Wikipedia records his fate, and I have followed their (quite vintage) source back to its origins and it does say what they claim.
Saint-Foix, Germain-François Poullain de
Oeuvres complettes de M. de Saint-Foix, historiographe des Ordres du roi (vol 6)
pg 353
"Le duc de Longueville se couvrit de gloire au combat d'Arques & continua jusqu'à sa mort, de rendre de grande services à Henri IV, il reçut un coup de mousquet dans la tête par un homme aposté, dans une salve du mousqueterie qu'on lui faisait par honneur à son entrée à Dourlens; il mourut deux jours après le 29 avril 1595"
Not sure if you remember, but when you created Antoine III of Croy his father Charles was linked to the wrong Charles de Croÿ. So I've been digging, and found Bulletin de la Commission royale d'histoire, Volume 86, which states, "Croy(Charles de), comte de porcien, frere Philippe II de Croy". We know that Philippe II de Croÿ is the son of Henri de Croy, who was the son of Philip I de Croÿ. So Antoine de Croÿ is the son of Charles de Croÿ, who is a son of Henri de Croy.
Currently there is no son Charles listed for Henri de Croy(which are listed on Philip I de Croÿ).
On Dutch Wikipedia, Hendrik van Croÿ [nl] Henri's son is Charles the bishop of Tournai. I think (like you) that it is unlikely the bishop had acknowledged sons.
I presently know very little about the Croÿ family as the majority of their presence is in the Spanish Netherlands. I will briefly consult Carroll on this. sovietblobfish (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Carroll has what we need "from her second grander marriage to Charles de Croÿ uncle of the hertog van Aarschot she had Antoine, count of Porcien."
Interestingly, the French Wikipedia 'counts of Porcien' page disagrees, they have a different chain which I have extracted here. So Henri must have had two sons named Charles
Antoine III de Croÿ (?-1567), fils du précédent, marquis de Reynel, comte puis prince de Porcéan (Château-Porcien, 4 juin 1561), comte d'Eu, seigneur de Montcornet, (1566)
I'm not sure about the Dutch Wikipedia, I didn't find anything about a Charles, bishop of Tournai, associated with Henri de Croy. Get some sleep. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kansas Bear:, I can confirm Russian Wikipedia on both counts.
Histoire généalogique et héraldique des pairs de France (volume 8) pg 28
The source by which I accessed the article was this one [1] and in this version of the article, Potter has renumbered all the pages. A little unhelpful if they now diverge from the original article! Thank you for drawing my attention to it. sovietblobfish (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this gift, we will see if they have biographies on some of the woman I want to make articles for eventually like Jeanne de Cossé, Claude de Rieux, and Françoise de Bourbon-Vendôme etc.
Hey Sovietblobfish, how are you? Hope you are well. I need to pick your brain. :p
In your reading/research of French history do you recall an A.V. Antonovics and any books about Charles VIII(even if not authored by Antonovics)? I have a copy of Charles VII by M.G.A. Vale and on the back of the dust jacket it has a listing of books to be published about French kings(Charles VIII and Louis XII--Antonovics, Francis I --Knecht(I own), Henry IV -- Buisseret, Louis XIII --Moote(I own), Louis XIV--Hatton, Louis XV -- Shennan, Louis XVIII and Charles X --Johnson).
I though you might have any idea if Antonovics ever published the "Charles VIII and Louis XII" book. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, I can tell you are very busy! Take care and stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I'm afraid the only book on Charles VIII in my possession is that of Yvonne Labande-Mailfert. However, as regards Antonovics on Charles VIII, I observe the following section on a website named 'French Monarchs series'
CHARLES VIII
by Dr. A.V. Antonovics, University of Bristol*
Not published
LOUIS XII
by Dr. A.V. Antonovics, University of Bristol*
Not published
"In 1974 Eyre Methuen (in the UK) and The University of California Press (in the United States) commenced a series called French Monarchs. It was to accompany the English Monarchs series by the same publishers which had commenced a decade earlier in 1964. The first book in the series followed the seventh English Monarchs book, Edward VI (1974) and seems to be an attempt by Methuen to enlarge their history list following the success of their first series. Seven books in ten years of high quality history books had given Methuen momentum and confidence to branch out in a new venture.
Unfortunately the series seems to have been terminated after the publication of the first book, Charles VII. On the rear cover of the dust jacket of that book were listed nine further studies, none of which were published in the “series”, although three of these studies were later issued by other publishers."
Oh, I forgot, I also have a book on his sister which I'd recommend. Anne de France: Gouverner au féminin à la Renaissance by Aubrée David-Chapy
Sadly it wasn't able to help me clear up that conundrum I brought to your talk page about the son of hers that possibly existed or possibly didn't, as the only child of hers the book mentions is the much more famous Suzanne de Bourbon. sovietblobfish (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You are amazing! Thank you so much!
"Sadly it wasn't able to help me clear up that conundrum I brought to your talk page about the son of hers.."
I can look into it a little more, but I am very ignorant on the colonial-sphere as regards sixteenth-century France. There is a book I intend to acquire with a rather unfortunate title that I think would be invaluable for resolving this edit "Le Huguenot et Le Sauvage: 1555-1589" by Frank Lestringant.
In the meanwhile, I will see what Liliane Crété's 1985 biography of Coligny has to say.... Okay page 439 "Béatrix. comtesse d'Entremont et de Montbel, marquise de Montelier (1572-?) Ép 1600 Claude Antoine baron de Meouillon et Montauban (-1618) 6 enfants."
Okay that's one clause of the edit that's supportable. I'd have to poke around public domain stuff on the internet to find out about their son and Pubnico. :) sovietblobfish (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the website looks a little errr, home brewed. However the son's article has other references that seem more legitimate. Have a good day :) sovietblobfish (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in question from Knecht: "At his suggestion, seven French cardinals, led by Jean du Bellay, took up residence in Rome and new ones were created. Charles de Lorraine became a cardinal in July 1547 and Charles de Bourbon in January 1548."
Hi Sovietblobfish, I thought I'd pick your brain. :)
This might be a bit outside the time period of France you normally edit, but I noticed on the John, Count of Angoulême article that John supposedly had an illegitimate son "Jean de Valois, bastard of Angoulême". Despite my "best efforts" I couldn't find anything concerning an illegitimate son for John of Angouleme nor could I find a Jean/John de Valois, bastard of Angoulême.
I have not, I have consulted my books briefly, though as you say this isn't so much my period, and all I have to consult are two biographies of Louis XII, one of Charles VIII, one of Louis XI and one of Charles VII. None of these mention him in the index.
Thus I moved on to the internet. This website: [4] (admittedly a rather home brewed looking affair), sources his existence to Europäische Stammtafeln III tableau 306
Now, I don't have access to that geneology book, so I'm not satisfied. I am reaching out to a friend who is more well versed in the fifteenth century see if he has any more accessible resources. Will update you when possible. sovietblobfish (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to keep going, realised an obvious resource I wasn't using, even if it is a very old one.
Anselme de Sainte-Marie (1733) Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France, des pairs, grands officiers de la Couronne, de la Maison du Roy et des anciens barons du royaume
Tome 1, page 210 (translated)
Jean, bastard of Angoulême, legitimised by letters of Charles VII issued from Beaugency in June 1458. A few sentences follow, but sadly no date of birth or date of death.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I believe the gist of that sentence is that Hughues dies, then one year later his son Enguerrand II dies, and therefore his brother Gui I succeeds to the title. sovietblobfish (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better than Kansas. We received at least 1 foot(.3048 meters) of snow on Sunday and the city is still clearing streets. My Camaro is buried under snow and ice, at the moment. :-/ --Kansas Bear22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
