Talk:Louis X of France

message: I've gone through, expanded a bit and added in-line citations. It will probably need a mild scrub for style etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable suggestion to me! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric- great suggestion. --LeValley 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quarreler > Quarrelsome?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lack of primary sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death of Margaret of Burgundy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Double funeral 

message: Was wp:consensus reached in the first sentence discussion above and  which first sentence version would be better to include in the article? Thinker78 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do us a favor and don’t call an RfC to adjudicate consensus. I suggest striking first of your two questions. On whether a consensus was reached, I have to say the above discussion is against you, Thinker78. — HTGS (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: *Agree with HTGS' suggestion for how to present the translation of Hutin; in any case "the quarreler" should be dropped. Eric talk 02:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the first sentence in Louis X 

message: The information concerning this ordinance is referenced by:
*Lacouture, Jean (1984). Pierre Mendès France. Holmes & Meier. p. 30. ISBN 0841908567.
Jean Lacouture is a journalist not an historian and has no specialization in this area.
*Ordonnances des Roi de France, V, p.1311, as quoted in Travers Twist. "The Extraterritoriality of Public Ships of War in Foreign Waters", The Law Magazine and Review: A Quarterly Review of Jurisprudence, Volume 1, No. 219, Saunders and Benning (February 1876)
Unauthored and outdated
*The French Atlantic Triangle: Literature and Culture of the Slave Trade", Christopher L. Miller, page 20
Has been misrepresented and cherry-picked.
*"If any moral scruples impaired the French entry into the trade—for example, those that made for a ban on the sale of slaves in Bordeaux in the 1570s—by the time labor was called for by Caribbean planters in the second quarter of the seventeenth century, everything moral and material was in place. There could not have been great obstacles, since forms of slavery (serfdom and galley slavery, for example), still existed in France itself. The Church not only did not object but, in the person of Bossuet, encouraged slavery." --"The French Atlantic Triangle: Literature and Culture of the Slave Trade", Christopher L. Miller, Duke University Press, page 20.
Whereas;
*"Thus, no matter how suggestive the linguistic similarity between France and affranchissement, the fact remains that the practice of freeing slaves upon arrival in France had no basis in Louis X's 1315 ordinance." --"There Are No Slaves in France, The Political Culture of Race and Slavery in the Ancien Regime" -- Sue Peabody, Oxford University Press, 1996.
*"Serfdom continued to be an existing though declining institution right until the end of Ancien Regime France, and the famous 1315 act of Louis X enfranchised hardly any serfs, and no slaves at all." --"Liberty, Slavery and the Law in Early Modern Western Europe: Omnes Homines Aut Liberi Sunt Aut Servi", Filip Batselé, Springer International Publishing, page 77.
*"One origin of the French freedom principle can easily be discarded; Louis X was talking about serfs, not slaves, in his 1315 ordonnance, and he was not even planning to free all of them." -- "Liberty, Slavery and the Law in Early Modern Western Europe: Omnes Homines Aut Liberi Sunt Aut Servi", Filip Batselé, Springer International Publishing, page 87.
*"In 1315 King Louis X of France issued a decree enfranchising serfs on certain Crown lands." --"Liberty Intact: Human Rights in English Law", Michael Tugendhat, Oxford University Press, page 41.
Sue Peabody is Professor of history at Washington State University Vancouver.
Filip Batselé works at Ghent University’s Institute for Legal History.
Michael Tugendhat was a scholar at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge where he graduated in Classics and Philosophy. In 1967-8 he held a Henry Fellowship at Yale University.
Christopher L. Miller, professor in the Department of French and the Program in African and African-American Studies at Yale University.
I believe this is enough evidence to bring cause to rewrite the portion concerning the 1315 ordinance. As such it should clearly not be mentioned in the lead of the article. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: KB, thank you for looking into this issue. Based on the sources you provide, I'm inclined to agree with you. Eric talk 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: @Kansas Bear It seems to be you did a thorough job into looking these sources. I beg to ask a few questions. What was your methodology? Did you search for information regarding Louis ordinance of "freeing the slaves" in general or were you more specific and looking for evidence that Louis did not free slaves? Did you find material that was acceptable to your standards for references that indicated that Louis did free the slaves? What was your conclusion? Thinker78 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Investigating myself, I have to concede that the claim that Louis X abolished slavery is controversial and some experts believe it was actually about abolishing serfdom and then only for certain serfs. Thinker78 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1315 Ordinance