Talk:House of La Rochefoucauld
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Maison de La Rochefoucauld from fr.wikipedia. |
trying to model Duke_of_Noailles, is that notable? pohick (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There are a few odd-looking characters and some strange English syntax in there: Work d' André Debord make it leave house of Montbron to the 12th Century. Armorial bearings of Montbron make également think à those of Lusignan
Hopefully fixing this is in progress. Tonywalton Talk 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the revert made without any discussion by FactStraight, who doesn't see to have his facts straight: he claims I have made "unsourced assertions" : which one? He claims I have made translations "as if it were a Realm instead of a surname". La Rochefoucauld is not a "realm", it was a place, a Duchy and a peerage, and not just a "surname". The people whose name was "de la Rochefoucauld" were also "Duke of La Rochefoucauld". I see nothing particularly extraordinary in correcting that. If FactStraight does not explain how "Duke of La Rochefoucauld" is different from, say "Duke of Norfolk", or "Duke of Berry", or "Duke of Uzès", I will restore my edits.
- The revert was made with a specific explanation, and with as much "discussion" as you engaged in. Your "unsourced assertion" is about a place you call "la Roche" in the article which you say, without supplying a reliable source, is the origin of the dukedom of "La Rochefoucauld". There is a difference between a duchy, such as Lorraine, and a dukedom, such as "Norfolk" or such as "La Rochefoucauld" held by the family of that surname. Nor is there any consensus that titles themselves or particles in surnames or territorial designations in titles that are not realms are to be translated into English. In the title "Duke of Norfolk", no such translation is relevant. FactStraight (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I did not need to engage in any discussion to simply turn into better English an article who had been obviously translated from French, in some places word for word. You needed to engage in a discussion before reverting my edits, which were made in good faith. Secondly, La Rochefoucauld is indeed a place, not a person or a surname as you imagine, and it is indeed the origin of the dukedom of La Rochefoucauld. The place still exist, the castle of the Duke is still there, and still the property of the Duke by the way: see La Rochefoucauld. Actually, it was what the article already said! You didn't even bother to read it before reverting. Thirdly, La Rochefoucauld is not different from Norfolk, which is a place as well. It is not different either from Orleans. Actually, "Duke of La Rochefoucauld" makes more sense than "Duke of Orleans", because La Rochefoucauld was part of the Duchy of La Rochefoucauld, when Orleans was not part of the (last) Duchy of Orleans. What you does not seem to know is that duchies in France were not just titles, but also territories hold by a family. Indeed, "Duke of Norfolk" does not need a translation, but you did not claim "Duke of La Rochefoucauld" needed a translation, you claimed it was a surname and not a place, so I asked which difference you made with Norfolk. Are you claiming "Duke of Norfolk" is a surname and not a place name? If not, what is the difference with La Rochefoucauld? "Duke of La Rochefoucauld" is the title of a family whose name happens to be "de La Rochefoucauld", but sometimes the name is different from the title (for example, the family name of the Duke of Uzès is "de Crussol"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.140.20 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot another point: you wrote "There is a difference between a duchy, such as Lorraine, and a dukedom, such as 'Norfolk' or such as 'La Rochefoucauld' held by the family of that surname." However, the dukedom of Norfolk is not held "by a family of that surname": the surname of the family is "Fitzalan-Howard", not at all "Norfolk". Similarly, you make a strict difference between Duchy and Dukedom and gives Norfolk as an example of a Dukedom. However, in several articles on Wikipedia it is called the "Duchy of Norfolk" (see e.g. Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset). Moreover, the article "Dukedom" gives as definition: "Dukedom may refer to: Duchy, the territory ruled by a duke; the office of a duke". So the distinction is far from being as clear-cute as you claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.140.20 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The contention that you are free to make edits you deem appropriate without prior discussion whereas I am required to do so misunderstands or misrepresents Wikipedia editing practice. I never said that LaRochefoucauld was not originally a place -- I said that you have not provided a citation for the version of the dukedom's history you added. I am well aware of the fact that French dukedoms consisted of a number of manors and hamlets in all of which the duke had an entitlement to revenues or services (hint: those which constituted the peerage of LaRochefoucauld were the countship of LaRochefoucauld, the baronies of Vertueil, Montignac, Charrante, la Tourriere, Cellefoin, the chatelainies of Aunax, le Vivier, Saint Claud and the seigneuries of la Mothe, Saint Agneeau) but these never constituted a duchy like Lorraine or Savoy or Brittany, over the subjects of which these dukes wielded sovereign rights that neither the Dukes of Norfolk nor those of LaRochefoucauld ever had -- in fact, the latter had no more rights in their dukedoms than untitled seigneurs had in their lordships. The distinction is fundamental, and should be preserved encyclopedically where possible, rather than translation being allowed to artificially inflate noble titles to resemble sovereign realms. No one's talking about (redundantly) translating British dukedoms into English here, the relevant issue is French titles whose particle needs no translation for clarity and where usage does not dictate it. FactStraight (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am wondering if you are not confusing edits and reverts: you should certainly go into discussion before reverting edits, since it is a purely negative attitude. By way of contrast, edits, which are positive adjunction, do not necessarily need prior discussions, at least when there is no obvious reason to discuss them. Since you agree that La Rochefoucauld is a place and the Duke of La Rochefoucauld (not LaRochefoucauld, by the way) was the Duke of that place, why do you object him to be called Duke of La Rochefoucauld? You seem to consider that only sovereign Dukes must be called "Duke of", but you don't explain why and from where comes that rule. Brittany for example was not a sovereign Duke, its case is not as different from La Rochefoucauld as you claim: both were French peerages. Same thing for Orleans, Berry, etc. etc.
- Concerning the fact that the place was originally called "La Roche" and took the name "La Rochefoucauld" from Foucauld, ancestor of the family, that is already explained in the article on the town of La Rochefoucauld, to which I referred you and to which I linked the page. That is, I think, what you called my "unsourced assertion" about "a place [I] call 'la Roche' in the article which I say, without supplying a reliable source is the origin of the dukedom of 'La Rochefoucauld'." Actually, I did not even really add that information in the text, I rather corrected the translation from the original article in French, which was messy.
- Concerning British dukedoms, you claimed that Norfolk was a dukedom and not a duchy, but I objected it was called both and so there was not a so fundamental difference between duchy and dukedom, as you also claimed. Moreover, you said there was a difference between a duchy "and a dukedom, such as 'Norfolk' or such as 'La Rochefoucauld' held by the family of that surname". As I objected, however, Norfolk is not "held by a family of that surname".
- Please, explain why, according to you, some French dukedom like Brittany or Orléans should have the "de" and the title translated and other shouldn't. Then please be kind enough to direct me to the regulation which impose that rule on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.140.20 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- The contention that you are free to make edits you deem appropriate without prior discussion whereas I am required to do so misunderstands or misrepresents Wikipedia editing practice. I never said that LaRochefoucauld was not originally a place -- I said that you have not provided a citation for the version of the dukedom's history you added. I am well aware of the fact that French dukedoms consisted of a number of manors and hamlets in all of which the duke had an entitlement to revenues or services (hint: those which constituted the peerage of LaRochefoucauld were the countship of LaRochefoucauld, the baronies of Vertueil, Montignac, Charrante, la Tourriere, Cellefoin, the chatelainies of Aunax, le Vivier, Saint Claud and the seigneuries of la Mothe, Saint Agneeau) but these never constituted a duchy like Lorraine or Savoy or Brittany, over the subjects of which these dukes wielded sovereign rights that neither the Dukes of Norfolk nor those of LaRochefoucauld ever had -- in fact, the latter had no more rights in their dukedoms than untitled seigneurs had in their lordships. The distinction is fundamental, and should be preserved encyclopedically where possible, rather than translation being allowed to artificially inflate noble titles to resemble sovereign realms. No one's talking about (redundantly) translating British dukedoms into English here, the relevant issue is French titles whose particle needs no translation for clarity and where usage does not dictate it. FactStraight (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duc de La Rochefoucauld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725010028/http://www.chateau-la-rochefoucauld.com/ to http://www.chateau-la-rochefoucauld.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)