Talk:John the Fearless

quality of the article

Just what part of it is from the EB? it needs to be shown by quotation marks. A lot of historical work has been done since, and the general references are not sufficient. it can not be the basis of the article.The opinion of the EB, and that of later people, about peoples' motives and the causes of events, must be reference each particular part of it to a particular source, including the relevant page numbers. The dispute over the right name, above, is most of it of much less significance than writing a proper article.DGG (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the long face?

The image File:John duke of burgundy.jpg is distorted, elongated. It was taken from a site displaying it that way. This site shows the portrait in its actual proportions. 84.75.191.239 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information added to sourced sentence

User:Cristiano Tomás add this, "..and Willem van der Haegan, by Margarida de Borsele" into a referenced sentence, thus user:Victar added more unsourced information and since he did not check what the Vaughan source actually stated wrote this, "Author Richard Vaughan in his book, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, claims John of Burgundy was the father of Willem van der Haegen, by Margereta van Borsselen."~ref>Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, Vol.2, (Boydell Press, 2005), 236.</ref~, "however this does not fit chronologically has Willem was born at least 11 years after the death of John.".

Vaughan makes NO mention of Willen van der Haegen and only mentions that John had 3 children by Margereta van Borsselen, but does not mention their names.[1]

In the future some simply fact checking instead of outlandish claims would suffice. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Medlands, unauthored, non-peer reviewed, unpublished tripe? Why even waste the time using real sources? Let veterinarians write history! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Along with using Medlands, it appears user:Victar has added a source, incorrectly attributed to the wrong book(it should be Philip the Good by Vaughan), that does not make any mention of the following(ie. source misrepresentation):

• "Antoine of Burgundy" ~Vaughan, Richard (2005). John the Fearless The Growth of Burgundian Power 2. Philip the Good. Boydell Press. p. 134.

After waiting since 2 September for a response from Victar concerning the unreliable Medlands source, I will be removing it. Also, Léon de Laborde, (1849), is terribly outdated and de Laborde does not appear to have been an historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This source, Decq, Auguste (1859). Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique 13. Muquardt., is not written by Auguste Decq, that is the name of the publisher. It was written by Isidore de Stein d'Altenstein, who was not an historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My comments here still stand. I've fixed the de Stein source, but by no means should it be removed. Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique is a well cited book, with over 60 citations on Wikipedia. Les Ducs de Bourgogne by de Laborde is also cited at least a dozen times and since when is a book on medieval genealogy outdated? --Victar (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's is not "your comment" it is a discussion as to whether Medlands was a reliable source. Which ended without consensus.

Apparently you can not read, "..de Laborde does not appear to have been an historian ", "It was written by Isidore de Stein d'Altenstein, who was not an historian ". Same as Medlands. Odd you continue to ignore these facts!

" Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique is a well cited book, with over 60 citations on Wikipedia."

So? Alison Weir, a writer, continues to be used as a historical source. She is not a historian and her "historical theories" have been proven wrong time and time again. So your arguments, "with over 60 citations on Wikipedia", "is also cited at least a dozen times", are invalid. Your ignorance of what makes a reliable source is the problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you come up with these fabricated rules and falsely assert yourself using them. No where does it state that you can't cite published historical works of non-historians. To quote Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history), "Historical scholarship may include: Publications by non-academic historians in popular modes, demonstrated as accepted by the general scholarly community by repeated reviews over time of that non-academic historian's work in scholarly peer-reviewed journals". Both of those books are cited by scholars ad nauseam. Victar (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And you can not read, "...Philip's two oldest bastards, Cornille and Anthony..." are not John's children.

"Historical scholarship is:

• Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals or as demonstrated by past works of a similar nature by the historian. Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. They usually have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography.
• Chapters in books published by academic and scholarly presses by or edited by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals or as demonstrated by past works of a similar nature by the historian or editors
• Research articles by historians in scholarly peer-reviewed journals
• Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise
• Other works that are recognised as scholarship by other historians (by review or discussion), which were reviewed or edited by a scholarly press or committee before publication.

Historical scholarship is generally not:

• Journalism
• Opinion pieces by non-scholars
• Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
• Any primary source; however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules. This includes primary source collections, or the primary source sections or appendixes of otherwise scholarly texts
• Annotated editions of primary sources, with the exception of the explicit annotations
• Online editions of primary sources produced by libraries and archives.

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography
4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
5. Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
6. Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
7. Introductions to major scholarly works on the topic or introductions to edited collections of chapters often represent a survey of the historiography
8. Signed articles in scholarly encyclopaedias

Looks like you missed a lot from the link you supplied. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Kansas Bear#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley by PBS (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley Short answer Have you looked up the conversations at WP:RS/N? Probably best to start with Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. Longer answer I looked through your edit history to see what sparked this question and came across this: John the Fearless history. My point in the discussions is that Cawley is an unreliable source. But his sources can be reliable. So in my opinion he is a case for SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If Cawley is used outside SAYWHEREYOUREADIT ie as an unsupported source then I think you should not immediately remove his unsupported citations but instead turn on the flag warning=1. After a suitable length of time as mentioned in WP:PROVIT not only should the citation be removed but also the text that it supports. Where Cawley is used to support SAYWHEREYOUREADIT then long term the source he cites needs to be accessed (so Cawley can be removed), or another more reliable source that cites the reliable source needs to be used in place of Cawley. Cawley also speculates on relationships (POV), and also makes assertions (facts) without the support of reliable sources, which if he were a Wikipedia editor would be a SYN. The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source. -- PBS (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Just checking in because User:Victar asked me to look at this discussion, I think because I was involved in past discussions on this subject. I can not see what the particular example was so I can only speak in generalities. I think it is correct that we need to be careful about this source for the reasons given by PBS (no editorial process, it is a one man project, and quite openly an on-going one, not a finished work), but I also think it is very useful for finding other sources that are more compatible with our RS policy. (Try to find secondary ones of course, especially for complex subjects. But often primary sources can be used on simple matters, depending on the case.) As a side issue I do wonder about whether we should jointly cite helpful sources which lead us to reliable sources, under the general philosophy of "say where you read it" (as well as avoiding plagiarism) but I know many Wikipedians do not believe this is the Wikipedia way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC) OK, have looked at the John the Fearless discussion and am not sure what the fuss is about really. Which points are being called unsourceable? (Or is it resolved?) A quick google for JEAN de BOURGOGNE, Bishop of CAMBRAI seems to give a lot of hits and some mention his parentage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC) https://books.google.be/books?id=5R_2clxgcr4C&pg=PA277 https://books.google.be/books?id=F4Wvl-xRpAoC&pg=PA118 To keep this conversation in one place, this was the message posted by Victar to User talk:Andrew Lancaster: Sorry to trouble you, but could you comment on User_talk:Kansas_Bear's talk page about citing MedLands? From what I read on Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, it seems acceptable, particularly if you use it as a secondary source. Thanks for your time. --Victar (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) @Victar the question is not "is Cawley a secondary source" clearly Cawley is a source and he is not a primary one. The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not! But the sources he cites which are often primary sources which are reliable providing they are used in a way described in WP:PSTS, in which case SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies. The content of Cawley to date like Lundy's The Peerage and {{Rayment}} have proved to be by and large accurate when cross checked against more reliable sources where available. So citing them citing their sources is an adequate temporary measure until better sources can be found. However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks to you both for taking the time to comment. The MedLands source is the most comprehensive and complete source, and in English to boot, so I think it's a good source to keep, and with the primary sources listed, I don't think the content deserves being deleted either, as User:Kansas Bear insists. Victar (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Clearly Victar refuses to get the point. "The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not!", "However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Wikipedia article." I brought up the point that John the Fearless' children did not have a citation on 2 September, "AND, the Medlands article in particular does NOT give a citation for the section of John the Fearless' children legitimate or otherwise." --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC) No, Kansas Bear, what you did is immediately deleted the Cawley source without having a conversation first, which is contrary to what PBS cites a proper protocol, which is adding a warning. I reverted and worked to find the primary sources and added those, and your reverted my content again. If anything, you should be suspended for edit warring. And that's where we are. If PBS and Andrew Lancaster agree that the Cawley source should be removed, now that we have primary sources, I can agree with that judgement. All I was saying is that it's a clear and comprehensive source that might be valuable to have, if indeed the line is blurry, as Andrew Lancaster alluded too. The bottom line is, the content is sourced, by both primary sources and Cawley, and should not be deleted, as you continue to insist without grounds and maliciously. Victar (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Again, you have a problem reading, I posted my concerns on the talk page and waited 11 days. All you have is your interpretation of a discussion, and your continued refusal to get the point. FYI, there are no sources on Medlands concerning John the Fearless' children, more original research. "The bottom line is, the content is sourced, by both primary sources and Cawley, and should not be deleted, as you continue to insist without grounds and maliciously.". I see no sources in Medlands over the three illegitimate children.... Taken directly from Medlands: Duke Jean had three illegitimate children by Mistress (2): 10. GUY bâtard de Bourgogne (-killed in battle Calais 1436). Heer van Kruybeke. m JOHANNA, illegitimate, daughter of ALBERT Comte de Hainaut, Count of Holland & his mistress ---. Guy & his wife had one child: a) PHILIPPE de Bourgogne . Heer van Kruybeke. m ANNA van Baenst, daughter of ---. 11. ANTOINE bâtard de Bourgogne . 12. PHILIPOTTE bâtarde de Bourgogne . Dame de Joncy. m (30 Jul 1429) ANTOINE de Rochebaron Baron de Berze-le-Chatel, son of ---. I see no citations for these children. Which the the exact concern PBS mentioned, did you miss that? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC) That is completely false, as clearly illustrated in the revisions. You only engaged in conversation after you unjustly reverted my content. You again seem fail to understand the situation. Never did I claim the Cawley listed primary sources. I went back and listed the sources Vaughan 2005 provided, as well as sources from Google Books, and even after that you reverted the content, engaging in edit wars. I'm going to let PBS and Andrew Lancaster comment before wasting my time more on this argument. Victar (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Not at all. I removed an unreliable source,[2] then went to the talk page.[3] You, however, after not making any edits on Wikipedia or it's talk pages(since 2 Sept),[4] reverted my edit,[5] then went to the talk page(12 days late!),[6] parroting a conversation stating this was your "comment". "what you did is immediately deleted the Cawley source without having a conversation first" You mean the one you ignored for 12 days? LMAO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "I removed an unreliable source, then went to the talk page." Exactly so! Even though PBS clearly says above the proper action would have been to tag the source with a warning and look for a proper sources, which is EXACTLY what I did, yet you continued to revert the content. Victar (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear,Andrew Lancaster and Victar as the discussion has moved onto a specific case I have copied to conversation here as I think this talk page is a more appropriate place for it than user space to talk about the sourcing of a specific article. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear and Victar lets have no more accusations and counter accusations of bad faith, it will not help resolve this issue. I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:

• {{Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley|title=Burgundy Duchy, Dukes|url=http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDY.htm#JeanDucdied1419B|date=September 2015|warning=1}}

carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct").

I have today looked up and ported to wikisource the original EB1911 article it can be found at s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/John, Duke of Burgundy. I have done this because if one looks back over the history of this article it started out as a copy of the EB1911 article. I then ran the "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" over the two pages and I have placed citation on the text that is obviously copied from EB1911. More of the text can almost certainly be supported by EB1911, but I leave that to those who are more interested in this article than I am.

I have also used the source to add EB1911 citations to all but one of the legitimate children. So that removes them by and large from this discussion. We now come to the mistresses and illegitimate children. As benefits a tertiary source EB1911 is a summary and the author, René Poupardin, chose not to include anything about these mistresses and children, presumably because either the secondary sources EB1911 used did not mention them or the details were not considered notable enough to be mentioned.

Are any of these considered to be notable in a standard reliable secondary source (like a biography of this man)? -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS, for coping the talk content over.

"Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements". I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless.

I don't think anyone contends that John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai was his son, as it's well documented. The issue is Margereta van Borsselen and her reputed children with John the Fearless. Vaughan 2005, which is peer reviewed, mentions both Guy of Burgundy and Philipotte of Burgundy[7]. All of John's bastard children, including Antoine are mentioned in de Stein d'Altenstein, Isidore (1859)[8], which I gather to be also Cawley's main source. Isidore de Stein d'Altenstein is known for not always being correct, as the case with many 19th century genealogists, but I think he should be marked as such and not deleted, while we continue to look for better sources. Victar (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Before you expanded the article with this edit on 1 September 2015 the artilce had said for several years:

John also had several illegitimate children, including John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, by his mistress Agnes de Croy, daughter of Jean I de Croÿ, and Willem van der Haegen, by Margarida de Borsele.}

References

What is the reason for including the additional names? ie how are they notable? -- PBS (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue about Willem van der Haegen. It's that mis-citation that drew me to the page. I didn't have the book at the time, so I couldn't contend it outright.

All the illegitimate children are noteworthy, having married high, with the exception of Antoine, who was allegedly a knight in the order of Saint-Jean de Jérusalem. Victar (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor trying to make a point with citation overkill?

Is there a reason for the multitude of sources for John's illegitamite children? Four citations for this:

• "John and his mistress Agnes de Croy, daughter of Jean I de Croÿ, had the following child:"[3][4][5]
• "John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai"[6]
  

When clearly the Vaughan source is sufficient.
Seven citations for this sentence:

• "John and his mistress Marguerite de Borsele had the following children:"[7][3][4][8][9][10][5]
  

When clearly Sommé, Monique (1998). Isabelle de Portugal, duchesse de Bourgogne une femme au pouvoir au XVe siècle. Presses universitaires du Septentrion. p. 69, is sufficient.
Six citations for this sentence:

• "Guy of Burgundy, Lord of Kruybeke (killed in battle Calais 1436), married Johanna, illegitimate daughter of Albert I, Duke of Bavaria"[3][11][12][8][13][10]

When the Vaughan and Kasten, Brigitte (2008). Herrscher- und Fürstentestamente im westeuropäischen Mittelalter. Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar. p. 478, are sufficient.
Five citations for this sentence:
"Philipotte of Burgundy, Lady of Joncy, married Antoine of Rochebaron, Baron of Berze-le-Chatel"[3][11][8][9][13]
When the Somme and Vaughan sources are sufficient.
This appears to be citation overkill, which is unnecessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Given this talk page, I disagree don't entirely agree with your claim of over-citation. I could probably remove some double citations though. --Victar (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've used most of your suggestions, but kept a couple of citations that I think are worth keeping, such as de Stein d'Altenstein (1859), which is the source of many modern citations. Victar (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if you agree or not. Medlands which has been labeled as unreliable is not needed and neither is Stein. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't have the authority to make that decision on your own. Victar (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Authority? You mean ignore a talk page discussion for over a week, revert to your preferred version, then post your opinion? Medlands was labeled as unreliable, there are other reliable sources present, therefore Medlands is not needed. Stein is not needed either since other more modern sources are present. Just because you don't like it is not a reason for citation overkill. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you actually read through the various discussions, there is no ruling decision that says Medlands should not be used as a source, particularly as a secondary source. See Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135#The_Foundation_for_Medieval_Genealogy. Therefore, a decision to remove Medlands as a source should be made as a consensus and not on one person's lone authority.

In regards to de Stein, again, since when should an important source on a historical person be excluded on the basis of being old? Victar (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's your opinion that de Stein is "an important source". And since there are more modern sources available, it is not needed. Odd you don't seem to be reading any of this.

"The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source.~~PBS (talk) 06:55, 15September 2015"

You don't seem to be reading this either.

Guess you missed that point, again. Oh, and canvassing[9] support by distorting the real reason for this discussion will not go well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Taken from Revision as of 06:02, 18 September 2015;[10]

"Cawley, Charles, Burgundy Duchy, Dukes, Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, retrieved September 2015,[better source needed]"

See that part that says "better source needed".

There are better sources present, thus Medlands is not needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is one end of the argument, which PBS makes in his opening statement on the page linked above, but the various rebuttals to it on the page are also valid. Again, my argument is that there is no one definiative decision on the inclusion of Medlands sources, and thus should not be removed outright. I don't see why you continue to deny this. Victar (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me you are confused, editwarring and canvassing for ownership of this article:

• "I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:~~carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct")."~~PBS[11]
• "I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless." ~~Victar[12]
  

So what were you saying?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Victar asked me to look in so I have done so. I'll make a couple of points briefly:

• Citation overkill is a real problem. Speaking personally, as someone who researches and writes about history, I use Wikipedia a lot, but if I see five footnotes following a statement on Wikipedia, I assume that the statement is dubious and the article is probably not much use to me.
• On the other hand, if a source has been largely used in building up an article, to eliminate all mention of that source would be plagiarism: it is one of our tasks to credit our sources.
• The answer with Medlands is to cite it in a footnote if it has given us some detail that no one else has given us, and to mention it among external links if it helped us significantly to develop the article. All sources in this world of ours are imperfect, but "better source needed" does not mean "unreliable source". Andrew Dalby 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew, for the reply. Much appreciated. After looking it over, I can agree with Kansas Bear in regards to citation overkill, and took nearly all of his editing advice, with the exception of the Medlands and de Stein sources. The Medlands source I think should be kept because it's the only source that compiles the data together as shown in the Wikipedia article, and thus the most complete and comprehensive. If there is a better way to cite it, perhaps in the references instead, I'm perfectly fine with that. The de Stein d'Altenstein (1859) source I think should be kept because it is a principle secondary source for John the Fearless's bastard children, on which much of the modern sources are based. Victar (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"The de Stein d'Altenstein (1859) source I think should be kept because it is a principle secondary source for John the Fearless's bastard children, on which much of the modern sources are based."

Only according to you, yet you have not shown any evidence to prove this.

"The Medlands source I think should be kept because it's the only source that compiles the data together as shown in the Wikipedia article, and thus the most complete and comprehensive."

Yet you have admitted that Medlands is an unreliable source("I've never not excepted that.") and "because it's the only source that compiles the data together as shown in the Wikipedia article, and thus the most complete and comprehensive", for a listing of three names? LMAO. Nothing comprehensive about that, considering Medlands gives no sources as to where they found the information! The sources present already do a better job of compiling the data together and are reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Victar asked me to comment again. He asked me, I think, because I was (ages ago) in a long discussion about the use and citing of Medlands. I thought then, as can still be seen in the discussions, that PBS was too eager to eliminate citations of Medlands, sometimes putting us at risk of plagiarism. I believe that the general awareness of that risk has increased in the years between. Anyway, I don't think there's any real risk here.

In the latest diff, the few details for which Medlands was cited are also cited to what we call reliable sources, so I think it is logical now to remove that citation to Medlands.

Victar's point about de Stein d'Altenstein (1859) is interesting. If true, it would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to say, in a footnote, all of the more recent sources cite de Stein d'Altenstein. This is because de Stein d'Altenstein could after all be wrong in some detail or other, and we should help readers to pursue that if they want to. Andrew Dalby 09:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the bastard children of John the Fearless and Marguerite de Borsele was based on the Cawley's work at Medlands, so you could argue that not referencing him, as it is compiled here, is plagiarism, but on the other hand, Cawley's work is surely taken straight from de Stein d'Altenstein (1859). So at the very least, I think we should cite de Stein, the earliest source I could find, though there are earlier sources of his mistresses, such as de Laborde, Léon (1849). I'll also shoot Cawley an email to see if he recalls his source. Victar (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"The inclusion of the bastard children of John the Fearless and Marguerite de Borsele was based on the Cawley's work at Medlands"

So the other sources, you added, do not have this information?

"I'll also shoot Cawley an email to see if he recalls his source"

So now we have to take your word, and Cawley's, after you've made false statements?

Pity, neither one of you knows what canvassing means. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sending an email to Cawley would be no use to us here -- we can't cite emails -- unless his reply suggests to us a different, potentially reliable, published source previously unknown to us. If so, we might then find it and cite it. But it seems highly unlikely. Andrew Dalby 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet you have read nothing of my argument regardless of Medlands' standing as a source.[13] This concerns citation overkill, which conveniently both of you have ignored. I started a discussion, which was summarily ignored until I removed the old and less reliable sources. Only then did Victar choose to involve himself in the discussion, which he brought nothing to support his revertion, except his own personal opinion. Despite the fact he told PBS that he understood Medlands is an unreliable source!

• "Yes, that is one end of the argument, which PBS makes in his opening statement on the page linked above, but the various rebuttals to it on the page are also valid. Again, my argument is that there is no one definiative decision on the inclusion of Medlands sources, and thus should not be removed outright. I don't see why you continue to deny this." ~~Victar
• "I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:~~carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct")."~~PBS[14]
• "I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless." ~~Victar[15]
  

So, yet again, this has to do with citation overkill. Victar himself added sources which appear to be more reliable than Medlands. Victar's argument is based on nothing but his own personal wants, nor has he brought any evidence to support his claims concerning Stein. Regardless of any response by Cawley, there are currently sufficient sources to support John's illegitimate children(hence the reason for this "discussion").

As for Wikipedia:Canvassing

• "He asked me, I think, because I was (ages ago) in a long discussion about the use and citing of Medlands. I thought then, as can still be seen in the discussions, that PBS was too eager to eliminate citations of Medlands.." ~~Andrew Dalby
• "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this reaction to my comments, which have been made in good faith. I mentioned my earlier opinion (about the risk of plagiarism) "for full disclosure" as they say, but I went on to say that I don't think there is any such risk here. If anyone were stacking !votes, they'd notice that my opinion against citing Medlands here has already been stated.

In case what I said about citing de Stein d'Altenstein wasn't clear enough, I'll clarify. If it is demonstrably true that all later reliable sources depend on de Stein d'Altenstein, we could say so, This doesn't include Medlands, because Medlands is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source. If it isn't demonstrably true, we can't say it, and to send emails to try to verify it either way would be original research and completely useless. Andrew Dalby 09:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, so what I'm still trying to do is figure out if the modern sources are demonstrably based on the work of de Stein d'Altenstein. Cawley may also have better sources, which I can ask him to cite on Medlands, for what that's worth. Victar (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Victar is not listening to what either Andrew Dalby or I am saying.

• "they'd notice that my opinion against citing Medlands here has already been stated.[...]. Sending an email to Cawley would be no use to us here -- we can't cite emails -- unless his reply suggests to us a different, potentially reliable, published source previously unknown to us. If so, we might then find it and cite it. But it seems highly unlikely. This doesn't include Medlands, because Medlands is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source..[...].and to send emails to try to verify it either way would be original research and completely useless." ~~ Andrew Dalby
• "Cawley may also have better sources, which I can ask him to cite on Medlands, for what that's worth." ~~ Victar

Unless someone has a viable reason to add an outdated source(Stein) or an unreliable source(Medlands), there is no reason to continue this charade, which started on 3 October. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John the Fearless. 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/20050204092947/http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/O0007804.html to http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/O0007804.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)