Talk:Fulvie de Randan

Children

Who her children were is relevant. One of her sons was a cardinal with his own Wikipedia page. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have alredy said that it is relevant to mention her son who has his own article, so I have no idea why you are claiming the oposite. I have said the following:

"Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. With the exception of royalty, only parents, spouses, and those children who has their own article, are necessary to mention in the article of a person. It is not necessary to discuss on the talk page prior to remove irrelevant information, in this case excessive genealogical information with reference to the fact that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database".

As is evident from the above statement, I have never questioned that her son who has his own article is to be removed from the article. It is you who falsely claim that I have. I advise you to refrain from making false accusations and lying about a fellow editor.

You are edit warring by introducing irrelevant information to the article again and again, despite having been informed in your own talk page why your information is irrelevant.

I have no idea why it is so important to you to spend your time doing this. Accept that wikipedia is not a genealogical database, and lets make better use of our time that spend it on useless arguments. I am not interesting spending my time on needless and time consuming arguments with someone who has show hostility and bad faith by making fals accusations about me. Thank you, and have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were not purposedly making false accusations against me by claiming that I questioned the inclusion of her mother and the Cardinal son (who has his own article). I will assume that the reason you kept reinstating the information was because you mistakenly assumed that I have removed them as well. Well, as you can see, the names of her mother and Cardinal son is there now, even though I have removed the names of her encyclopedically irrelevant children.I also removed the unecessary section titles, since they were not encycploedically named (with one even named "Beauty and Catholic fanatic" or sometthing similar, which is not a neutral title), nor necessary for such a small article, since there were only a few lines in each section.

Now, since you only mention her mother and Cardinal son on this talk page, and I never had any problem including them whatsoever, I will assume you are okay with the article as it is now, since the only things I have removed are 1) the names of those children who does not have their own article and are therefore irrelevant since Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, and 2) uneccessary section titles, none of which you have mentioned here.

However, if you keep reintroducing the same information about the non-encyclopedic children and the section titles in the article again, despite the fact that you have not mentioned them here, then it will be easy for me to assume bad faith from your part. My impression will be that you did indeed note that I never questioned the inclusion of her mother and cardinal-son, and never removed them from the article; but that you still came to this talk page and falsely claimed that I questioned their inclusion, instead of mentioning what it was really about, which is the non-encyclopedic children.

That would mean that you knowlingly, and intentionally, made a lie and a false accustion toward me.

I am inclined to belive this, since I have already clearly stated to you on your own talk page (and even in the edit history, for that matter), that I have never questioned the inclusion of her mother and her cardinal-son here, and yet that is exactly what you choose to falsely accuse me of.

In short: I will not have any sort of discussion or conversation with a person who make false accusations and lies about me. There would be no point in speaking with a person who uses such tactics. It would be a waste of time to speak with such a person, and I do not wish to waste my time on such people or conversations. By making false accusations, seemingy well knowing that you are doing just that, you have painted yourself as someone who it would be useless to try to have a productive conversation with. Thank you, and have a nice day. --Aciram (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have just noted, from the recent edit, that it was indeed a honest mistake; you never noted that I never removed the name of her mother or cardinal son. In that case, all is well.--Aciram (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never before seen it mentioned that children are irrelevant. All of her children seem to have gone on to do important things. I see now that you included the cardinal. I think the rest of her children ought to have been included as well. I absolutely do not think you are acting in bad faith.

I do think the rest of her children ought to be included. I am fine with you including them in text as you have done, that was an elegant solution.

I had written "though you are, I think, showing hostility and an assumption of bad faith yourself", however, after reading your last comment, I agree, all is well :) ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Her mother

Who her mother was is relevant and ought to be included in the article. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have alredy said that it is relevant to mention her mother who has his own article, so I have no idea why you are claiming the oposite. I have said the following:

"Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. With the exception of royalty, only parents, spouses, and those children who has their own article, are necessary to mention in the article of a person. It is not necessary to discuss on the talk page prior to remove irrelevant information, in this case excessive genealogical information with reference to the fact that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database".

As is evident from the above statement, I have never questioned that her son who has his own article is to be removed from the article. It is you who falsely claim that I have. I advise you to refrain from making false accusations and lying about a fellow editor.

You are edit warring by introducing irrelevant information to the article again and again, despite having been informed in your own talk page why your information is irrelevant.

I have no idea why it is so important to you to spend your time doing this. Accept that wikipedia is not a genealogical database, and lets make better use of our time that spend it on useless arguments. I am not interesting spending my time on needless and time consuming arguments with someone who has show hostility and bad faith by making fals accusations about me. Thank you, and have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I see now that you have included her mother in the article. I am glad that we agree on this point :) ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Influence

@Aciram: I hope you don't mind me @ you, but I found something interesting at JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639686?read-now=1&seq=14#page_scan_tab_contents:

Catherine de Medici may have had a hand in the nomination of François de La Rouchefoucauld as bishop of Clermont in 1584. By the terms of her jointure Catherine held title to the county of Clermont. François’s mother was the Italian Fulvia Pica Mirandola, who had served for a long time in Catherine’s household and had recently been made head of the household of Henri III's wife. François himself had been a member of the king’s household for a year. Joseph Bergin observes that ‘La Rochefoucauld’s elevation to the episcopal bench followed the classic pattern of the sixteenth century, with the territorial power and the court connections of the aristocracy playing a far greater part than the personality of the achievements of the candidate.’ (The Patronage Power of Early Modern French Noblewomen by Sharon Kettering, The Historical Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 817-841 (25 pages),https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639686)

Perhaps this should be incorporated somehow? Do you think there is a natural place for it in the article? I think it's a bit interesting. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)