Talk:Diane de France

message: Why does this article use a former model(Frieda) and a royal(Michael of Kent) for references in an historical article? Neither is an historian, simply writers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Heddy Lamarr was an actress. In case you haven't read Frieda's well researched book, which apparently you haven't, she says Diane's mother was Filippa Duci (p. 63), but some contemporaries disputed this, which is true. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should turn your attention to Filippa Duci, which you insist on linking in the lead. It cites Frieda's Francis I once, Princess Michael of Kent 3 times, and a couple of dubious websites. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is clear you can not and will not discuss in a civil manner(ie. snide remark, what to go do with myself), I see no reason to continue any dialogue with you. While you are busy wrapped in your cocoon of self-righteousness try reading up on WP:RS;
*"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:"
*"The piece of work itself (the article, book)"
*"The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)"
*"The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)"
"Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.  These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, clearly I think Leonie Frieda's book is more reliable than you do. I thought that was discussion. If you have read it, then you maybe you have a right to an opinion about it, but if not, then maybe you are judging it by the fact she was once a model, which I think is irrelevant. She has published three books of history, which is more than a lot of people who started out as historians. Besides that, I did not restore her book, and added Knecht and Mariéjol instead. I don't know whether you noticed, they also have some errors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of publishers, Frieda's book was first published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, now part of Hachette. I don't know. Should we disqualify her book on that basis alone? --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I am perfectly willing to discuss with you, even though you falsely accused me of being "snide" and "self-righteous", just because I pointed out to you similar sources cited on a related page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources 

message: Lhote 2013, on p. 5, referring to Diane's second marriage (to Montmorency), states: "leur fils, prénommé Anne comme son grand-père, naît en 1560 et meurt au berceau". By changing "born in 1560 but died in the cradle" to "it is not known what happend to him", you appear to believe the source is incorrect. Why do you think that? Since you leave the footnote intact, the article is now more or less misrepresenting the source. Can you provide an alternative source to support your assertion or at least some sort of explanation as to why you think the source is incorrect?
* Lhote, Claude; Claude Troquet (2013). Diane, bâtarde du roi, princesse de la Renaissance, preface by B. Barbiche, professor emeritus of the École des Chartes. Éditions LULU.com. . .
--Robert.Allen (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son from second marriage