Talk:Louis X of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
this information i say is very useful especially if your using it to do a french project or write a page on france.
- It's badly written and uninformative.
Expansion
Quarreler > Quarrelsome?
Hey, Hc, thanks for doing that work.
Everyone: I've been tempted to change the Hutin's nickname from "quarreler" to "quarrelsome"--the latter seems like a better translation to me, and Google finds <louis x hutin quarrelsome> thirty times more common than <~quarreler>. What do you think? Eric talk 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Eric- great suggestion. --LeValley 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Lack of primary sources
For shame! This page contains numerous errors (just one of which is claiming that Louis X had indoor tennis courts built in the late 1290s--when he was not even born until October 1289!). The author relies only on secondary- and tertiary or later sources. No primary sources are listed in the references, and thus, one must assume they have not been consulted. Where are the references to the contemporary chronicles, such as Chronique Metrique, Les Grandes Chroniques de France, or the continuations of the efforts of the monks at St. Denis by Guillaume de Nangis? Seriously, if you mean to write an encyclopedic entry for a 14th-century French king, you simply cannot get around the need to consult the original sources. If you can't read the Latin or the Old French or the Anglo-Norman, you need to find someone who can, instead of relying on other people's repetitions of mistranslated texts and erroneous, near-mythological "facts." Or go the honorable route and refrain from writing with such pretensions of historical accuracy on a subject you know nothing about, and leave it to those who have studied the original sources. Anyone who uses this information for a school project deserves a failing grade for lack of proper research disciplines. 99.69.176.214 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- You clearly have strong views on this topic. Like you, I often find that the wikipedia is frustrating where the use of primary sources is concerned - at one case I desperately wished I could just prove a particular point by referring back to a particular subject's personal letters in an archive in London - but I can't, under the guidelines for using the wikipedia project. The guidelines are that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This doesn't prevent the citing of primary sources, I'm told, but places a range of restraints on this. With this in mind, it may well be that you won't ever find the quantity of primary source citation you would properly like in a wikipedia article - a common weakness to any tertiary, encyclopedia style article. That said, if you are able to read Latin, Old French and Anglo-Norman, you'll almost certainly be able to make a huge difference to the community (I can only do one of those, and deeply admire anyone who's grappled with the others!). To take the particular case you raise, I've shifted the wording in the article to a direct quote; the source is Paul Newman, a lecturer in medieval history on the east coast of the US, at first glance a reliable source. If we then disagree with him, then we ideally need contrary evidence from secondary sources etc. Where it gets awkward, if you're used to standard academia, is that I can't just quote a primary source saying something different - we rapidly get into primary research then, which isn't the purpose of the wikipedia. It is a pain, but I look forward to developing this and other articles with you.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, anonymous Texan, and for your work, Hc. Someday I would like to learn Latin and have at this stuff myself. I did just find this on Google books: Les grandes chroniques de France: Roy Phelippe, fils monseigneur Saint Loys .... I don't have time to go through this article now, but if anyone ever wants me to translate something from the Chroniques, let me know. I am pretty familiar with the Google environment, but have yet to discover how to extract an absolute url for a specific book (hence the epic url above). If anyone can tell me how, please do! Eric talk 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Picture...
The latest revision moved the picture of Louis back to an older version. Two issues...
... firstly, I remember User:CJ DUB going through and altering the Victorian pictures of these kings to medieval versions back in February. I'd be keen to discuss on the talk page which one the community prefers before we alter again else we'll go backwards and forwards indefinitely between medieval and (I'm guessing) 19th century. I have a mild preference for CJ DUB's edits on this one personally.
...secondly, the caption for the new version read "Louis X of France, a contemporary picture from the L'arbre généalogique Bernard Gui, Généalogie des rois de France'". Looking at the engraving, it certainly wasn't a medieval contemporary picture! Did it mean that it was a later picture based on a contemporary medieval seal or coin? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Are the pages on French Kings consisent as to beginning of reign date?
I know French history isn't always consistent about when they have dates of reigns, but with the Capetians, for some of the Kings, the date is their date of coronation (which I believe to be the better choice) as opposed to the date of the death of the previous King (whether their parent or not). The whole reason that some of the Capetians crowned some of their kings before the old one died is to stave off questions of accession - and the period between death and coronation. Was Louis X's accession completely uncontested and no talk of any regent? Maybe that's buried in the article somewhere, too, but somehow the article needs to distinguish between the fact that Louis was King for several months (according to the dates in the sidebar) before he had Margaret killed, and it happened before the coronation. The lead sentence was makes it sound like the coronation occurred first. Make sense?--LeValley 03:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are we sure the baby king's name was John? Not Jean?--LeValley 04:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Morning! I'm writing from memory here, but I don't think medieval French kings needed to be coronated in order to be king - it was symbolic and politically important, but it didn't make them a king. You were already a king, the coronation confimed the fact. I vaguely recall some philosophical discussions about how "kingship" instantly transfered from the late king to the other. Indeed, you could be coronated several times if you remarried etc., although later coronations tended to be less fancy. I can try and fish out the references if you like, but it's been a while! I don't recall any talk of Louis X's accession being
uncontested, but I stand ready to be corrected!
- Morning! I'm writing from memory here, but I don't think medieval French kings needed to be coronated in order to be king - it was symbolic and politically important, but it didn't make them a king. You were already a king, the coronation confimed the fact. I vaguely recall some philosophical discussions about how "kingship" instantly transfered from the late king to the other. Indeed, you could be coronated several times if you remarried etc., although later coronations tended to be less fancy. I can try and fish out the references if you like, but it's been a while! I don't recall any talk of Louis X's accession being
- I'll shift the "crowned at Reims in August 1315" clause to the end of the paragraph to avoid any confusion.
- Jean is the French word for John; in English language histories and the English wikipedia, therefore, you'll usually see it as King John I; in French histories and the French wikipedia, King Jean I. You'll also find the odd English language history in which Jean is used, but they're usually the minority.
Death of Margaret of Burgundy
See Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Queen of France#Death for a discussion on the cause of death. For now I'll remove the rather dubious claim that she died of a cold. Huon (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Double funeral
Hello all- I just added a ref to the burial date in the infobox -- not the preferred place to cite, I know. The funeral is not mentioned in the body text at the moment. In checking out the hasty ref pasted into the previous edit summary, I came across some documentation referring to account(s) that Louis X enjoyed two funerals at St Denis, the second because his brother Philip (future V) couldn't attend the first. I thought this might make an interesting addition to Louis_X_of_France#Death_and_legacy, but don't have time to do it right now. If we add a mention of the "double funeral" to the body, we could move the burial date cite from the infobox down to it. So I'm leaving this here as a note for us (maybe me?) so we'll have the ref set aside. See the extract here of the source cited by the author of the book I cited in the burial date ref. Side note: ref no. 58 on that page also mentions June 7 as the date of the first funeral. Eric talk 18:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
